The Ultimate Way To Stop Global Warming

by: Jessica Brown

The Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them.

Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.

Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, the temperature of the planet earth is rising.

Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of world carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. All these have dramatically reduce the lifespan of living earth.

The quest for efficient energy affects every country on the planet. Worldwide there is an increasing interest in developing clean, reliable alternatives to petroleum fuels. Many smart, safe, and clean alternative power sources are available in the market.

People can easily install these clean power sources at their home as alternative energy to help reducing carbon dioxide emission as well as reducing their utilities bill.

In recent year, people has come up with alternative power sources run their cars in order to reduce the spending on petrol gas and of course, reduce the carbon dioxide emission.

Please play your part on global warming. It is easy and at the same time, you could save money!

About The Author

Jessica Brown has successfully installed alternative power source on her car. She never pumps gas ever since. Recently, she sold her 10 year-old car to a company.

Visit: http://www.fczones.com

Source: articlecity

George W. Bush's Convenient Truth

by: Walter M. Brasch

The man whom the people elected in 2000 to be president was in the temporary residence of the man whom the Supreme Court anointed.

President George W. Bush hosted former Vice-President Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and five other Nobel laureates, Nov. 26. This annual handshake photo-op has been an American tradition.

The Nobel committee had cited Gore, Oct. 12 , as “probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted” to reduce global warming. Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN network of about 2,000 scientists, who have shown that global warming isn’t a liberal conspiracy theory.

Believing that it is some kind of liberal conspiracy theory are the fringe right-wing who dominate Talk Radio and Pundit TV. The day after the announcement, Steve Doocy, co-anchor of FOX’s morning show, set the tone for the rabid-dog attacks. He produced a chart of past Nobel Peace Prize laureates, including “that crazy Jimmy Carter,” and claimed the award is nothing more than an “anti-Bush” trophy. On CNN, guest commentator Marlo Lewis, who was identified as a global warming expert, called Gore’s writings manipulative, misleading, and exaggerated. Jay Richards of the National Review claimed the Peace prize is “politicized.” Rush Limbaugh, who had a front group nominate him for the Peace Prize only to learn that the Landmark Legal Foundation had no standing to nominate anyone, was furious that Gore, not he, received the honor. With the microphone of more than 600 radio stations that carry his talk show, Limbaugh claimed his lawyers—the ones at the Landmark group—“are looking into the possibility of filing an objection with the Nobel Committee over the unethical tampering for this award that Al Gore is engaging in.” He claimed, “This is clearly above and beyond the pale. I mean, this might happen in high school class president elections and so forth, but this is shameless.”

Bloggers chattered almost endlessly that not only didn’t Gore deserve the award but also that global warming is a myth. The Nobel committee, blogged William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, “has basically surrendered to hysterics, mass exaggerators, and liars.”

Also doubting global warming, and volumes of scientific evidence, is Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), former chair of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, and recipient of one of the largest cumulative campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Inhofe has claimed that there is “compelling evidence” that global warming not only is a hoax, but that it is “the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people.”

George H.W. Bush, during his failed re-election campaign in 1992, called Gore “Ozone Man,” and claimed the vice-presidential candidate was “so far out in the environmental extreme we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.”

As for the current President Bush, he delegated the “congratulations” to a deputy press secretary. Tony Fratto told the media that Bush is not only “happy for Vice President Gore,” but also happy for the UN scientists who co-shared the award. “Obviously, it’s an important recognition, and we’re sure the vice president is thrilled,” said Fratto, dripping with insincerity.

The Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, one of the nation’s most conservative newspapers, claimed, “The Nobel Peace Prize is worse than a joke. It's a fraud,” and called the prize a “useless medal.” The Wall Street Journal didn’t even mention Gore in its editorial the day the Nobel committee made its announcement, but listed several others who should be considered for the award. The Journal’s unscientific poll of its largely conservative upper middle-class and upper class readers that day revealed that 54 percent didn’t think Al Gore deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. One reader, reflecting the opinion of about 13,000 who disagreed with the award, called it “a joke and it encourages the pursuit of junk science for political gain.” Another reader believed, “The fear being installed from man made global warming is now officially a communist plot to control behavior.” However, among the 11,250 who believed the award was justified was one reader who believed that Al Gore, the former journalist, “did what the National Academy of Sciences could not do—explain the issue in a way that non-scientists can understand.”

For more than three decades, Al Gore has been one of the nation’s strongest voices for the protection of the environment. His first book, Earth in the Balance (1992), had pushed protection of the environment onto the national political agenda; as vice-president, he became the Clinton Administration’s primary advocate to protect the environment and the nation’s natural resources.

