New Fuel Source?

[thorspapa]

ENERGY COMPROMISE CALLS FOR BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS
Alternate "Green Fuel" Non-Renewable, But Won't Require Drilling

Washington, D.C. — In a compromise that calls for the left and right to work together, energy company executives today proposed burning both fossil fuels and environmental activists, who officials estimated may be able to provide 2 percent of the country's energy output "for a couple of hours, anyway."


"It doesn't sound like much, but I think the environmental lobby would agree that every little bit helps," said Giles Fermat, president of the National Energy Producers Association, which will voluntarily foot the bill to refit plants.

Environmentalists, however, were split over their use as so-called "green fuel." In California, Sierra Club spokesman Martin Gallagher blasted the proposal as "another short-term fix" that would do little to decrease the nation's energy dependence. Like oil, he insisted, people who closely follow environmental issues are a non-renewable source of energy.

"The burning of environmental activists will provide only a brief respite, and may eventually discourage others from becoming environmental activists," said Gallagher. "Once we've been depleted, what then?"

"Then we'll drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," replied Fermat.

"Over my dead body!" countered Gallagher. "Oh... right."

At an emergency meeting of Greenpeace, meanwhile, officers conceded the plan would encourage the group's 2.5 million members to be "really, really active activists — well, for a short while." They also noted the alternative source of energy would not require the harmful drilling or strip-mining used to extract other forms of fuel.

Several members, however, complained that vehicles used to transport activists to power facilities would further pollute the environment. The issue was settled when members voted to walk to the plants.



Copyright © 2002, SatireWire. :p

 

[Jaybird]

It's one solution, but just think of the smell! (ewwww)

 

[Milquetoast]

Actually, I think they should burn all the creeps that denied that global-warming exists or at least the ones that continue to deny it. Even the man who some call president has finally admitted that it exists. :|

 

[jmics19067]

I firmly beleive in George Carlins point of view
That the earth is going to shake off humans like a bad case of the fleas when it decides it is time. How many millions of years are the different ice ages apart? So we are what in the middle of them of course the earth is getting warmer it is supposed to until we head into another ice age that is. And then the next species that evolves is going to find a landfill and yell ureka!!!!!! we found plastic just like we say when we strike oil.

 

[MrLuckey]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/408419.asp

I always like to look back to Mt. Saint Helens. All the top scientists at the time figured it would something like 100 yrs for the obliterated ~200 sq. miles to recover. HA - What seemed like total destruction was turned around in almost no time. Mother earth is pretty darned resilient, and I don't believe for a second that dirtbikes could ever do any permanent damage to her. I really like the part of that article that talks about how important erosion was to the revival of the area!

 

[zio]

Originally posted by Milquetoast
Actually, I think they should burn all the creeps that denied that global-warming exists or at least the ones that continue to deny it. Even the man who some call president has finally admitted that it exists. :|

Hmmmm.... been reading the NY times, Newsweek, & watching Dan Rather much lately?

Here's what the real scientists say. The below report includes a petition, signed by over 15,000 (yes, 15k) scientists. The real kind, not the lawyers working for groups like the Sierra Club. Take some time, do some reading. Find out why "Global Warming" is a myth. Just like "Global Cooling" that they were freaking out about 50 years ago.

http://www.sitewave.net/PPROJECT/s33p36.htm

And another link to several reports on Environmental Fraud:

http://www.pushback.com/environment/fraudulent-environment.html

 

[zio]

Here's an excerpt taken from the pushback.com website:

You’ve seen mention of a petition signed by 2,000 scientists and several Nobel laureates saying that they believe global warming exists and poses a significant danger. But were you told about the Heidelburg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments, which stated just the opposite, and was signed by more than 4,000 scientists and over 70 Nobel laureates? It states that our decisions need to be based on “scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions”. Signatures are still being collected by Michel Salomon, 10, Ave. de Messine, 75008 Paris, France (fax: 33-1-42 98 00 59). Portions of the appeal were printed in the Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1992, p. A12. One interesting article that references the appeal is entitled Challenging America’s Inverted Health Priorities http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0801/toppriority.html , by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, which offers many sane counterpoints to fear-mongering.

 

[zio]

Here's something equally disgusting:

Environmentalists brag about using fraudulent science
According to Dr. Wattenburg, Steven Schneider of Stanford University once bragged that even though one doesn’t have good science to support one’s conclusions, it’s better to scare the masses for the sake of the Earth and lie to them than it is to not say anything. You can read the in DISCOVER magazine, Oct 1989, pg. 47. In part, it reads:
On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

 

[XRpredator]

Y'know Milque, I've been waiting for this global warming stuff to show up, but it seems our winters are getting longer up here :think:

It's all cyclical. Ice ages, warm ages, back and forth. Nut jobs will tell you different (Art Bell, anyone), but we don't really have that much affect. Heck, volcanic eruptions cause more problems in the short time they happen than what we've put into the air since the Industrial Revolution (go ahead and accuse me of talking out of my ass, because I can't back that up, but it's true ;)). We are but a speck, less than a second of time on the clock that is the earth. It'll survive us dirt bikers.

 

[zio]

What I heard XRpredator say
Y'know Milque, volcanic eruptions cause fewer problems in the short time they happen than from me when I've been talking out of my ass

I knew it!

 

[Rooster]

Actually air pllution is more probable from elk's posterior..... :eek: :)

 

[XRpredator]

D'OH! Misquoted again! :eek: :moon:

 

[WoodsRider]

Even the man who some call president has finally admitted that it exists.

Well at least he doesn't have his head stuffed up his rear-end like his former opponent who wants to eliminate the internal combustion engine. There sure wouldn't be much job security for someone in the foreign car parts business then. :eek:

TTR - You hit the nail on the head. I remember seeing all that destruction around St. Helens when I was a teenager. I spent several weeks during the summer of '81 replanting trees. When I returned in the summer of '90 I couldn't believe how much the landscape had changed in nine years. We'll be going back there this summer. Earth is very resillient. Heck, it already survived a major flood. ;)

 

[MoO_coW]

lol woodsrider :)

 

[OffRoadWarrior]

For more reading on the subject of "environmentalists" and junk science / scientific fraud try these links for a series of columns by Diane Alden:

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/1/27/192748
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/2/7/033001
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/2/20/170856
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/3/4/013440
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/3/9/032939

For those of you still laboring under the delusion that the environmentalists have everybody's best interests at heart here's a clue for you: The modern environmental movement has more to do with an anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, central planning, socialist nightmare than it does with saving the environment. Compare "environmentalist" liturature with rigorously researched scientific papers and the writings of Marx and Hegel and see which they most closely resemble.

--------------------------------------------
ORW
Making rude hand gestures at the jack booted thugs of the PC new world order.

 

[Jaybird]

MilquePhart,
Dubya has almost gotten every one of your clubs issues out from under them..(not that there were many, lol).

How does it feel being a duck?

 

[Senior KX Rider]

Thanx KLX 4-smoke or milktoast or whatever your name is, for turning what was supposed to be satire and comedy into political bashing. :moon: You are predictable. When I saw this thread I would have bet money on a reply from you along the lines you went. Why don't you save that crap for somewhere else....huh :uh: