Did you hear President Obama mention "carbon foot print"? He will not declare war on radical Muslim terrorists, but he will declare war on things like coal. You must know that Obama is a Judas who wants to weaken and destroy the USA. Every action that he has taken, since he was elected by the stupidest voters in the world, has been to weaken and destroy the USA. If you can't connect the dots on that one, you are as stupid as those who voted for Obama "twice". It is interesting that we always only look at a problem from one direction. That is the point of this blog.
What if you owned a dam and a lake on some river and water was flowing into your lake with the possibility of over flowing your lake and washing out your dam? Isn't that what we have going on with global warming? Rather than water flowing into your lake, we have carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere. Same type of thing, right? Now, in the case of your dam, what are you going to do? If you were Obama, he would call out the army to stop the rain in the hills around your lake and thus stop the flow of water into your lake. That is about it isn't t? I know that most of you have gone to school beyond the 4th grade and know that rather than stopping the rain, you could let more water out of the lake and thus prevent an over flow. I know that most of you are smart enough to do that. Now, back to Obama and his war on coal and carbon in general.
Think about this one, what takes carbon out of the atmosphere? Trick question! Tree and plants! You are smarter than you think. Just like letting water out of the dam, if we had more trees, they could take the carbon out of the atmosphere. Starting to see the light? We all know that more people on earth is the problem. They produce or free up carbon and don't take any out. If we required all people to clean up their own carbon mess, it would work something like this. For every kid you created in the back seat of your car, you should be required to have planted and cared for 5 trees for the life of each of those children. This way, you would have "no" carbon foot print. If you can't afford to fund 5 trees for 80 or 100 years for each kid, then don't have kids. Wouldn't that solve the global warming problem?
Here is another point. Have you ever been in a real coal mine in West Virginia or an open pit coal mine in Texas, Indiana, Oklahoma or Wyoming? We have billions of tons of coal in the USA all over the place. Did you ever think about where it all came from? I know for a fact that the simple thought never entered your mind. It came out of the atmosphere. Plants like trees took in the carbon dioxide and turned it into wood that eventually ended up as coal. Think about all the coal and oil that started out as plants that took their carbon out of the atmosphere? You have to agree that there must have been a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long ago. If that is the case, why don't we hear people like Obama explaining that most of that "old" deadly carbon is still stored in the ground as coal and oil? He is a con man, that's why. I already explained that Obama is a Judas.
The bottom line is that the Earth does not need more people. If that is the case, why do we give a tax write off for each child? That is stupid! On the other hand, why do we give tax credits to put wind mills up in your yard that cost more than the electricity that they claim to save?
Here is the action that I think we should take:
(1) Reduce the population, don't encourage it
(2) Encourage investment in things that take carbon out of the atmosphere
(3) Use the cheapest energy even if it is part carbon (coal, natural gas and oil)
This is real easy and in the end does not cost much. Stronger zippers on men's pants would be a first step.
PS---Here is another case of misguided intentions. I saw on TV that some one figured out a way to grow alge and harvest it for fuel. I am sure that it will put more carbon into the air than it takes out. If the objective is to "balance" the carbon that goes "in" and "out", why don't they propose something more logical? Burn coal and grow a tree! When you harvest the tree, build a house with it or make paper and bury the old news paper in a land fill. Burning coal is a lot better than burning garbage!!!
PS---Is it better to burn "dung" or "coal"? It is better to burn coal and put the dung back onto the farm fields where it can aid in growing more plants to take more carbon out of the air. Over time good farming practices "add" organic material (carbon) to the soil. That means that "net" farmers take more carbon out of the air than they put in. It is when more people eat the food and breath out carbon dioxide and poop that the carbon gets back into the air. Bottom line is that we need fewer "poopers".
PS---Did you hear Obama's recent speech on climate change where he was shooting off his mouth that, "climate change has come early for Alaska"? He said that, "many native villages are being flooded by melting ice and rising sea levels". If that is the case, don't you wonder why the sea level has not risen in Long Beach, California? Even a 4th grader knows that the oceans are all connected.
What if you owned a dam and a lake on some river and water was flowing into your lake with the possibility of over flowing your lake and washing out your dam? Isn't that what we have going on with global warming? Rather than water flowing into your lake, we have carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere. Same type of thing, right? Now, in the case of your dam, what are you going to do? If you were Obama, he would call out the army to stop the rain in the hills around your lake and thus stop the flow of water into your lake. That is about it isn't t? I know that most of you have gone to school beyond the 4th grade and know that rather than stopping the rain, you could let more water out of the lake and thus prevent an over flow. I know that most of you are smart enough to do that. Now, back to Obama and his war on coal and carbon in general.
Think about this one, what takes carbon out of the atmosphere? Trick question! Tree and plants! You are smarter than you think. Just like letting water out of the dam, if we had more trees, they could take the carbon out of the atmosphere. Starting to see the light? We all know that more people on earth is the problem. They produce or free up carbon and don't take any out. If we required all people to clean up their own carbon mess, it would work something like this. For every kid you created in the back seat of your car, you should be required to have planted and cared for 5 trees for the life of each of those children. This way, you would have "no" carbon foot print. If you can't afford to fund 5 trees for 80 or 100 years for each kid, then don't have kids. Wouldn't that solve the global warming problem?
Here is another point. Have you ever been in a real coal mine in West Virginia or an open pit coal mine in Texas, Indiana, Oklahoma or Wyoming? We have billions of tons of coal in the USA all over the place. Did you ever think about where it all came from? I know for a fact that the simple thought never entered your mind. It came out of the atmosphere. Plants like trees took in the carbon dioxide and turned it into wood that eventually ended up as coal. Think about all the coal and oil that started out as plants that took their carbon out of the atmosphere? You have to agree that there must have been a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere long ago. If that is the case, why don't we hear people like Obama explaining that most of that "old" deadly carbon is still stored in the ground as coal and oil? He is a con man, that's why. I already explained that Obama is a Judas.
The bottom line is that the Earth does not need more people. If that is the case, why do we give a tax write off for each child? That is stupid! On the other hand, why do we give tax credits to put wind mills up in your yard that cost more than the electricity that they claim to save?
Here is the action that I think we should take:
(1) Reduce the population, don't encourage it
(2) Encourage investment in things that take carbon out of the atmosphere
(3) Use the cheapest energy even if it is part carbon (coal, natural gas and oil)
This is real easy and in the end does not cost much. Stronger zippers on men's pants would be a first step.
PS---Here is another case of misguided intentions. I saw on TV that some one figured out a way to grow alge and harvest it for fuel. I am sure that it will put more carbon into the air than it takes out. If the objective is to "balance" the carbon that goes "in" and "out", why don't they propose something more logical? Burn coal and grow a tree! When you harvest the tree, build a house with it or make paper and bury the old news paper in a land fill. Burning coal is a lot better than burning garbage!!!
PS---Is it better to burn "dung" or "coal"? It is better to burn coal and put the dung back onto the farm fields where it can aid in growing more plants to take more carbon out of the air. Over time good farming practices "add" organic material (carbon) to the soil. That means that "net" farmers take more carbon out of the air than they put in. It is when more people eat the food and breath out carbon dioxide and poop that the carbon gets back into the air. Bottom line is that we need fewer "poopers".
PS---Did you hear Obama's recent speech on climate change where he was shooting off his mouth that, "climate change has come early for Alaska"? He said that, "many native villages are being flooded by melting ice and rising sea levels". If that is the case, don't you wonder why the sea level has not risen in Long Beach, California? Even a 4th grader knows that the oceans are all connected.