During the past seven years, Gore co-founded a major TV cable network (Current TV), which was honored with an Emmy in 2007; wrote the best-selling book about the effects of global warming, An Inconvenient Truth (2006), which was turned into a box office hit that won an Oscar for the best documentary; wrote a best-seller, The Assault on Reason (2007), which received the Quill Award for history/current events/politics; and increased his public appearances to speak out about a number of social issues, including environmental protection.

During the past seven years, George W. Bush spun a nation not only into a war that has destroyed the environment and natural resources of Iraq, but had also begun a war in America that is leading to a destruction of its environment and natural resources. President Bush consistently ignored the evidence of global warming, and suppressed the views of government scientists. He allowed Enron and other energy companies to direct the nation’s energy policy. With a cabinet that includes persons who either were employed by large oil and coal companies or were paid lobbyists against environmental protections, he reduced federal environmental rules. He believes that most of the 250 million acres under jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management should be available so private industry can strip the resources for their own economic gain. He has allowed extensive off-shore drilling, increased the incursion by mining companies, and allowed logging companies to devastate federal lands. He is a leading advocate for allowing oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, claiming it’s for “national security,” but completely oblivious to the reality that such intrusion would severely alter the balance of nature, while yielding little gas and oil for the American people. He has permitted gas-spewing recreational vehicles to tear up federal parks and permanently disturb the wildlife. He reversed himself on a campaign pledge to reduce acceptable levels of carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, and determined that higher levels of arsenic and other toxins in drinking water was acceptable. He reduced the effectiveness of the Environmental Protection Agency, preferring companies to undergo “voluntary compliance,” and eliminated the tax upon the oil and chemical industries that paid for the clean up of SuperFund toxic waste sites. It’s now the taxpayers not polluters who are paying for clean-up operations.

Within months of his first inaugural, Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol that called for global environmental protection by stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. With Australia about to sign the Protocol, 173 nations will have signed the agreement; the U.S. is now the only industrialized nation not to sign.

And now, on a Monday evening after Thanksgiving, President George W. Bush was meeting with five American Nobel laureates, including Al Gore. By all accounts, a 40-minute private meeting with Mr. Gore was “cordial.” The President, after snubbing the former vice-president when the Nobel committee made its announcement, could now be cordial. He had personally called Gore to make sure the former vice-president was available, and was willing to rearrange the White House schedule to accommodate Mr. Gore. At the post-Thanksgiving ceremony, Bush could smile and backslap. After all, George W. Bush was president, and nothing that Al Gore was doing to protect the environment would ever be enough to erase this president’s political ability to alter the environment to benefit corporate interests.

About The Author

Walter M. Brasch is professor of mass communications/journalism at Bloomsburg University. His current book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through Amazon.com. You may reach Dr. Brasch at www.walterbrasch.com.

Source: articlecity

Chuck Norris To The Caricature of Chuck Norris, "Take A Look At Me Now"

Written by: Brian Deines
Joboja Staff Writer

Before his endorsement of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas Governer was a blip on the screen. Now Huckabee leads the polls in Iowa.

A true testament to the idiocy of America is the fact that the most important player in the 2008 Republican Primary is Chuck Norris.

Other than another fist, What's behind the beard?

A look back shows that Norris cut his teeth on the campaign trail stumping for George W. Bush in the pre-Chuck-Norris-joke politics of 2000.


Now, Norris is speaking for Mike Huckabee and getting press in Rueters ;

"Chuck Norris, the martial arts expert and tough-guy actor who is backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said the dust-up [amongst candidates during the youtube debate] helped Huckabee. "You know what I did? I tuned them out," Norris said. "I don't listen to mud-slinging. I want to know what the issues are.""
One issue Norris wants to know about especially is Immigration. In their Campaign Ad and at the blog I heart Huckabee, Norris goes on the war-path against immigrants;
"I have supported enforcing the laws on adults who broke the immigration laws. I believe in a secure border. I believe that we shouldn't have amnesty, and I don't believe in sanctuary cities."

But Chuck also wrote in his book, "Against All Odds";

"If you say to yourself, 'I can't do this or that,' can't becomes the operative word in your mind and results in a self-fulfilling failure. The person who says, 'I can,' has already started on the path toward success."
Which is confusing when you then ask,


Or consider that for such a hard-liner, Chuck Norris was essentially an immigrant himself in the Asian culture of Martial Arts during the 1960's-- which eventually allowed him to be one of the few Westerners to earn an 8th Degree blackbelt.

The fact is Chuck Norris' fame, fortune and, now, political relevance is due entirely to his own success in an immigrant setting. And that contradicts, on a fundamental level, his endorsement of hardline policies against immigrants entering America.

