TIME Magazine & CNN News story - "The Clean Energy Scam"

The media is turning against biofuels in a big way. There have been

food riots in so many countries now that it is hard to keep track.

Oil price hikes (really US dollar declining) has raised the price of

food, but only biofuels have shrunk the human food supply. With

biofuels out of the equation, there would be no food crisis, just half

the food price inflation we are seeing today. We could survive that,

but we won't survive biofuels, and that is why at some point there

will be an anti-biofuel revolution in Congress and in the EU.

'Biofuels' will be a dirty word, and a political death sentence for

all those who still promote them.

SEE

"The Clean Energy Scam" (TIME MAGAZINE - CNN NEWS) - "It's (biofuels)

dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the

name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect,

turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol

made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and

eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future,

looks less green than oil-derived gasoline."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

- - - - -

SEE

"Chemist warns of biofuel 'dead end'" - "Future historians may

ultimately see the biofuels of the early 21st century as a

technological dead end."

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ

- - - - -

SEE

Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

British scientist James Lovelock, the father of the living earth

Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a

large human population on planet earth without causing global warming

and destroying the environment. Nuclear power is the only technology

that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny

amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting any

significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Energy conservation, solar,

wind, tidal, geothermal, and other energy schemes can help the cause,

but nuclear power is the only major, core solution to global warming

available to human beings.

Using nuclear power we can make synthetic gasoline and jet fuel

directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This new energy scheme may

be cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it

would require no changes to our existing energy distribution

infrastructure. Intense heat from nuclear reactors is used to break

down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and

oxygen. The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a

catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily

transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be used in ordinary

automobiles.

One of the benefits of nuclear power is that the United States

already owns huge stockpiles of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear

weapons materials, which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian

power production. If you consider the amount of uranium easily

available in the earth's crust for mining, plus the use of much more

plentiful thorium as fuel in breeder reactors, then the world has

enough nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years; an essentially

endless supply. Nuclear power plants efficiently output at least 93

times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the

energy used in their construction and decommissioning.

Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because

only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during

each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little

high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain

Repository. The nuclear "waste" is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and

that is part of the reason why France's nuclear power program has been

so successful. France relies heavily on nuclear power plants and

nuclear fuel reprocessing, and France has the cleanest air and lowest

electricity rates in Europe.

The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are

largely unfounded. One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete

Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all

nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used

a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did

not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was

caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that

were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would

not be allowed in the USA. The Chernobyl accident killed a total of

56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.

Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for

safety and pollution free operation. By contrast, the over 600 coal

burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity

unleash tremendous pollution. They emit sulfur dioxide and oxides of

nitrogen which cause acid rain, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous

skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all

CO2 emissions worldwide. Coal power plants also spew out thorium and

uranium, both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal.

The potential nuclear energy value of these metals far exceeds the

energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself.

Coal power plants also release microscopic particulate matter, which

clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000

premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the

Chernobyl death toll.

Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so

much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The

answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a

Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by

scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.

There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian

nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of

about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric

power and less than natural gas or coal.

Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant

designs using mass production techniques for major structural and

control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like

manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same

design the cheaper they become. For the total long term cost of the

Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670

1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000

megawatts. Gas cooled pebble bed reactors with containment structures

can be used in areas without sufficient water for conventional water

cooled designs. Pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due

to the basic laws of physics. If the reactor's cooling system should

fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels

without mechanical intervention.

This plan would give the United States virtual energy

independence, more than doubling our current national electric

generating capacity of 906,155 megawatts. Nuclear power has the

potential to save us from desertification of our heartland, increased

storm damage and coastal flooding. Unlike producing biofuels, use of

nuclear power will never cause food shortages, erode topsoil, or be

exquisitely dependent on climatic conditions for reliable energy

production.

For full biofuel facts, see- http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

Christopher Calder

The really good part about nuclear energy, it can't be used in cars.

On Mar 28, 12:44

cheshirewayne@gmail.com wrote:

> The really good part about nuclear energy, it can't be used in cars.

Can it be used in trains like it has in submarines?

No. And it can't be used in airplanes either. They were both tried

in the 60's. Also nuclear rockets, the Orion project. The trains

would crush the current roadbeds. The airplane, they built a couple

of miles of runway for it in Idaho before it was decided it was too

heavy and what if it crashed. Orion is only safe in outer space, it

has a nuclear exhaust.

