Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2008 – 10:28 ET

 

A remarkable thing happened Thursday: a press member wanted to ask Nobel Laureate Al Gore about the growing international food crisis and how it relates to ethanol and global warming hysteria.

Not surprisingly, the man who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate fourteen years ago mandating the use of ethanol wasn’t available, and a spokesman for his hysteria-driving Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment.

Isn’t that convenient?

Regardless, the good news is that press outlets continue to recognize this unholy connection, and that someone, even at the conservative New York Sun, would deign to report it (emphasis added throughout):

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels. […]

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Frankly, I believe this is conservative, for I doubt it includes the speculation associated with biofuels. For instance, how much of the current daily futures volume is specifically associated with investor purchases due to ethanol? Maybe more important, how much might such speculative purchases decline if ethanol was taken out of the equation?

But I digress:

It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”

Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.

Isn’t that dandy? The person that cast the deciding vote in 1994 beginning ethanol mandates, who has been traveling the world advocating biofuels, and even admitted in March 2008 to having investments in biofuel companies, wasn’t available to discuss the food crisis and its relationship to ethanol.

Maybe this is why Gore isn’t allowing press members into his speeches.

Regardless, the pressure is mounting, and as more media outlets begin seeking his opinion concerning this matter, it seems a metaphysical certitude he won’t be able to hide forever.

Stay tuned.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

http://pointriderrepublican.typepad.com/pr/2008/04/gores-greendom.html

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

As Al Green Gore stands and stares at his salt water tropical fish tanks, people around the world are STARVING because it has become so expensive to send them food.

Al Green thumb is out of touch with everyday reality:

 

“Governments that were quick to switch to biofuels are just as quickly having to think again.

Biofuels were promoted as an effective weapon in the battle against climate change, but some blame the increased demand for them for a world crisis in the cost of food.

Earlier this month a doubling in the price of rice caused riots in Egypt and Haiti, and the World Bank has warned the increased cost of food will push 100-million people deeper into poverty.

But aid groups say that although biofuels have played a part, they’re not the only reason that food prices continue to rise.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: It now costs $800-million more to feed the world’s poorest than it did a year ago.

The head of the United Nations World Food Program Josette Sheeran says the rising cost of food is a silent tsunami.

JOSETTE SHEERAN: The price of rice for example has risen from March 3rd at $460 a metric tonne to over $1000 a metric tonne just last week. So in seven weeks we’ve seen a doubling of prices for us to purchase food to fill this cup. This is really a crisis for the world’s most vulnerable.

PAULA KRUGER: The doubling of the price of rice prompted protests and violent riots in Haiti and Egypt earlier this month. There has also been food riots in several other African countries along with Indonesia and the Philippines. The violence is expected to spread as the crisis continues.

But what is causing the massive surge in food prices? New laws have just come into effect in the UK requiring that all petrol and diesel be at least two-and-a-half per cent biofuel. That target is expected to increase to five per cent by 2010 as part of efforts to make transport fuels more environmentally friendly.”

Effects Of Global Food Crisis Being Felt In GTA With High Prices

Biofuels contributing to food crisis

High Food Prices: A Silent Tsunami, Affecting Every Continent

Rising food prices a global threat

Going green on an UNPROVEN THEORY of global warming is GUTTING THE POOR.

Which threat is immediate and killing people as I write?

Starvation because of the price of biofuels or global warming?

People are DYING daily because of the price of wheat, rice and other assorted grains as Al Gore and global warming cult followers stare at tropical fish and push a THEORY.

Global warming is a THEORY, NOT FACT.

It has been discredited by a number of scientists and no one can hear them over the global warming CULT screams.

And people are STARVING TO DEATH over a Global Gorey Theory.

A global warming movie showing a detaching iceberg was a STYROFOAM FAKE.

People starving TODAY is a FACT.

A top weather scientist in my state was demoted by our democratic governor for debunking global green geeks….

Now go figure.

An evolutionist professor from Antelope Valley College on Wednesday conceded the strong probability of intelligent design in life’s earliest forms

LANCASTER – An evolutionist professor from Antelope Valley College on Wednesday conceded the strong probability of intelligent design in life’s earliest forms.

