Bullshit to markets

While the CEI gets its numbers wrong, Malkin and Reynolds are having fun with the so-called "hypocrisy"

A LOOK AT GREENHOUSE HYPOCRITES AND THEIR GULFSTREAMS

Ah yes, Al Gore constantly zips around the country in a jet,


While he's denying this privilege to the starving children of the world...


Meanwhile, they expect us to forget all the times they exaggerated every little bit of misinformation because they have converted to "non-skeptic hereticism". It's enough to make a man gloomy.


I'll make a little prediction here. The retort by the "NSHers" will be to highlight Methane to Markets. They've loved that idea all along, and I have to say it is a good idea to reduce emissions of a gas that explodes in coal mines and stinks from farms; plus solutions to convert methane to energy already exist. Win win win.

The problem is that the Kyoto protocol already provides for reductions in methane as one of the six gasses it seeks to get under control. And though it's difficult to account for methane emissions from some sources like farms, it's relatively easy to account for emissions from other sources like oil-rigs and wastewater treatment plants.

So, here's my challenge to those who will try to defend themselves by saying that they're all for doing something about global warming by extolling the virtues of this "alternative" solution. We know you don't like carbon caps and we're willing to leave aside for the moment that little problem about how methane emissions are levelling off and CO2 emissions are already about 20-fold higher and increasing steadily (they like to mention that methane is 20-times more "potent" as a greenhouse gas). In lieu of carbon emissions reductions, will you support the necessary steps to drastically reduce methane like mandatory limits and nationwide net-metering to allow production of electricity at the site of methane emission, or continue to tout voluntary reduction measures?

The question really boils down to: are you a bullshit hypocrite?