Personal transportation is on it's way out.

Wayne

On Mar 28, 1:17

<cheshirewayne@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6ae44278-d18c-4532-b533-4f9d922633bd@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

<No. And it can't be used in airplanes either. They were both tried

in the 60's. Also nuclear rockets, the Orion project. The trains

would crush the current roadbeds. The airplane, they built a couple

of miles of runway for it in Idaho before it was decided it was too

heavy and what if it crashed. Orion is only safe in outer space, it

<has a nuclear exhaust.

Orion doesn't count for much, it was poisonous except for long hauls from

orbit and the test ban treaty killed it. You want NERVA, which was, and is,

good viable technology once the reactors are made safe enough for the

naysayers when crashed.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html

Personal transportation is on it's way out.

Wayne

On Mar 28, 1:17 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-

Dog.com> wrote:

> cheshirewa...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The really good part about nuclear energy, it can't be used in cars.

>

> Can it be used in trains like it has in submarines?

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:44:29 -0700 (PDT), "calderhome@yahoo.com"

<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The media is turning against biofuels in a big way. There have been

>

snip .. the Time media stuff..

>

>"Chemist warns of biofuel 'dead end'" - "Future historians may

>ultimately see the biofuels of the early 21st century as a

>technological dead end."

>

>http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ

>- - - - -

>SEE

>

"Calderhome" content I'm responding to below was not part of quoted

article.. Chemist article advocates..

"The way ahead has to include research into increasing biofuel yields

dramatically and investigating artificial photosynthesis for alcohol

production, but also placing higher priority on other, much more

efficient land-based technologies."

Photo-voltaic cells could potentially convert 20% of the sun's energy,

and concentrated solar power devices still more, he said.

Other useful technologies included new generation high-capacity

electric batteries and devices for storing hydrogen produced from

water.

These innovations could provide a long-term solution for vehicles at a

fraction of the cost of the biofuel use of land, said Dr Pike. "

The following quoted text below was not written by the Chemist..

Just Mr.s calderhome's opinion..

>Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

>

Bzzzzt...not..

snipp... promises of nuclear power to make everything..

U235 will run out long before that time..

Less then a centuries worth of recoverable U235 remains.

Th232 is a non starter without large amounts of weapons grade

Pu239. It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) to make

enough U233 (does not exist in nature) to fuel just one(1) GWe Th

breeder reactor.

Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage

and lack many significant safety features (required to increase

breeding ratio).

Japan's prototype breeder (MonJu ~100MW) was shutdown after a

liquid metal coolant leak after just 5 months of operation..

The US's Fermi-1 prototype breeder reactor suffered a partial core

meltdown after just three years of operation. Basis for the Book

titled "We Almost Lost Detroit" !!!

>Chernobyl death toll.

At least half a million deaths and still climbing..

155,000 sq. km evacuated, rendered uninhabitable in Belarus which

received 70% of the fallout.

At least 2.8 million people where directly exposed..

Another ~100 million people indirectly exposed via contaminated

food stuffs..

Still born, birth defects, and other genetic ailments abound in

Ukraine, and Belarus. Health systems overwhelmed..

(2006) US National Academy of Science reviewed all the scientific

studies to date on the subject and has concluded that their is no safe

dose of ionizing radiation. Each dose increases the chances of

radiation related aliments. Exposure at younger ages increases the

risk to even higher probabilities.. They have also determined that

exposure takes on many forms of life shortening diseases.. (besides

cancer.)

A World Health Organization scientist( IAEA) admitted to lying

about the death tool after being confronted by fellow scientists at a

conference.

Advocates for nuclear power all based there death toll findings on

a few very specific types of cancer, a discredited obsolete

assumption!!

>

> Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so

>much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The

>answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a

>Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by

>scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.

>There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian

>nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of

>about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric

>power and less than natural gas or coal.

>

> Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant

>designs using mass production techniques for major structural and

>control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like

>manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same

>design the cheaper they become. For the total long term cost of the

>Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670

>1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000

>megawatts.

Bzzzt... Current price of a big nuke 6 to 9 billion dollars per

reactor.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/sfl-0318fpl,0,1666939.story

"FP&L clears one hurdle en route to building two nuclear generators

near Turkey Point"

"March 18, 2008"

"The new generators would produce 2,200 to 3,040 megawatts of power

and power an estimated one million homes. Pending the approvals, FPL

hopes to have the new generators operating in 2018 and 2020."

