Global Warming Hits Mars

Global warming could be heating Mars 4 times faster than Earth due to a mutually reinforcing interplay of wind-swept dust and changes in reflected heat from the Sun. 

Scientists have long observed (with exception to 2500) a correlation on Mars between its fluctuating temperatures depending upon the season and location - and the darkening or lightening of swathes of the planet's surface .

The explanation is in the dirt. Glistening Martian dust  (not SUV) lying on the surface reflects sunlight and it's heat. (Recall there are NO greehouse gases present to hold the heat temporarily before releasing it into space)  This  phenonmenon is known as albedo.

 How many carbon credits and restrictions of civil liberties will it take to  STOP this runaway global warming on Mars?  

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.
Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm

Despite a groundswell of support for measures to fight climate change, Europeans are reluctant to pay extra for clean cars. In some cases they resist features such as stop-start mechanisms, which some drivers fear will hamper their ability to merge at roundabouts.

Statements like the one above beg the questions - What are greenhouse gases and does the Earth behave like an actual Greenhouse?

Atmospheric greenhouse gases are comprised of water vapor, CO2, N20, Sulfur Dioxide, methane and miscellaneous gases such as CFC. Most proponents of a human based global warming catastrophe and staff of The Weather Channel point to CO2 pollution from industrialized nations as the primary cause of 'global warming'.

Human based contribution to greenhouse gases amounts to 0.28% when factoring in water vapor – the most significant greenhouse gas, which happens to be of natural origin. The graph below compares natural and human based contributions to the greenhouse effect. Human activities such as agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and power generation contribute only slightly towards the total greenhouse gas effect.

Despite the lack of any meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature, The Kyoto Protocol demands mandatory 30% reductions of CO2 emissions from signatory nations. Vast sums of money are being poured into the ‘problem’ of global warming by the nations, primarily European, who signed up to the Kyoto Protocol – pledging to achieve drastic reductions in CO2 emissions within a defined time frame. Then one day, the Earth belches: A 2005 Cranfield University study revealed “vast quantities of carbon released from British soils since 1978…. effectively canceling out the UK’s recent successes at reducing [CO2] levels.” CO2 is far from being the determining factor in global temperature as this chart so neatly illustrates and the proponents of the Kyoto Protocol so adeptly ignore.

Do Greenhouse gases act like an actual Greenhouse?

In one word: NO.

The term ‘greenhouse effect’ as applied to ‘global warming’ is a terrible misnomer. An actual greenhouse acts as a physical barrier to suppress the actions of convection – nature’s way of transferring heat from an area of high temperatures to an area of lower temperatures by the displacement of the cooler molecules by the warmer molecules. A good example would be the interior temperature of a car with windows closed at midday. Got it? Greenhouse gases let solar radiation pass through to the surface of the earth, then slows the return energy back into space; unlike a greenhouse, they do not ‘trap’ energy forever in our atmosphere.

The Sun emits high-energy short wave radiation while the Earth reflects back longer wave radiation. The Earth absorbs more energy – in the form of radiation- than it releases back into space. This is an important point, if the Earth did not have a net gain of energy (heat), provided by the slow return back to space, Earth’s global temperature would resemble that of the Moon.

The take home message: Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the biomass globally - 10 out of 10 plants agree!

Anthropogenic global warming is a myth, yet it hasn't stopped our good socialists friends from finding new and creative ways to validate increased taxation to 'fight' this imagined global warming meanace. One positive benefit from this scheme would be that taxing the EU out of existance will be a signifcant stride in combating 'global warming' worldwide.

Holidaymakers could be hit with a "global warming" tax of up to £50 under plans aimed at forcing airlines to reduce gas emissions.
Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said the new charges should be imposed by as early as 2008 or Britain will be thrown into "climate chaos".

In a keynote speech, Mrs Beckett urged Brussels to speed up plans to enforce the levy on airlines to encourage them to fly more fuel-effecient planes and deter people from travelling by air.
The cost is almost certain to be passed on to holidaymakers as budget airlines would be worst affected by what the aviation industry describes as a "tax on holidays".

Experts say the scheme could put £50 on the cost of flying from London to California, £35 on tickets to New York and between £5 and £10 on flights within Europe. Mrs Beckett used her speech in Berlin to up the pressure on Germany - which is taking over the presidency of the EU - to speed up progress on combating global warming.