Pick a Number--Any Number

That's what the climate change alarmist/democrat/socialist/pinko-commie-egg-sucking-dogs liberals, as Ken Hamblin used to call them, do. In the first place, I agree with Rush, when he talks about the arrogance of these one-worlders who think man can actually control the weather and atmosphere.

If that's the case, why do we have cold days in June, and hot days in December? Why can't we grow crops in the Mohave Desert, or the Arctic? Why do we have floods, and we have droughts? Hmm?

Besides, if man had any control over the earth and it's comings and goings, it would spin out of control into oblivion. Because just as we can't agree on abortion, healthscare, climate control, war, peace, immigration,border control...ad infinitum, we wouldn't be able to agree on when the sun should rise, and whether it should rise in the east or west. And what about the tides? Who would control them, and what minor roll would the moon be allowed?

In an article from The Heritage Foundation, they said this:

Many global warming activists believe 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the upper limit before we reach climate disaster. For reference, we are currently at 390ppm and we were at 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. Bill McKibben, founder of the group 350.org says, “It’s the most important number in the world. It’s the line between habitability on this planet and a really, really desolate future.”

The left has always picked a number and thrown it out, with the unlimited backing of the MSM. Today, for instance, I heard about the ridiculous claim by some so called scientist that within five years, there will be no ice on the polar caps during the summer. This is something that that monumental intellect, non other than Algore, himself was quoting at Copenhagen yesterday. BTW, I must say that they were quoting odds of 75% probability. I guarantee the drive-byes will run with that like it's gospel.

In that Heritage Foundation article, they quoted some scientist, Nate Lewis from Cal Tech. He ran his own numbers, where he gets them is anyone's guess, but this is something he comes up with:

• Are you a fan of nuclear? To get 10 terawatts, less than half of what we’ll need in 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d have to build 10,000 reactors, or one every other day starting now.
• Do you like wind? If you use every single breeze that blows on land, you’ll get 10 or 15 terawatts. Since it’s impossible to capture all the wind, a more realistic number is 3 terawatts, or 1 million state-of-the art turbines, and even that requires storing the energy—something we don’t know how to do—for when the wind doesn’t blow.
• Solar? To get 10 terawatts by 2050, Lewis calculates, we’d need to cover 1 million roofs with panels every day from now until then.

It's a great article. I highly recommend heading over to Heritage and reading it. Just follow this link:http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/14/350-the-most-important-number-in-the-world-for-global-warming/

Keep your guard up, and keep fighting. We haven't lost yet.