"Commissioners acknowledged that the projected costs - which have been

estimated at about $12 billion to $18 billion - may change but that

they would review information annually to review whether the project

makes sense."

Note: The large variance in output and costs.. ( 6 to 9$ per watt..)

Which still doesn't include Operational, Fuel, and Decomissiing

costs..

====

As for gas cooled.. pebble bed..

they're much smaller plants(100 to 300 MW range) , still in

prototype research stage after several accidents, and a containment

failure.

http://www.greenparty.org.za/capetowngreens/nuclear/PBMRFactSheet.pdf

"Fission chips: What they don

T.Keating wrote:

> <calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

> Less then a centuries worth of recoverable U235 remains.

Probably more like 5 centuries, if only U235 is used.

> Th232 is a non starter without large amounts of weapons grade

> Pu239. It will take at least 20 years (U235/U238/Th core) to make

> enough U233 (does not exist in nature) to fuel just one(1) GWe Th

> breeder reactor.

>

> Breeders to extend the fuel supply are still in the experimental stage

> and lack many significant safety features (required to increase breeding

> ratio).

Reactors with breeding ratios near one with thorium are operating today,

and have been operated with thorium. CANDU reactors, and the Indian clones

of them, are very safe reactors, with a full set of safety features. CANDU

reactors could be switched to 2/3 thorium as fast as the thorium fuel rods

could be made, and to all thorium as fast as the fuel could be

reprocessed. In other words, rather faster than 20 years.

There are reasons to limit the usage of nuclear power, but lack of fuel

isn't a serious reason.

--

Phil Hays

On Mar 29, 4:44 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> The media is turning against biofuels in a big way. There have been

> food riots in so many countries now that it is hard to keep track.

> Oil price hikes (really US dollar declining) has raised the price of

> food, but only biofuels have shrunk the human food supply. With

> biofuels out of the equation, there would be no food crisis, just half

> the food price inflation we are seeing today. We could survive that,

> but we won't survive biofuels, and that is why at some point there

> will be an anti-biofuel revolution in Congress and in the EU.

> 'Biofuels' will be a dirty word, and a political death sentence for

> all those who still promote them.

>

> SEE

>

> "The Clean Energy Scam" (TIME MAGAZINE - CNN NEWS) - "It's (biofuels)

> dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the

> name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect,

> turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol

> made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and

> eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future,

> looks less green than oil-derived gasoline."

>

> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html

> - - - - -

> SEE

>

> "Chemist warns of biofuel 'dead end'" - "Future historians may

> ultimately see the biofuels of the early 21st century as a

> technological dead end."

>

> http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwwiUVDzBZM0GHevZ13mLxx_VyYQ

> - - - - -

> SEE

>

> Nuclear power is the only major solution to global warming

>

> British scientist James Lovelock, the father of the living earth

> Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a

> large human population on planet earth without causing global warming

> and destroying the environment. Nuclear power is the only technology

> that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny

> amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting any

> significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Energy conservation, solar,

> wind, tidal, geothermal, and other energy schemes can help the cause,

> but nuclear power is the only major, core solution to global warming

> available to human beings.

>

> Using nuclear power we can make synthetic gasoline and jet fuel

> directly from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This new energy scheme may

> be cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it

> would require no changes to our existing energy distribution

> infrastructure. Intense heat from nuclear reactors is used to break

> down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and

> oxygen. The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a

> catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily

> transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be used in ordinary

> automobiles.

>

> One of the benefits of nuclear power is that the United States

> already owns huge stockpiles of nuclear fuel in the form of nuclear

> weapons materials, which can be converted into fuel rods for civilian

> power production. If you consider the amount of uranium easily

> available in the earth's crust for mining, plus the use of much more

> plentiful thorium as fuel in breeder reactors, then the world has

> enough nuclear fuel to last for thousands of years; an essentially

> endless supply. Nuclear power plants efficiently output at least 93

> times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the

> energy used in their construction and decommissioning.

>

> Nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed over and over again because

> only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during

> each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel rods there is very little

> high level nuclear waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain

> Repository. The nuclear "waste" is simply reused as nuclear fuel, and

> that is part of the reason why France's nuclear power program has been

> so successful. France relies heavily on nuclear power plants and

> nuclear fuel reprocessing, and France has the cleanest air and lowest

> electricity rates in Europe.

