Leading Climate Change Experts Blame Hollywood for Spreading False Fears

[dufas]

Before the government put me out of business, my shop was located in the LA area. I had done a few jobs for a couple of studios.

The hypocrisy that really got to me is the Hollywood drug scene. These well known personalities that do TV and radio spots denouncing drugs when one could, if they could get by the keeper of the door, go to just about any high end restaurant, night club, or watering hole's back room and there would be that same personality doing drugs, and having sex with about any one that could make it past the door.

I have seen many well known people carried out a back door of some of those joints while being protected by their body guards.

If some reporter saw the entertainer being hustled out on the sly and asked about it the next day, there would be 20 people saying that it was impossible, he/she was at a party in the Hollywood hills or somewhere.

The whole industry is a waste land....

[martinw]

Originally Posted by dufas The whole industry is a waste land....

Dear dufas,

The thing that has always puzzled me is the whole concept of Hollywood actors being elevated to a God-like status, and the "stars" feeling the need to ram their nutty "single issue" causes down the throats of us ordinary mortals. I do not wish to know that a tiny bad actor's wife converted from being a Catholic to a "Religion" that will sell you an expensive gizmo that measures pain in tomatoes . Tom feels the need to reach out and tell me. My hand is not mutually extended.

Erh.. actually, fundamentally, actors are fakes. They pretend to be what they are not. Why on Earth do we take their causes seriously?

Best wishes,

Martin

[dhellew2]

Which is right, global warming, global cooling, global more of the same? Play it safe.... the buzz word in now climate change... not global warming anymore. Global warming eneded back in the 90's, all 1.5° of it.

As said by many, it is first about the money, it is always about the money!
No theory, no money!
A conclusive proven theory, no more money! This is why the so called issues never end unless the money runs out.

Second, it is about theory which is (contrary to what some have said) is unproven science.

Computer modeling is theory, and is at the whims of the data analyist, subject to the ideas and theory as seen by the analyist(s). To say the least, there is no proof of global warming, global cooling, other than to say inspite of man, the weather will change anyway.

The big lie exposed, think about it, doomsday sayers said the ice was melting and the ocean leavels would rise 13 feet, didn't happen, why? Simple, as the ice melted one place on earth it was deposited somewhere else. So while one area experienced global warming another experienced global cooling, maintaining the balance.

[fizzissist]

Originally Posted by dufas Before the government put me out of business, my shop was located in the LA area. I had done a few jobs for a couple of studios. The whole industry is a waste land....

I can do more than second that. Look at any location shoot, and count the 5tons, the Whispergens, the honeywagons and mobile dressing rooms. The amount of energy spent just setting up for a shot is mind boggling.

...I'm ignoring the drugs, because they're a renewable resource...they're "green"....

Look at the credits for a movie lately? Not unusual to see 200 names +, all for a product that lasts 105 minutes... I've been on both sides of the camera, built stuff for the studios and spent a fair amount of time on the lots. One thing I can say is that "green" is a word best used to describe profits, not environment.

....Proud former member of IATSE Local #1 (New York? Yeah...long story)

[dhellew2]

You are right about green being the color of money. When it comes to environmental issues it is only about money. Pick any subject, ask a question or two and alas there is nothing green about the topic...

Electric cars, using fuel to electricity loses as much as 40% of the potential energy. This electricity is then used to charge the batteries for the car at a net loss over using fuel directly in the car. Then what about all those batteries (evey 20,000 miles a new set is required) generating more hazardous waste. How much energy does it take to make the batteries compared to how much fuel a regular car would use?

Same goes for wind and solar power. When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, no electricity is generated, so how do you use the power when it is needed? The answer and reason for the extremely high cost of this 'green' power is the massive banks of batteries and more hazardous waste.

Ethanol produced from corn. Corn and ethanol production uses more water and fertilizer for the yield that just about any other crop. The nitrogen fertilizer and the production of the fertilizer gives off more nitrous oxide than the cars would if they were not using ethanol. This is not to say ethanol is a bad thing, only that corn is the wrong crop to use, but then again all those government corn subsidies...... MORE MONEY

[handlewanker]

They gotta whole lotta Ethanol in brazil ya know, the petrol contains 40%, so what's the problem?
Ian.

[dhellew2]

The problem is the crop. Brazil uses sugarcane which take a fraction of the fertilzer and water corn takes, and produces way more sugar than corn. Sugar is the ingredient necessary for ethanol production. Many plants produce lots of sugar, some without hardly any fertilizer.

Corn just happens to be the absolute worst crop to grow for ethanol production. In the United States Studies show that the nitros oxide released into the air from fertilizer production and usage for corn growth exceeds the emissions from all the cars running on gasoline.

The only crop subsidized by the government for ethanol production and the one of the few that will never pay for itself and increases hydrocarbon production is corn... go figure!!

[handlewanker]

Can Sugarcane be grown in USA successfully? I mean what region is best?
Ian.

[dhellew2]

Yes, sugar cane can be grown in the lower half of the United States and at one time there were lots of sugar cane plantations.
Sugar beets can be grown anywhere and also supply lots of sugar, much more per acre than corn, with less water, and less fertilizer.
Here in the USA sugar beets are the current plant of choice for sugar because they produce cheap sugar.
Government subsidy is the driving force behind raising corn...

[fizzissist]

ADM announced 2 years ago that it was shifting 10% of its cropland to corn for ethanol. One reason is that they get ridiculous gov't subsidies for doing it.

What kills me about ethanol is that it takes no less than 2/3 of an acre of corn ethanol to produce a full acre's worth of corn ethanol (correct me if I'm wrong..but that's about 320gal?) That, and you're growing car food instead of growing people/animal food and that just doesn't add up. Unless we can start eating petroleum......

I posted this long ago...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-05.htm

Something I recently stumbled upon is the climate effect of slash and burn conversion of rain forest in the Amazon upon California's weather. Ain't good.
Has to do with the PDO, ENSO, the Nino Twins, and something else I'm not recalling at the moment..Again, it's not CO2, but land use having a powerful effect on climate.

[dhellew2]

Your post supports what I've been saying about corn ethanol, bad news any way you look at it.
The beginning posts were about Hollywood role in the phony environmental issues. No other case was more evident of how far actors and the media will go to further their cause, even when they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.... remember alar and Meryl Streep.. SHE DELIBRITALY LIED, 60 minutes perpetuated the lie costing farmers millions of dollars, and put many small farmers out of business. AND SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT!