Comments on: NBC Pink Slips Are Actually “Green”

By: DECEIVER MADNESS Round 1: Peacock vs. Pollo-vegetarian | Deceiver.com

DECEIVER MADNESS Round 1: Peacock vs. Pollo-vegetarian | Deceiver.com — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:01:15 +0000

[...] personal favorite bit of hypocrisy at the Peacock Network came when NBC laid off The Weather Channel’s entire environmental unit during Green Week. Sure, their sportscasters gave up bottled water and car commutes, but the timing [...]

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:02:49 +0000

April: ” But I never specifically said, let’s use biofuels, did I?”

No. But you did say: “I’m just saying that if the scientists are wrong, we don’t really lose (sure we spend money on crazy eco-friendly shenanigans, but the effects would really just be a cleaner environment anyway, right?)”

Biofuels are the perfect example of “crazy eco-friendly shenanigans” that don’t result in a “cleaner environment”.

You remind me of all the people and politicians who effectively said: “What can go wrong lending money to poor people to buy homes they wouldn’t normally be able to afford?”

By: april

april — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:37:08 +0000

Yeah Bruce, I am aware that biofuels suck. But I never specifically said, let’s use biofuels, did I? I was kind of trying to end my participation in the thread on a good note. Now I know better.

By: MC Mom

MC Mom — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:46:28 +0000

Maybe NBC was just providing material for “30 Rock,” in an effort to boost ratings? Think of what Tina and Alec could do with this news…the mind explodes with possibilities.

By: Pastafarian

Pastafarian — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:23:17 +0000

Polish up your resume? How do you do that exactly. Send in a blank piece of paper, with your name on it? My grandfather was polish. He was the one they wrote all of those jokes about. In fact he invented that submarine. You know the one with the screen door?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:52:33 +0000

April :”sure we spend money on crazy eco-friendly shenanigans, but the effects would really just be a cleaner environment anyway, right?”

Wrong. For example, biofuels:

“Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html

“Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2507851.ece

By: Simon Scowl

Simon Scowl — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:42:54 +0000

Maybe humans as a species will die out…but hey…we’re kind of due for extinction anyway, in my opinion

After you.

By: Minnow

Minnow — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:38:36 +0000

April wrote: “I’m just saying that if the scientists are wrong, we don’t really lose (sure we spend money on crazy eco-friendly shenanigans, but the effects would really just be a cleaner environment anyway, right?)”

Oh Simon, ‘Sneer or Holly…

This deals with that recent frenetic-rant-tip I sent y’all.

I don’t want to steal your thunder if you’re gonna use it.

By: Minnow

Minnow — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:30:42 +0000

Thanks D.

For the rest of that arguement, and a very good read, check out:

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

Lotsa charts, examples, facts, figures, history, science… but all in a highly readable format.

By: D----

D---- — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:52:07 +0000

Minnow – nice reference