>

> The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are

> largely unfounded. One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete

> Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all

> nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used

> a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did

> not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was

> caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that

> were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would

> not be allowed in the USA. The Chernobyl accident killed a total of

> 56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.

>

> Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for

> safety and pollution free operation. By contrast, the over 600 coal

> burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity

> unleash tremendous pollution. They emit sulfur dioxide and oxides of

> nitrogen which cause acid rain, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous

> skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all

> CO2 emissions worldwide. Coal power plants also spew out thorium and

> uranium, both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal.

> The potential nuclear energy value of these metals far exceeds the

> energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself.

> Coal power plants also release microscopic particulate matter, which

> clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000

> premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the

> Chernobyl death toll.

>

> Why is there so little fear of coal burning power plants, but so

> much hysterical fear of much safer and healthier nuclear power? The

> answer is that nuclear power has been unfairly demonized by a

> Hollywood entertainment industry trying to make a quick buck, and by

> scientifically undereducated politicians and environmental activists.

> There has never been a single death attributed to American civilian

> nuclear power plants, which produce electricity at an average cost of

> about 3 cents per kilowatt-hour, a rate comparable to hydroelectric

> power and less than natural gas or coal.

>

> Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plant

> designs using mass production techniques for major structural and

> control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like

> manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same

> design the cheaper they become. For the total long term cost of the

> Iraq War, estimated to be about 2 trillion dollars, we could build 670

> 1,500 megawatt nuclear power plants outputting a total of 1,005,000

> megawatts. Gas cooled pebble bed reactors with containment structures

> can be used in areas without sufficient water for conventional water

> cooled designs. Pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due

> to the basic laws of physics. If the reactor's cooling system should

> fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels

> without mechanical intervention.

>

> This plan would give the United States virtual energy

> independence, more than doubling our current national electric

> generating capacity of 906,155 megawatts. Nuclear power has the

> potential to save us from desertification of our heartland, increased

> storm damage and coastal flooding. Unlike producing biofuels, use of

> nuclear power will never cause food shortages, erode topsoil, or be

> exquisitely dependent on climatic conditions for reliable energy

> production.

>

> For full biofuel facts, see-http://home.att.net/~meditation/bio-fuel-hoax.html

>

> Christopher Calder

Biofuels from food is so stupid only Bush could of backed it.

Biofuels from waste food is a great idea. The problem is

scaling, most energy sources are going to be distributed

and small scale. Big business can't hoard huge power

stations when there are solar cells or a windmill on someones

roof, or a pipe into a rotting mass of household waste

preheating the hot water, or the local take away left over

cooking oil filtered and used in a engine.

The oil and death President who couldn't find

oil and signed executions like they were confetti, started

a war to push oil to new heights of insecurity and stole

food from the mouths of the poorest to fed SUVs.

Only in America, where freedom is so downgraded, could

Bush have come to power so easily.

Phil Hays wrote:

> Reactors with breeding ratios near one with thorium are operating today,

> and have been operated with thorium. CANDU reactors, and the Indian clones

> of them, are very safe reactors, with a full set of safety features. CANDU

> reactors could be switched to 2/3 thorium as fast as the thorium fuel rods

> could be made, and to all thorium as fast as the fuel could be

> reprocessed. In other words, rather faster than 20 years.

>

> There are reasons to limit the usage of nuclear power, but lack of fuel

> isn't a serious reason.

It was also my understanding that Thorium had some large advantages:

found in almost every country so not much competition for it,

more plentiful than Uranium, and safer reactors,

also can't make weapons from Thorium. Haven't heard much else

about it, but these seem significant.

lorad474@cs.com wrote:

> On Mar 28, 8:44 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>> The media is turning against biofuels in a big way.

>

> Of course they are..

> They - just like you are shills for corporate (foreign) oil and the

> oil price gouging of their US customers.

>

They started losing advertising income, it's simple economics, keep the

hoax going and they will have to pull the plug on some Liberal media.

On Mar 29, 5:23 pm, Poetic Justice <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-

Dog.com> wrote:

> lorad...@cs.com wrote:

> > On Mar 28, 8:44 am, "calderh...@yahoo.com" <calderh...@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> >> The media is turning against biofuels in a big way.

>

> > Of course they are..

> > They - just like you are shills for corporate (foreign) oil and the

> > oil price gouging of their US customers.

