Why is there even a law mandating bike helmets?  Can’t I choose whether or not to wear a helmet, my decision does not affect anyone else but myself.  And what right does the city have to mandate how my private life should be run?

I still do no believe that global warming (even if it is true) is caused by carbon emmissions.  If you compare the data of graphs of carbon emmissions compared global temperatures in the twentieth century you will barely see any correlation, however if you compare the graphs of solar activity to global temperatures you will see a huge correlation.  And the name of global warming is a misnomer when in fact the world has been on an eight-year ‘cooling’ streak. There is even basic biology that combats the idea of global warming, if carbon dioxide gasses are running rampant in our atmosphere than there should be an explosion of plant growth as surplus carbon dioxide  sustains a larger plant population. I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that the debate over the global warming issue is still going on (since the 1970’s), before we jump on taxing carbon in an effort to save the world we need proof and not speculation that it is going to work. 

The book sounded great for a moment and I quickly began researching it to see if it was worth its salt, but it quickly lost credibility as I noticed that Al Gore helped write the book.  I’m not kidding when I say that Al Gore’s famous movie is over 70% bullcrap and 30% fear-mongering (there is statistical evidence from the United Nations to back up the former and my my personal prejudice to back up the latter).
With that being said, on a scale of 1 to 10 how liberal is this book in terms of  the atmosphere created of we the people VS. the ”evil” carbon companies.  Or do I have it wrong and this book simply lays out common steps that average people can take everyday using common sense and technology to solve our problems rather than using politics to achieve re-igniting the Kyoto Protocol and the Fairness Doctrine debates.

As much as I love GOOD for its fantastic non-bias information on important public issues, they completely dropped the ball on this one. According to a meterological study the rise in temperature for the world is not directly in affect to CO2 emmissions but rather by the solar activity of the sun.  You can find the study here ->>  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdfAnd I am also disappointed in GOOD because it used Lbs. to scale the impact of CO2 contributions rather than percentages.  Based on the above picture GOOD would have you believe that by changing a few light bulbs or by taking public transportation a huge dent could be made against CO2 emmissions, however this could not be any further from the real truth.  Take the country of Australia for example, they recently passed a bill that would completely replace all incandescent bulbs on the country with energy effecient flourescent bulbs by 2010.  The Australian government lauded that it would save an estimated 800,000 metric tons CO2 per year, where in reality that amount is actually equal to only 0.21 percent of Australia’s emmissions.  To put it another way, an entire continent being forced to use flourescent lightbulbs will reduce world emmissions by (dun dun dun) 0.003 PERECENTAnd to put the final nail in the coffin for GOOD’s presentation, it has failed to show one the largest contributions to greenhouse emissions… livestock.  Livestock is responsible for more greenhouse gas emmissions that the world’s entire transportation sector.   According to a UN report on climate change in November 2006 livestock and the industry revolving around it are responsible for 18 of all greenhouse gases when measured in CO2 equivalent. 
Based on the above information, instead of taking public transportation and changing your light bulbs, the best way for all of us to stop global climate change would for us to become meatatarians (you’re either with or your against us vegans and vegetarians).

Why is there even a law mandating bike helmets?  Can’t I choose whether or not to wear a helmet, my decision does not affect anyone else but myself.  And what right does the city have to mandate how my private life should be run?

I still do no believe that global warming (even if it is true) is caused by carbon emmissions.  If you compare the data of graphs of carbon emmissions compared global temperatures in the twentieth century you will barely see any correlation, however if you compare the graphs of solar activity to global temperatures you will see a huge correlation.  And the name of global warming is a misnomer when in fact the world has been on an eight-year ‘cooling’ streak. There is even basic biology that combats the idea of global warming, if carbon dioxide gasses are running rampant in our atmosphere than there should be an explosion of plant growth as surplus carbon dioxide  sustains a larger plant population. I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that the debate over the global warming issue is still going on (since the 1970’s), before we jump on taxing carbon in an effort to save the world we need proof and not speculation that it is going to work. 

The book sounded great for a moment and I quickly began researching it to see if it was worth its salt, but it quickly lost credibility as I noticed that Al Gore helped write the book.  I’m not kidding when I say that Al Gore’s famous movie is over 70% bullcrap and 30% fear-mongering (there is statistical evidence from the United Nations to back up the former and my my personal prejudice to back up the latter).
With that being said, on a scale of 1 to 10 how liberal is this book in terms of  the atmosphere created of we the people VS. the ”evil” carbon companies.  Or do I have it wrong and this book simply lays out common steps that average people can take everyday using common sense and technology to solve our problems rather than using politics to achieve re-igniting the Kyoto Protocol and the Fairness Doctrine debates.

As much as I love GOOD for its fantastic non-bias information on important public issues, they completely dropped the ball on this one. According to a meterological study the rise in temperature for the world is not directly in affect to CO2 emmissions but rather by the solar activity of the sun.  You can find the study here ->>  http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdfAnd I am also disappointed in GOOD because it used Lbs. to scale the impact of CO2 contributions rather than percentages.  Based on the above picture GOOD would have you believe that by changing a few light bulbs or by taking public transportation a huge dent could be made against CO2 emmissions, however this could not be any further from the real truth.  Take the country of Australia for example, they recently passed a bill that would completely replace all incandescent bulbs on the country with energy effecient flourescent bulbs by 2010.  The Australian government lauded that it would save an estimated 800,000 metric tons CO2 per year, where in reality that amount is actually equal to only 0.21 percent of Australia’s emmissions.  To put it another way, an entire continent being forced to use flourescent lightbulbs will reduce world emmissions by (dun dun dun) 0.003 PERECENTAnd to put the final nail in the coffin for GOOD’s presentation, it has failed to show one the largest contributions to greenhouse emissions… livestock.  Livestock is responsible for more greenhouse gas emmissions that the world’s entire transportation sector.   According to a UN report on climate change in November 2006 livestock and the industry revolving around it are responsible for 18 of all greenhouse gases when measured in CO2 equivalent. 
Based on the above information, instead of taking public transportation and changing your light bulbs, the best way for all of us to stop global climate change would for us to become meatatarians (you’re either with or your against us vegans and vegetarians).