The announcement came at the end of a 3-hour presentation at the Lancaster Performing Arts Center by scientists from Reasons to Believe, a Christian ministry that creates and tests scientific models based on the Bible.

Matthew Rainbow, a biology professor with a Ph.D. in molecular biology and biochemistry, told a crowd of several hundred that he had been persuaded to change his view of the origins of life about six months earlier, after reading books by the evening’s two Reasons to Believe presenters, Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana.

Rainbow helped organize Wednesday’s event in connection with a local Reasons to Believe chapter.

The professor described himself as a “flag-waving and card-carrying evolutionist and, about half the time, an atheist,” but said evolutionary theory has not explained how the first living cells came into being.

“I now believe with about 60% certainty that the first living things were intelligently designed by a creator,” Rainbow said.

“For 50 years, the best scientific minds on the planet have tried to show where the first cells came from and we failed miserably to demonstrate that. … If you try hard for 50 years and fail to show something, that’s pretty strong evidence – the old theory of a prebiotic soup now appears to be kaput.”

He referred to what many would know as the “primordial ooze,” which some evolutionary theorists described as the birthplace of the earliest and simplest forms of life, leading to the evolution of all other forms.

Ross and Rana, and now Rainbow, contend that no such “soup” existed, primarily because no chemical evidence of it can be found, even in the oldest rock formations that bear evidence of early organic life.

“If life originates from a prebiotic soup, it should leave behind a chemical signature,” Rana said. “At this juncture, nobody has any evidence of a prebiotic soup whatsoever.”

Rainbow said his change of heart has limitations.

“About 40% of me still has guarded hope that we will still be able to show how life evolved spontaneously according to the laws of normal physics and chemistry,” he said. “I still believe, even though God appears to have specially created the first life, I still believe that I can powerfully defend … that pretty much all the rest of life still evolved.”

This limited shift came in the context of Ross’ and Rana’s broader contention that the existence of a creator, or “transcendent agent,” can be tested to high levels of probability using science.

After reading their work, Rainbow said he concluded that “the laws of physics and chemistry can certainly be interpreted as powerful evidence for intelligent design.”

Rana and Ross spent three hours Wednesday night summarizing the research their group has done since 1986.

Ross, the founder of Reasons to Believe, laid out the cosmic groundwork of his organization’s “Creation model.”

He has a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto.

The creation model stands apart from the “intelligent design” movement, which rightly has been assessed to be nonscientific, he said.

“Intelligent design is not testable because the intelligent design movement does not offer, as yet, any model to explain the origin of history and the details of its life,” Ross said. “We have a model. We had a model even before the intelligent design movement existed.”

Ross stressed that his work never would prove God’s existence with 100% certainty.

“Science is incapable of offering absolute proof of anything. Science cannot offer absolute proof of the existence of any entity,” he said, but it can offer “measurable probability.”

“When I married my wife 31 years ago, I told her I was marrying her without proof of her existence. All I had was a high probability,” he said.

“I’ve been married to her for 31 years and performed a variety of experiments. I can tell you today that the probability is higher.”

Scientific method even can be applied to the existence of an entity that transcends time and space, he said, and specifically to the God of the Bible bearing the traits described in the Old and New Testaments.

“The Bible contains about 10 times as much content about the origin and structure of the universe than all the rest of the holy books of the world’s major religions combined,” Ross said. (He knows because he checked, he said.) “Because it is so specific, this gives an opportunity to put it scientifically to the test.”

A creation model derived from the Bible would include a universe that emerges from a “singularity beginning” – that is, a moment when space, time, matter and energy come into being where none previously existed.

“What is unique about the Bible (among creation stories) is that it speaks about God acting independent of space and time,” Ross said.

That universe then would be expected to continually expand and cool over time, he said, adding that all three of those elements describe the universe as observed and explained by modern scientific exploration.

“For thousands of years the Bible was the only text out there speaking of a continually expanding universe,” he said.

Based on astronomical observation and calculations employing Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity, such a universe has existed for roughly 14 billion years, Ross said.

His model predicts that future scientific study will produce the following results:

Evidence for a single beginning will increase.

Evidence that time is finite will increase.

Evidence that general relativity reliably describes cosmic dynamics will grow.

Space-time theorems will strengthen.

The case for a transcendent causal agent will gain strength.