"So take a look at me now, oh there's just an empty space..."
And why would he title his book, "Against All Odds" if it wasn't to quote Phil Collins and that loss-of-self lament by the same song. Maybe behind the tough-guy/no-cry facade he actually hates himself.

GOP You Tube Debate: Gut Reactions

Written by: Brian Deines
Joboja Staff Writer

In the aftermath of the You Tube Republican Debate and you realize the GOP has no electable options.

As a group, they provided enough fluff to fill a flat-bed with Easter Peeps. It makes me slightly queasy just thinking about it.

But as Candidates, no one created separation and each man showed major electability flaws.

I wonder, do they realize they are Republicans? Have they thanked the sitting President for making the entire Republican nomination process a moot point?

Gut Reaction: Fight Fluff with Fluff

Mike Huckabee: (28% in Iowa) His strategy is to never answer a question. Instead humor and personality got him through the day, which was weird because I still think he looks like Nixon. Can jokes (and Chuck Norris) actually earn him the nomination? As a friend said, the Republicans "looked like a bunch of Ass-Clowns", so its possible. But just like when he shed the 100 pounds, Huckabee eventually needs to trim the fat. Otherwise, it is a room full of asses, and he is the class clown.

Rudy Giuliani: (12% in Iowa) It will be a gift if to the Dems if Rudy Giuliani ends up with the nod because the man is a freak. There is so much to attack. His record as Mayor of New York outside one week back in 2001. The murky personal life. How frantic he looked standing between two tall men... the lisp (I mean list) goes on and on.

Mitt Romney: (24% in Iowa) Handsome Morman--If I represent the majority of Americans, that is all I know about Mitt Romney, aka Mormenitty. I guess you can say average Americans "don't know Mitt." Which can be explained by another four-letter word: lazy. Tough luck, at least he looks the part, which was enough for Tom Ridge. (Note to Romney ... everyone hates the Red Sox now too.)

Don't Cry For Me, Iowa City Presidential Precedent

Written by: Brian Deines
Edited by: Olga Z
Joboja Staff Writers

She has caught a lot of flack over "the tip," "the planted question" and John McCain's "how do we beat the bitch?” but Hillary Clinton remains the front-runner in her bid to be the first female president of the United States.

And a historical precedent already exists for Hillary Clinton winning the presidency.

For one, Cristina Kirchner, the first woman president in the Western Hemisphere, was just elected in Argentina by a huge landslide and will replace her husband, Néstor Kirchner, as president.

That power couple has obviously been compared to the Clintons. But Argentina itself has a precedent for power couples, namely Juan and Eva Perón.

The world knows her as Evita. And it was she who shattered notions in the 1940s—not just of women in politics—but also of how politics are played.

Evita—beautiful, glamorous, strong and patriotic—was Jackie Kennedy on roids.

The difference between Eva Perón and Diana is that Evita was more than just the Princess—she also ran as her husband's vice president.

Wildly popular, she would have won but died young of cancer at 33. She has since been mythologized in Argentina and by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

You could compare her myth to the Kennedy myth—that glamour, that power—but Madonna never made a movie about the Kennedy’s and if she did, she wouldn't play Jack.

Madonna has more than Stones

"Bobby Kennedy called him 'the most decent man in the Senate', which is not quite the same thing as being the best candidate for President of the United States. For that, he would need at least one dark kinky streak of Mick Jagger in his soul."

Hunter S. Thompson, on George McGovern in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.

This might have been the first time the now-popular notion that the president must be a rock star was published.

Since then, the celebrity-politician has become not just common (Reagan and Schwarzenegger to name two) and not just effective, but a necessary part of getting elected.

Everyone has their detractors, but the cult of personality (and apotheosis) has surrounded power since Alexander the Great made himself a living god. For women, you point to Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great. But the modern model is Eva Perón.

What Elizabeth I proves, and Evita supports, is this notion provided by Perón biographer, Julie Taylor:

"In the images examined, the three elements consistently linked—femininity, mystical or spirituality power, and revolutionary leadership—display an underlying common theme. Identification with any one of these elements puts a person or a group at the margins of established society and at the limits of institutional authority. Anyone who can identify with all three images lays an overwhelming and echoing claim to dominance through forces that recognize no control in society or its rules. Only a woman can embody all three elements of this power."

For the male candidate, cult of personality is apparently as easy as adjusting your sticky-finger and posing like a rock star; sometimes to great effect (see JFK, Che Guevara).

But if history is any gage, for Hillary there appears to be an opportunity to tap into the wild, powerful, and seemingly uncontrollable forces of nature.

Eva Perón had it. Cristina Kirchner has it. Benazir Bhutto has it.

But does Hillary Clinton have that streak, that Madonna in her?