Greenies: Destroying the planet in order to save it?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The WaPo’s “Green” section published an article yesterday on how the chemicals that allegedly helped “solve” the ozone layer problem have been making the overall environment worse (h/t: ST reader Leslie):

This is not the funny kind of irony: Scientists say the chemicals that helped solve the last global environmental crisis — the hole in the ozone layer — are making the current one worse.

The chemicals, called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), were introduced widely in the 1990s to replace ozone-depleting gases used in air conditioners, refrigerators and insulating foam.

They worked: The earth’s protective shield seems to be recovering.

But researchers say what’s good for ozone is bad for climate change. In the atmosphere, these replacement chemicals act like “super” greenhouse gases, with a heat-trapping power that can be 4,470 times that of carbon dioxide.

Now, scientists say, the world must find replacements for the replacements — or these super-emissions could cancel out other efforts to stop global warming.

“Whatever targets you thought you were going to make,” said David Fahey, a physicist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “it will be undermined by the fact that you have . . . additional emissions that you hadn’t planned on.”

The colorless, odorless replacement chemicals enter the atmosphere in tiny amounts, often leaking out of refrigerators and air conditioners, or escaping when those machines break and are improperly dumped. They now account for about 2 percent of the climate-warming power of U.S. emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That is still far less than carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning fossil fuels and accounts for about 85 percent of the problem. And it is less than the roughly 10 percent of warming from methane, which comes from sources including farm animals and decomposing trash.

But in recent weeks, these obscure gases have been given a higher profile in the carbon-dominated debate on climate change.

Last month, a group of scientists published a paper projecting that, if unchecked, the emissions would rise rapidly over the next 40 years. By 2050, they found, the amount of super greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might be equal to six or more years’ worth of carbon dioxide emissions.

Er, um – obvious (and hopefully not stupid) question: Was there not any way that any of the scientific “geniuses” who came up with the idea of HFCs could have tested them out in a controlled environment, done more research, or something to figure out whether or not the chemicals would do more harm than good to the environment before they were introduced for use? Second question: How much play will this report get in the pro-alarmist mainstream media? Will Dr. Heidi Cullen breathlessly report on the Weather Channel that some of the very same scientists/chemists in the agw community who were charged with “making our environment greener” are responsible for super greenhouse gases infecting our environment now to the point the same community is going to be charged with trying to find replacements for the replacements?

Final question: Anyone other than me see the irony in their implied suggestion that they should be trusted to “solve” the problem that their original “solution” helped create?

And there’s even more irony where that came from: Ladies and gentlemen, some of our global warming issues have indeed been created by man – the liberal male and female scientists who continually warn of impending doom if we don’t do something now. Wonder how many carbon credits they’ll have to purchase in order to offset their damage? ;)

Rasmussen: 2012 potential presidential match-ups

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Very interesting, considering the the blaze of glory President Obama rode in on earlier this year:

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.

In both match-ups, seven percent (7%) like some other candidate, with three percent (3%) undecided.

Is El Presidente in trouble already? Sure looks like it.

Your morning Islamofascism update

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Here’s yet another revealing look inside the Religion of Pieces (h/t: ST reader Sev):

In a shocking and unprecedented interview, directly exposing the inhumanity of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s religious regime in Iran, a serving member of the paramilitary Basiji militia has told this reporter of his role in suppressing opposition street protests in recent weeks.

He has also detailed aspects of his earlier service in the force, including his enforced participation in the rape of young Iranian girls prior to their execution.

The interview took place by telephone, and on condition of anonymity. It was arranged by a reliable source whose identity can also not be revealed.

[…]

The Basiji member, who is married with children, spoke soon after his release by the Iranian authorities from detention. He had been held for the “crime” of having set free two Iranian teenagers – a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl – who had been arrested during the disturbances that have followed the disputed June presidential elections.

“There have been many other police and members of the security forces arrested because they have shown leniency toward the protesters out on the streets, or released them from custody without consulting our superiors,” he said.

The Basiji member, who is married with children, spoke soon after his release by the Iranian authorities from detention. He had been held for the “crime” of having set free two Iranian teenagers – a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl – who had been arrested during the disturbances that have followed the disputed June presidential elections.

He pinned the blame for much of the most ruthless violence employed by the Iranian security apparatus against opposition protesters on what he called “imported security forces” – recruits, as young as 14 and 15, he said, who have been brought from small villages into the bigger cities where the protests have been centered.

“Fourteen and 15-year old boys are given so much power, which I am sorry to say they have abused,” he said. “These kids do anything they please – forcing people to empty out their wallets, taking whatever they want from stores without paying, and touching young women inappropriately. The girls are so frightened that they remain quiet and let them do what they want.”

These youngsters, and other “plainclothes vigilantes,” were committing most of the crimes in the names of the regime, he said.

Asked about his own role in the brutal crackdowns on the protesters, whether he had been beaten demonstrators and whether he regretted his actions, he answered evasively.

“I did not attack any of the rioters – and even if I had, it is my duty to follow orders,” he began. “I don’t have any regrets,” he went on, “except for when I worked as a prison guard during my adolescence.”

Explaining how he had come to join the volunteer Basiji forces, he said his mother had taken him to them.

When he was 16, “my mother took me to a Basiji station and begged them to take me under their wing because I had no one and nothing foreseeable in my future. My father was martyred during the war in Iraq and she did not want me to get hooked on drugs and become a street thug. I had no choice,” he said.

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so “impressed my superiors” that, at 18, “I was given the ‘honor’ to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death.”

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard – essentially raped by her “husband.”

“I regret that, even though the marriages were legal,” he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were “legal?”

“Because,” he went on, “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

“I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over,” he said. “I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her.”

You read reprehensible stories like this, and you scream out in outrage – yet at the first sound you make about how this is just one more example of the type of “acceptable” behavior that is prevelant amongst Islamists, someone on the left will jump in angrily and demand that you “acknowledge” that morally repulsive behavior like this is not characteristic of Islam on the whole – that acts like these are committed “only by a militant few.” Which is a lie. Yet, you have a few isolated incidents of extremist “Christian/right wing” (or whatever they’re calling it today) violence here in the US this year, and all of a sudden it’s a “widespread problem,” and one that “proves” what “they’ve” been saying all along about us crazy right-wingers, and as a result, we must be “watched a little closer” by DHS.

That the left can’t see the differences between a few acts of radical extremist fringe violence here in the US committed by lone, depraved sociopaths, and the worldwide, almost weekly incidents of Islamofascism committed against innocent civilians – some that are terrorist acts against the west, while others “acceptable” acts of “punishment” for Muslim men and women who allegedly have “broken” Islamic “law” – says a hell of a lot more about the left in this country than it does the right in terms of perspective and the ability to distinguish between good and evil and isolated versus epidemic.

In response to the story, Mark Steyn writes:

“It is illegal to execute a young woman . . . if she is a virgin”: Must be convenient to have a legal code that obliges all your pathologies.

And a moral code that obliges all your prejudices against your political opposition, such as the case is with the deluded moral relativists on the left.