>

> They started losing advertising income, it's simple economics, keep the

> hoax going and they will have to pull the plug on some Liberal media.

Biofuels subsidy is a way to keep Americas fuel prices down.

Say it over and over and you will realize its no different from

the French use of Nuclear power. So what if people starve,

Americas love claiming to feed the planet, they can get over it.

Biofuels are simply a barrier to the future, they offset higher

fuel prices now and keep America cocooned from the impeding

collapse of western energy sources. Its like an addict who

doesn't believe its government will stop drug deliveries from

S.America, so what if the drug lords will be put out of work,

I need my cheap fuel, drug of choice, NOW. Biofuel subsidies

are just one more nasty American exploits to keep their

fat suger rich lazy arses, when fuels do collapse Americans

will rush into Nuclear and dump their pollution on landfills like

they do plastic. Health care for the rich will ensue their cancers

are cured and only the poor will suffer. Welcome to America.

<calderhome@yahoo.com> wrote

> The media is turning against biofuels in a big way. There have been

> food riots in so many countries now that it is hard to keep track.

Food riots? Where? Can you list some of the places and provde

references.

I doubt it.

I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual and

congenital liar.

CalderHome is no exception to that observation.

>> The really good part about nuclear energy, it can't be used in cars.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> Can it be used in trains like it has in submarines?

Not realistically, no.

<cheshirewayne@gmail.com> wrote

> Personal transportation is on it's way out.

In it's current form.

Future transportation will be primarliy electric drive and the size of a

Smart Car.

"Ouroboros_Rex" <its@casual.com> wrote

> Orion doesn't count for much, it was poisonous except for long hauls from

> orbit and the test ban treaty killed it. You want NERVA, which was, and

> is, good viable technology once the reactors are made safe enough for the

> naysayers when crashed.

Gonna launch a Chernobyl style reactor are you?

Great idea.

"Phil Hays" <invalid@dont.spam> wrote

> There are reasons to limit the usage of nuclear power, but lack of fuel

> isn't a serious reason.

Correct. The primary reason to restrict usage is because the apes aren't

smart enough to be trusted with them.

"HarryNadds" <hoofhearted07@yahoo.com> wrote

> The rest of the world may be starving but Al Gore looks like has'nt

> missed any meals.The boy is butterball fat !!

He hasn't reached the Rush Limbaugh stage, or the Jerry Fallwell level.

It's obviously from him attending so many rubber chicken dinners where he

is honoured for his great achievements.

"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote

> They started losing advertising income, it's simple economics, keep the

> hoax going and they will have to pull the plug on some Liberal media.

Here is the short list of those Accused by KKKonservatives as being part of

the Hoax..

> 1) the vast majority of the media and press,

> 2) the majority of the scientists,

> 3) all of the scientific press, both journals and textbooks,

> 4) all of the environmentalists,

> 5) the vast majority of anyone with an advanced degree,

> 6) the UN,

> 7) the IPCC,

> 8) the WMO,

> 9) all professional scientific societies, but the Petroleum Institute,

> 10) "The one world government conspiracy," whatever and whoever that is,

> 11) NASA,

> 12) Wikipedia,

> 13) the British Antarctic Survey,

> 14) the NOAA,

> 15) Realclimate.org,

> 16) . . . and now the Hadley Center.

> 17) The Royal Society

> 18) The Royal Astronomical Society

> 19) The National Academy of Sciences

> 20) The American Physical Society

> 21) The American Institute of Physics

> 22) The Woods Hole Research Centre

> 23) The American Chemical Society

> 24) The USGS

> 25) The NCAR

> 26) The NRDC

> 27) The Union of Concerned Scientists.

> 28) The National Wildlife Federation.

> 29) The U.S. EPA

> 30) Accuweather

> 31) Greenpiece

> 32) The world Conservation Union

> 33) The Sierra Club.

> 34) The board and article reviewers of the journal Nature

> 35) The board and article reviewers of the journal Science

> 36) The staff of Scientific American magazine

> 37) The staff of New Scientist Magazine.

> 38) And lets not forget - Al Gore.

"PerfectlyAble" <stonepower@kol.co.nz> wrote

> So what if people starve,

> Americas love claiming to feed the planet, they can get over it.

> Biofuels are simply a barrier to the future, they offset higher

> fuel prices now and keep America cocooned from the impeding

> collapse of western energy sources.

AmeriKKKa doesn't even feed itself these days. It imports more food than it

exports.