Sort of off topic but really needs to be seen.
These people need to be stopped.

Australia's ABC Helps Kids Calculate How Soon They Should Die for Gaia
Anyone who doubts that liberalism is a death cult needs to check out the taxpayer-funded Australia Broadcasting Corporation's kiddy-oriented Greenhouse Calculator, which helps little kids calculate how soon they should die so as to stop being a burden on the planet.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/05/australias_abc.html

So where does the 'global warming score' for the manufacturing and disposal show up? Operating costs are just one aspect of a product, and in many cases, like fuel cells and batteries for instance, not the most important.

Pay more in taxes, and government will pretend to control the weather.

its always good to cut down on emissions and save energy it makes good sence to save money.but when it comes to greenhouse gas if you really want to take this thing seriously we should spend more time worrying about water vapour,the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atomosphere.im sorry if this sounds sarcastic but are gysers and water evaporation not more dangerous than mankinds puny greenhouse gas emmisions.

Brett:
It is good to see that California people are using other peoples money to feed their ego. I thought this green desease started in Seattle with the municipal building only 170 million, so it could have eyelashes and stay cool. Well, being Green is in. Green food, Green clothes, and especially building your dream green house in the middle of the freaking woods. Walls are made of cement but wait, they are embedded with old wino's bottles. Or seashells, Everything can be recycled because they took more energy to make then a normal house. But now you can live in a bunker like Hitler and grow pot on the top of your house. Why live in the woods when you can put the woods in your 750,000 dollar house. KIPP

My advice is ride a bicycle, and do whatever you can to avoid dealing with the oppressive government of California. I haven't worked in California for over two years and am still dealing with the endless demands of the geniuses at the California Franchise Tax Board.

What does the sticker look like on Arnie's Hummers?

I'm sure there are many like me who are fed up with this green s**t coming at me in every direction. I hope my lawn burns up soon so it turns brown.

Tony, the greenies don't care about water vapor. It is the same for wind and clouds. The fixation is just C02 which from my perspective does make the green machine a cult. Some of the message may very well have some validity but unfortunately the marketing and hype will take any honesty out of the concern and just turn it into a money making machine. Somebody once wrote on here that they were green before it became vogue. That is how I feel. Once t-shirts are being printed up I find myself personally revolting. All I ever wanted since I can remember was for humans to just pick up their trash and care about their environment enough to keep it tidy. It is amazing that I have hiked to some remote waterfall only to see pepsi cans littering the way. If we only stopped being litterbugs I would be happy.

What a waste of perfectly good sticker paper...

The liberals are getting nuttier every day. Fortunately common sense (usually) prevails over the long haul. Still no sunspots.

oh the californians are so progressive...if they substituted the O for an A in score, then they could be both progressive, correct, and have the first bumper stickers that rate the fear AGW is all about...peace, bros...

From an earlier thread . . .

I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so I can't authoritatively rebut anything you say.

cbmclean,

No need for authority nor any need to be an atmospheric scientist, although technically all that needs to be done to pass those credentials is to use the Scientific Method to explain atmospheric phenomena which current AGW scientists, in my opinion, do not meet.

Science is science whether it comes from authority or some uneducated pauper.

Please take no offense, but I am surprised at you saying such a thing having just completed a very hard study where you must have gained some appreciation for the Scientific Method.

Having done some homework, I can confidently say that you cannot rebut my statements based simply on work done by prior scientists, authority nor titles can change that.

I do know that IR opaque gases are almost universally described as warming planetary atmospheres in the lower-level scientific literature that I regularly peruse.

IR opaque? CO2 does absorb three narrow bands of low energy IR radiation, however with concentrations at 380/1,000,000 that can hardly be described as opaque.

Water vapor absorbs over 90% of the IR that the Earth emits and it has properties that encourage it to clump so it can actually be described as IR opaque and often is even opaque to much shorter wavelengths.

So are you disputing that IR opaque gases change the thermodynamic situation of a planet?

I wouldn't dare. I am disputing that CO2 on planet Earth can even remotely be described as IR opaque.

In addition, I would add that gasses, IR opaque or not, should not be thought of as having any ability to warm. They can only prevent the planet they envelop from warming quickly or cooling quickly.

The moon gets far hotter than Earth does, but it also gets much colder since it cools very quickly. An atmosphere would keep it's max temp lower and minimum temp warmer.

Thanks,

Steve

And the insanity continues.

Does the score include GHG produced during the manufacturing process? How about GHG produced transporting the vehicle to market? I presume hydrogen-powered vehicles will include the water vapor from their emissions, too?*

More important, we're back to the dubious characterization of carbon dioxide as a
global warming pollutant.

Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on earth and is emitted by all animals through respiration. Nobody has shown carbon dioxide to actually drive climate change, that's just an hypothesis that is far from proven. While many studies support that hypothesis, many studies also do not support it.

