What will Laura Ingraham do to burn up carbon if "The End of the Gas Guzzling SUV...

[KEFF]

What will Laura Ingraham do to burn up carbon if "The End of the Gas Guzzling SUV...

...Is Near"*? * YahooNews headline
Conservative Laura Ingraham often says that she wants to "burn up as much carbon as possible" referring to her love of her massive SUV and how much she enjoys "blowing clown cars off the road" on snowy days.

 

[Shamwow]

Hook Al Gore up to her SUV and make him start paying back all the carbon credits he's stolen.

 

[CobBollum]

She'll go back to making fun of people's looks and the way their voice sounds like a particular animal to make her ridiculous observations.

 

[GrowthvseOil]

Reminds me of one of those Jesus Camp (movie) parents that said god put this stuff here to use up.

 

[JackM]

Who cares.

She is hot and a bitch.

She must be insane in bed.

 

[JackM]

Who cares.

She is hot and a bitch.

She must be insane in bed.

 

[Pixie]

take jumbo jets like al gore.

 

[WhiteBear]

Sorry That she annoys you but I believe she is right. Al Gore`s beliefs are now being proved to be a hoax or based on untrue data.

If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a
top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's
governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global
temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports,
collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats,
are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save
the planet."
Pachauri: UN big scored great grants for silly science.
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the
best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts
it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies,"
has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly
wanting.
For example, the IPCC's much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in
2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be
gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false -- yet the IPCC cited it
as proof of man-made global warming.
Then there's the IPCC's earlier prediction in 2007 -- which it claimed to
have "high confidence" in -- that global warming could lead to a 50 percent
reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.
Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent
would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of
millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC
claim was also based on weak evidence.
Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting "high confidence in some
statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague
statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach 'high
confidence' to the statements." The critics note "many such statements that
are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective
or not expressed clearly.
Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal
reported, "Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report
before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges
'were not adequately considered,' the InterAcademy Council's investigation
said, and the projection was included in the final report."
Yet the Himalayan claim wasn't based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on
any data -- but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.
Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times
of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier
story, "[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute,
based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. .
. . and the lion's share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European
taxpayers."
Thus, the Times concluded, "EU taxpayers are funding research into a
scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately
recognize as bogus."
All this comes on top of last year's revelation of the "Climategate"
e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress
criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia -- perhaps the single most important source of data that
supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.
Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that "the debate is
over" -- that the science was "settled." That claim is now in shreds --
though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will
pass some version of the economically ruinous "cap and trade" anti-warming
bill.
What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a
mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright
malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any
scientist who'll produce the "right" results.The warming "scientific" community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a
tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other
jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of
view that threatens to derail their gravy train.
Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government
functionaries. From scientists, it's a travesty.
In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual
scientists' reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science
itself. For that, we will all suffer.

 

[MreTambourineMan]

She'll have to just keep shooting off her mouth, her breath being full of carbon. She has enough to burn off until she dies.