Global Warming Solutions
alGore's new theme song (with apologies to John Farrar -- new lyrics by Big Dog):
Oh the carbon, you're supplyin'
Its so mystifyin' You better shape up
cause I need a plan (need a plan)
to make Kyoto
stick to you I better shape up
cause you need a plan (need a plan)
to rape taxpayers
through and through Gore, the one that I want
your are the one that I ooh ooh ooh
Gore, the one that want
you are the one that I ooh ooh ooh
Gore's the one for me
oh yes indeed
Look, algore's a lunatic. I'm with the hundreds of scientists that know that algore is off his rocker. There's absolutely piles of evidence to show that it's just completely false that CO2 is causing global warming. But hey, algore, chief priest of the religion of environmentalism wants to reduce CO2 emissions. Okay, I've got two solutions that will, absolutely, reduce CO2. I expect to see the church of environmentalism adopt these goals immediately if they seriously want to reduce CO2. The church says that the worse offender, the #1 contributor to CO2 emissions is the evil automobile. They want to ban the internal combustion engine. Well, that's not actually practical, so let's find some practical, working, serious solutions. First, when does the evil automobile cause the most CO2 emissions? Right, at idle and acceleration. So if we can reduce the time an automobile is at idle or acceleration, we WILL reduce emissions. Solution #1: More roads. One of the biggest causes of CO2 emissions from cars is when they are idle in traffic and when they have to accelerate from a slow down in heavy traffic. We need to build more roads -- lots and lots of roads. Interstate highways that have traffic need their lanes doubled, at least. If it's 2 lanes in each direction, make it 4 or 5. If it's 3, make it 6. Sure, it's expensive, but it will cost less than stopping breathing, as algore has proposed. I'm serious. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, BUILD MORE ROADS. It will work with absolute certainty. Solution #2: Stop stopping. The time that a car uses the absolute most fossil fuel and creates the most emissions is when it starts from a stop. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to get something moving from a stop. So if we can reduce the number of times a car has to stop, we can save the environment. Get rid of all stop signs and traffic lights. Again, I'm completely serious. Most stop signs are speed-control devices, anyway. There's already laws in place to deal with accidents and to determine fault at intersections, so why stop signs? Their primary purpose is to generate revenue for the state and to generate more CO2. If all stops signs were removed, there would be less CO2 in the air -- and it wouldn't cost a dime. Instead of paying government officials to remove them, just announce that anyone who wants one can have one. I bet they all disappear within 48 hours. Traffic lights have the same problem. They cause people to stop and pollute. Get rid of them. This solution would be a bit more costly, but again, would reduce emissions. When traffic control is really needed, replace the traffic light with a roundabout. Then, most traffic will not have to stop and burn more fuel, creating more CO2. Again, I'm serious. It will keep traffic flowing and it will result in less pollution in the air. All serious members of the church of environmentalism should immediately sign on to these goals. They are 100% guaranteed to reduce CO2. There is no logical reason for any environmentalist to oppose these two clear solutions to global warming.
Comments
1
I don't think it's going to matter. The global warming is in great part due to the fact that the earth is getting ready to tilt it's axis or may already be in the process of doing it(can't remember from all the reading I've been doing). This is a cycle it goes through every 100,000 years or so. Nothing can stop it so how the heck can anybody stop global warming? That is, assuming these scientists are correct in their cyclic interpretations. I tend to believe this theory more than Al Gore's theory, all things considered. It's kinda hard to believe a nut who can't even get elected in his home state.
Posted by: Steph at March 22, 2007 05:40 PM (AC9Dc)
2
BUT BUT BUT we want to control you MORE not LESS!!
your solutions put control of peoples' lives back with people, not with the gubbmint. They're unacceptable.
(*)>
your solutions put control of peoples' lives back with people, not with the gubbmint. They're unacceptable.
(*)>
Posted by: birdwoman at March 22, 2007 05:43 PM (vR7Sl)
3
Oh, there's no question that it will have absolutely zero effect -- that's not it's purpose, Steph! You see, the Church of Environmentalism says that it WILL make an effect. So they have no choice but to support these efforts. If they don't, then they are obviously NOT in favor of reducing emissions.
Now Birdwoman -- all good environmentalists have been screaming for years that they're concerned with Carbon output. If that's true, they can't be worried about freedom or control. They've often said that they're willing to give up freedom to save the planet. If they honestly want to save the planet and they believe what they're selling, they WILL support this.
No, I'm not holding my breath.
Now Birdwoman -- all good environmentalists have been screaming for years that they're concerned with Carbon output. If that's true, they can't be worried about freedom or control. They've often said that they're willing to give up freedom to save the planet. If they honestly want to save the planet and they believe what they're selling, they WILL support this.
No, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Ogre at March 22, 2007 06:00 PM (oifEm)
4
Well, the Church of Environmentalism can do and say whatever they want but if they really want to reduce emissions, they could do like me. I use one tank of gas per month, sometimes less. If I need to go somewhere not far away, I'll walk.
Posted by: Steph at March 22, 2007 07:08 PM (AC9Dc)
5
I have gas right now.
Posted by: Ogre at March 22, 2007 07:11 PM (oifEm)
Posted by: birdwoman at March 22, 2007 07:15 PM (vR7Sl)
7
Now where's the fun in that?
Posted by: Ogre at March 22, 2007 07:21 PM (oifEm)
8
What we need to do is kill all the plants. A scientific study, something that the Goracle has never been involved in, showed that plants release large amounts of methane, which is a much more pervasive greenhouse gas then CO2. So, if we get rid of all the plants, we can reverse all global warming!
Posted by: William Teach at March 22, 2007 11:36 PM (doAuV)
9
There's more evidence to support that. I'm sure you know that in recent history the time of the lowest levels of carbon in the air was when the Amazon was being deforested...
Posted by: Ogre at March 23, 2007 12:06 AM (1gBFf)
10
Ooh! Ooh! I have one. Remember World Jump Day? Well, we could have a World Hold-Your-Breath Day.
Posted by: Dana at March 23, 2007 05:49 AM (5+pWO)
11
alGore would have you get a government permit to start breathing again...
Posted by: Ogre at March 23, 2007 09:04 AM (1gBFf)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0118 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0093 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.