And how do we reconcile the fact that most CO2 is produced naturally, that natural sources of carbon dioxide out pace human emissions by 19 to 1? Just remember, natural good, human bad.

* Yes, I'm aware that water vapor emission from hydrogen vehicles is minimal and that combustion of hydrocarbons also releases water vapor. It's just amazing how apoplectic some hydrogen-proponents get when asked that question.

Ya gotta love them Californians!

Weren't they the ones that brought us such classics as "Don't use the interior of the bag as a breathing device", "Don't drink the bleach", and "Do not lick the IRON if hot"?

I look for the California items first when I buy something. Always good for a chuckle.

Just bought a new push lawnmower and on the side is a BIG sticker that says "NOT FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA".

And I thought, maybe I should take it there and sell it on the blackmarket since I bet the ones that are "FOR SALE IN CALIFORNIA" don't work worth a damn.

Or maybe they cut the grass but then apologize for the destruction of the environment. LOL

Say, if you put a "I HEART THE GOREACLE" bumpersticker on your car, does your AGW number go up a point or two?

Greatest idea since the lead balloon. Yet another gimic for people, don't buy that car you'll destroy the world buy this one its green. So what is this saying, it is a fact my car is causing global warming? Really this is as stupid as estimating my co2 offput in a years time, someone here found another job that proves nothing but they sit on their butt and collect money, congratulations but get a life.

I heard today that car sales are so bleak that the car companies are going to quickly stop making the clunkers and downsize the cars to attract buyers.

I also heard the NYC is going to spend mega dollars to green up their buildings. Would this be the same as Seattle did? Interesting but not yet very cost effective.

While this green stuff might seem rather harmless and being fair some being eco friendly, I keep thinking about just the infrastructure in most cities that is at best a C-, NYC no exception, the broken down public school systems in this country and wondering how on earth there there is enough money to experiment with some innovative green technologies. I guess I am particularly sensitive about the poor quality of our public school system knowing that some of the very strong supporters of the green movement are or have been directly responsible for the governing of these big cities and have done nothing to address the growing decline of education. Maybe that is the plan. Keep the masses in the dark by limiting their education so they can't effectively debate the issues.

I hope there can be legal action against this type of CO2 fraud, but the smog part is (I presume) right, so they aren't all wrong with this label.

BTW, this link http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/ep_label.php says the GW score is from vehicle operation and fuel production, so vehicle mfr., transport, and disposal are not included.

Smog score at http://www.driveclean.ca.gov/smog_definitions.php may be more technically based.

Why am I not surprised that this is from California? :)

While harmless, it provides one more bit of eco-fluff for them to point out showing how much they are doing in their State to battle AGW.

I wonder how many tons of CO2 each sticker offsets in the California carbon emission calculations?

Kricki, isn't it amazing that people can carry their full bottles and cans with them wherever they go, but they can't carry them when they are empty? I remember a TV show years ago called The Southern Sportsman. One time while they were on The Outer Banks filming a fishing outing, a couple of people sat down right where they were filming, and were thowing their empty beer cans all over the beach. The show's host was rather irritated at this, so what he did was to film them, including close ups of their faces, and put them on TV.

Kricki: "While this green stuff might seem rather harmless and being fair some being eco friendly, I keep thinking about just the infrastructure in most cities that is at best a C-, NYC no exception, the broken down public school systems in this country and wondering how on earth there there is enough money to experiment with some innovative green technologies. I guess I am particularly sensitive about the poor quality of our public school system knowing that some of the very strong supporters of the green movement are or have been directly responsible for the governing of these big cities and have done nothing to address the growing decline of education. Maybe that is the plan. Keep the masses in the dark by limiting their education so they can't effectively debate the issues."

Your last sentence is particularly relevant since the majority of discussions I see here on this blog site seem to validate your perceptions very well.

Many here have been asking for a scientific debate to occur between scientists. When an attempt by me and others initiate a more scientific debate on this blog, only a small group seems willing or is able to participate and even express a willingness to learn without pre-judging. However, the majority still seems to rely on the latest political spin stories and one-sided web sites to provide them with their answers. I have yet to see any meaningful presentation of any personal investigation, or individual research idea presented in their discussions. That says a lot to me and your statement seems to back it up.

You put the blame on the "green" movement for the failing of the educational system without any data to support that statement. From what I have seen through personal experience and from what I have read in many recent news stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/23/AR2008042303074_pf.html

there has been a lot of political interference into what information actually gets into the public domain.

