Marijuana causes global warming, uses 1% of U.S. electricity

This is a national travesty! Californians and all the global warming nutcases are in a dilemma;protect the earth or give up growning marijuana. Decision, decision, decision! LOL

(BizJournals) People growing marijuana indoors use 1 percent of the U.S. electricity supply, and they create 17 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year (not counting the smoke exhaled) according to a report by Evan Mills, an energy analyst at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

After medical pot use was made legal in California in 1996, Mills says, per-person residential electricity use in Humboldt County jumped 50 percent compared to other parts of the state.

In order to produce some 17,000 metric tons of marijuana this year, Mills estimates authorized growers will use $5 billion worth of energy. That works out to the output of seven big electric power plants.

Much of the carbon dioxide produced by the industry comes from transportation, though the need for lights “500-times greater than recommended for reading” also uses a lot of power and generates a lot of pollution. Air conditioning, ventilation and humidity control also contribute.

In California, some 400,000 authorized growers use about 3 percent of the state’s electricity for their business.

“This corresponds to the electricity use of 1 million average California homes, greenhouse-gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars, and energy expenditures of $3 billion a year,” Mills says. However, since California is such a green state, it only generates 20 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions from pot growing, while using 70 percent of nationwide energy for this industry.

“From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette represents 2 pounds of (carbon dioxide) emissions,” Mills says.

For this report, which he published independently, Mills says he didn’t count the energy used in producing fertilizer, water, equipment and building materials also used in indoor pot farms.

EPA Says We Have to Spend $700 Trillion to Lower Earths Temperature by 1 degree

Even the EPA couldn't manipulate the data suggesting that global warming is expensive to fix. It will take $700 trillion to reduce the earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius. This is absolutely absurd.

(WorldNet Daily) New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world's gross production, to drop the earth's temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA's own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration's plan "absurd."

Citing a study by the EPA's Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, "EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] 'absurd,' affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing 'at least a decade or longer' of permit delays, 'slowing' construction nationwide for years, 'introducing burdens that are administratively 'infeasible,' 'overwhelming,' that will 'adversely affect national economic development,' while impacting sources 'not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'"

You've suspected it, now here's the proof: A top meteorologist documents how "global warming" is just a cynical, Marx-inspired wealth-grab.

And the net effect of the greenhouse gas regulations that the Republican senators are decrying?

The EPA calculates in 75 Federal Register 25,495: "Global mean temperature is estimated to be reduced by 0.006 to 0.015 degrees Celsius by 2100."

So in effect, by the year 2100, 90 years worth of $78 billion per year in spending – a total of over $7 trillion dollars – would have lowered the earth's temperature by about one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.

In other words, the U.S. would be paying for a global warming elixir that reduces temperatures at the net rate of $700 trillion per degree. Numbers-crunchers estimate that would amount to roughly 700 warehouses filled with $100 bills, or a stack of the bills nearly 70 miles high.

2010 Weather was Cold to Global Warming

Don't tell Al Gore about this. He would flip-out.......

(Washington Examiner)- This will come to no surprise to Midwesterners still digging out from the Great Blizzard of 2011, but an analysis of five different temperature databases showed no evidence of global warming in 2010.

“Contrary to press reports the evidence is that 2010 was a year no different from all of the years 2001-2009 with the exception of a moderate to strong El Nino that elevated temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere’s Spring, and a cooling La Nina later in the year,” writes David Whitehouse, of The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“The standstill seen in global temperatures since 2001 continues.” Statistically, Whitehouse points out, there has been no change in the Earth’s temperature since 1998.

And even though 2010 had the strongest El Nino on record, overall it was still cooler than 1998.

Al Gore Cant Have It Both Ways Regarding Global Warming

Al, you can't have it both ways.

From Al Gore's Blog

An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New York turned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciate the question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

But in March of 2002, a debate calling for a climate change strategy because global warming was making the earth hotter and producing less snowfall each year.

Republicans have disbanded the committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming

The 112th Congress will be cleaning house in the next several months. First order on their agenda is getting rid of unproductive committees and ousting Obama's czars.

(The Guardian) The kick-off of the 112th Congress on Wednesday also marked the end of an era in the House – the demise of a committee devoted solely to climate change and energy issues. The Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, created by Nancy Pelosi in 2006, has been shuttered under the new Republican leadership.

There had been some talk among Republicans of keeping the committee alive so it could be used to mock climate change and harass scientists, but leadership put the kibosh on that idea. It went out on a high note, and on its own terms, so I suppose we can take some small comfort in that.

Its not Global Warming, We are Entering in a Mini Ice Age

As a young boy, my seventh-grade science teacher said that we are entering in a global cooling phase. It is that statement that stuck in my mind. It wasn't until the year 2000, global warming became a hot issue. Without conclusive evidence, society became engross to kill carbon dioxide emission. Currently, the narrative from the global warming mongers are saying as global temperatures have warmed (due to CO2) and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. That statement is true, but the global warming idiots forgot a very important fact. Greenhouse gases make up no more than 2 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Of that 2 percent, 3.64% of the Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Humans are responsible for about one-quarter of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect. Therefore, if carbon dioxide was the cause of global warming, it can be safe to assume that the cause was of natural source of CO2 (degradation of organic materials) than man-made.

(Investor Business Daily) Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?

A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Got that? No matter what the weather, it's all due to warming. This isn't science; it's a kind of faith. Scientists go along and even stifle dissent because, frankly, hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants are at stake. But for the believers, global warming is the god that failed.

This is what global warming is really about — wealth redistribution by people whose beliefs are basically socialist. It has little or nothing to do with climate. If it did, we might pay more attention to Piers Corbyn, a little-known British meteorologist and astrophysicist who has a knack for correctly predicting weather changes. Indeed, as London's Mayor Boris Johnson recently noted, "He seems to get it right about 85% of the time."

How does he do it? Unlike the U.N. and government forecasters, Corbyn pays close attention to solar cycles that, as it turns out, correlate very closely to changes in climate. Not only are we not headed for global warming, Corbyn says, we may be entering a "mini ice age" similar to the one that took place from 1450 A.D. to 1850 A.D.

What happened to the WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, The truth is global warming has halted

Liberals are still in denial that Global Warming is a hoax.

(Mail Online) A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 19611990 average.

World temperatures, it went on, were locked inexorably into an everrising trend: 'Our experimental decadal forecast confirms previous indications that about half the years 2010-2019 will be warmer than the warmest year observed so far - 1998.'

Met Office officials openly boasted that they hoped by their statements to persuade the Copenhagen gathering to impose new and stringent carbon emission limits - an ambition that was not to be met.

Even Phil Jones, the CRU director at the centre of last year's 'Climategate' leaked email scandal, was forced to admit in a littlenoticed BBC online interview that there has been 'no statistically significant warming' since 1995.

One of those leaked emails, dated October 2009, was from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the US government's National Centre for Atmospheric Research and the IPCC's lead author on climate change science in its monumental 2002 and 2007 reports.

He wrote: 'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't.