Evidence for other miraculous events will be found.

“That’s what a model is supposed to do, not just explain, but predict,” Ross said.

A subset of his model addresses a concept Ross calls the “fine tuning” of the universe. Simply put, it says that the conditions necessary for supporting human life are so precise that the mathematical probability that any one of them would occur randomly becomes effectively nil.

Such variables affect the sun, the moon, Jupiter, the Milky Way, the Earth, the galaxy neighborhood and dozens of other elements of our planet’s situation, he said, concluding that when they are combined, such an improbable occurrence only can be explained by the act of a creator.

His model predicts that if a creator exists, the evidence for such fine-tuning will increase. In the past 20 years, Ross said, that is the trend science has produced.

When Ross finished, Rainbow asked him a few questions. His main question was not scientific but theological.

“I don’t really disagree with a single thing that you said, Dr. Ross,” he said. But, “one of your central theses of your book is that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures reveal an astonishing amount about what we could call technical information about the cosmos. … It seems to me that if God exists and he’s really as interested in revealing technical information as you assert, then he could have done a lot better job in the Bible – there are so many things that God could have said to make it simpler to understand. How come he didn’t?”

Rana said the Bible was limited in its scope in order to reach a broad audience with an efficient message.

“This is a book that is communicating to hundreds of generations,” Rana said. “The Bible only uses vocabulary that can communicate to whatever generation is reading it. That would limit the degree of scientific content,” especially if God meant it to fit in one volume.

Rana, vice president for science apologetics for Reasons to Believe, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Ohio University, applied a similar process to the life sciences – mainly biology and anthropology.

The creation model for the beginning of life and the history of life begins with skepticism about evolution from one species to another, he said.

That does not preclude adaptation within a species through natural of sexual selection or a degradation of a species through the loss of a limb or other attribute not essential for life.

Basically, he said, his organization is skeptical of the idea that evolution has the power to create. Its biblical study produced theories about the beginnings of life – as lauded by Rainbow – as well as the history of animals and the emergence of man.

The latter offers an interesting example of the success they claim.

Rana’s model for the emergence of human beings predicts that they would be traceable to a single man and woman in a single location in the Middle East between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. Also, it predicts that other hominids, such as Neanderthals, would be found to be distinct enough to preclude their becoming modern humans.

Rana offered several scientific studies in genetic diversity that have emerged in the last few years which track human development to a single man and woman in a certain area of East Africa between 50,0000 and 200,000 years ago.

The same pattern was discovered when scientists tracked mitochondrial DNA patterns through the maternal line, Y chromosome patterns through the paternal line and the dispersion of human parasites, Rana said.

In reference to hominids, he said genetic research has allowed a number of samples to be mapped and compared with the human genome – including Neanderthals and the famous “Lucy.” All were found to diverge too far from human DNA to allow the conclusion that one led to the other.

“It’s interesting that these major figures that are part of the human evolutionary drama and are portrayed in as such in biological textbooks have been rendered as side branches,” he said.

Rana’s model also predicted divisions in the behavior of humans and early hominids. He cited descriptions of such a break in the work of anthropological archaeologists, including “explosive advances” in tools, manufacturing processes, language, social structures, art, music and religion.

“It’s an explosive appearance of sophisticated behavior that I think reflects the image of God and is the type of pattern that you would expect if in fact humans are created in the image of God,” Rana said. “Earlier hominids did not display these elements.”

tgee@avpress.com

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

Big science is starting to agree that ethanol production is hurting, not helping the environment. According to an article in today’s Washington Post by Steven Mufson entitled “Global Food Crisis; Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars  ”

 

“Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol “exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits.” By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.” [Emphasis added]

SCIENCE MAGAZINE is the official publication of the American Association of the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/, a peer-reviewed academic journal with very high scientific prestige equivalent to NATURE, so Al Gore cannot claim it is under the control of the evil oil industry.
 

In addition the Post article reports:

 

“Development specialists have also joined the fray. “While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day,” World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said in a recent speech.”

 

Al Gore should stop starving the worlds’ poor with government-induced famines in the name of his fears for possible climate disaster 100 year hence.  The worlds’ poor are suffering at his hands today.  NO STARVATION FOR FUEL!