This political interference has been going on for the past 10-20 years through the highly conservative (right-wing) movement and has reached a peak during this last administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802947_pf.html

The conservatives always say that our government doesn't work, and those in control recently have proved it very well during the past 8 years when they put the conservative political wonks in control of the decision making of some of our key scientific agencies such as EPA, FDA, NASA, etc. FEMA was our warning shot when Katrina hit New Orleans. "Brownie" was a prime example of what this administration has done to our governmental agencies in the degradation of our scientific decision making process.

The end result of all of this has been a loss for the U.S. international standing in regards to the level of our scientists compared to those in other industrialized countries. It is no wonder we are failing the rest of the world in providing leadership in this important issue of global climate change. A number of corporate institutions have used their political power to change the way science is being used and manipulated in this country. The "masses" as you say (including the majority on this blog site) have indeed been kept in the dark through political talk shows, and it's time that changes.

Our educational system, which you have great concern about, can only improve if we change the policies and the way this country has been run for the past 20 years and get rid of the political hacks that have been running our governmental agencies.

Wow, Dennis.
What utter nonsense.
30 years of biased research grants and 50 billions dollars worth of propoganda and still no convincing evidence of AGW.
I would say your case has become just plane silly.

Well, I must say I am disappointed and surprisingly, shocked.

While I have enjoyed the comments and information presented by Dennis Hlinka the last several weeks, the post to Kricki has left me shaking my head.

Apparently the only "CORRECT" scientific political position is the LEFT or LIBERAL side. Let's see now, AGW as a movement got its' legs during the last 6 years. Hansen has been at the forefront yelling more in the last 3 years than the previous 17. There is by far more discussion in the public and political fronts now than there ever was during the 8 years in which Gore was in office.

And to knock the responses by those who have looked into it on the skeptic side, give me a break. Granted, I personally do not get into the nitty gritty of the research but many others have and they present literally tons of info. I thank them for it. I prefer to look at it merely from the common sense side with a rational understanding of the stuff that both sides point out.

Name one, just one, thing substantitive that came out of the Gore years relative to climate research. Seriously, I can't think of one. Why even the vaunted Kyoto protocal was rejected by Gore. The present administration took the hit for following the lead of the so called and professed climate guru.

Finally, the comment about a warning shot relative to Katrina is laughable at best, flat out ignorant at worst. Pssssst.....Do you recall that this "scientifically challenged Republican President" declared the ENTIRE Gulf Coast region that would likely be hit by the storm a FEDERAL DISASTER Area 2 days BEFORE it hit? I believe that was the first time ever, federal assistance was put into works in preparation for what could occur based upon scientific evidence.

Gosh, I seem to recall it took Clinton/Gore several days AFTER Andrew to do anything Federally over a storm that was much worse. Why was that?

The REAL problem of Katrina was created by those who ran that state and city for years and years.

Need more evidence, look to the midwest floods and how it has been handled there.

Hi Gary,

Anyone can say something is "utter nonsense" and "just plane silly". Your very persuasive arguments really makes me want to reconsider and change my earlier opinion.

What are you offering as proof for your side of the case? Is there anything that I stated or referenced in my posting that you can present with actual data backup to firmly state that my arguments are actually wrong? Other than just your opinion that is.

Sorry I present information with reference to the scientific data that I used for my arguments and asked questions on this site that actually makes people think for themselves where you have come up with a real scientific basis to win your arguments.

In my effort to answer questions posed by your side about the proof of the possible relationship of CO2 and temperature, I initiated a scientific debate on this site for what is causing the out-of-range high temperatures on Venus.

I actually had a scientific debate with GW Steve on the Venus temperature issue and he later acknowledged that there appears to be an actual relationship with CO2. He did not come back and simply say my arguments are "nonsense". I have a higher respect for him as a result. Other than my debate with GW Steve, I did not see any other convincing arguments from your side of the debate and your type of response simply adds to that conclusion.

Is it because your side couldn't find any answers from your main sources of information like ICECAP web site and the conservative talk shows because their current talking points don't address this topic? Maybe it is because they don't have an answer for that question and they simply ignore it hoping that no one actually brings it up. It is so much easier for them to cherry pick data and time periods to feed to their followers so they can simply recite their latest talking points and they don't have to think for themselves.

If and when you do come up with some reliable information that is supportable (you may actually have to do your own research), I can tell you I won't come back with such convincing statements like it is "utter nonsense" or "just plain silly" to try to win my arguments.

Who knows, maybe you can find something that may actually change my opinion.

Hi Darren,

Your right, maybe I did go off on the liberal vs conservative argument too heavily. But if the political statements posted on this blog site by the majority skeptic side go unchallenged, then a win by default is not really a win.

I would like to see you express your same surprise and disappointment to those on the skeptic side when they continually rant and deride Al Gore and others on the supposed liberal side on how there only goal is to ruin our economy.

I don't consider the global climate change a liberal or conservative issue, but it would be nice for the majority here