This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 22, 2008 8:30 AM. The previous post in this blog was Dwight lands a zinger. The next post in this blog is Hopeful spending. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Friday, August 22, 2008

Leaving a footprint

Here are some photos that will be making the rounds -- Earl the Pearl driving what appears to be an SUV.

Comments (31)

Those photos are obviously photoshoped. We all know that Earl drives a super green perpetual motion machine that turns into a bicycle on command.

Is that a personal streetcar?

Gotta ask: Is it a hybrid?

He bought it to move his bicycle to and fro

Earl drives a nice little 6mpg vette too...

He was trying to get out of a small office by PGE park one day when there were tons of school buses blocking the street and driveways. He was having quite a fit telling the bus drivers to all move asking them "do you know who I am?" The rage swelled within him, especially since none of the bus drivers recognized him, and he finally squeezed his 80k dollar car down a sidewalk and split.

What I would have done for a video camera last summer.

Looks like the Toyota Highlander Hybrid, which gets around 25mpg. I'm guessing he paid the extra 15k to get maybe 5mpg more than the non-Hybrid.

Its not even a "real" SUV; its one of those ugly "cross-over" things. I maintain that the "cross" is an unholy union between an SUV and a mini-van; the resulting vehicle has the negative handling characteristics of an SUV along with the "stylish" (sarcasm) image of a mini-van. Its taking two ugly vehicles and having all the bad genes take over. Bleck.

At least a 'vette screams "mid-life crisis;" this monstrosity just whimpers.

My guess is that it's a hybrid...he does have to maintain his public persona, right? As for the corvette: It's "Do as I say, not as I do." The rules us mere common folk are told to live by (bike, walk, mass transit)are different for those who make the rules. HE is important. It's OK for HIM to drive a low MPG sports car. But us lowly errand running, working, child toting, grocery shopping schmucks should find a more environmentally friendly way to do our daily chores.

Nothing new here!

Earl drives a nice little 6mpg vette too...

I dunno about 6mpg, the 2008 Corvette is listed as 16 city/25 highway.

My guess is that if indeed Earl has a Corvette, it's a "recreational vehicle" and not a daily driver that gets used for lowly errand running, working, child toting or grocery shopping.

At least he's buying American.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I think we could get photos showing the anti-car windbags driving automobiles to and from their ivory tower smart growth planning headquarters on a routine basis. They (Liberty, Potter, Burton, Blumenhauer, etc.) want to get us out of our cars so they can have the roads to themselves and fund their favorite developer friends at the sametime. They are so obviously hypocrits and scamers you'd have to be a brain dead yuppie not to realize it.

Otherwise, sure is a nice day in the town of government hand outs.

I once debated Earl on a talk radio show. The topic was transportation. About half way through the evening show he excused himself and left. Apparently the light was out on his bicycle and he didn’t want to ride home in the dark. Glad to see that he now drives a two-light vehicle.

Isn't that a crossover vehicle?

One time Blumenaeur was riding with some folks in a car on I-5 on the eastside. "I wish they could tear this freeway up and make a park out of it," he is said to have commented.

One of the other passengers asked him where the traffic was supposed to go.

"They'll use the surface streets," he responded.

Oh, and Steve... Earl always ducks out early. I saw him do it before he could be taken to task at the American Dream conference here a few years back. I also understand he ducked out of the conference that is mentioned in this thread before he could be taken to task by meteorologist Chuck Wise.

Earl is as slippery as snake oil.

I also understand he ducked out of the conference that is mentioned in this thread before he could be taken to task by meteorologist Chuck Wise.

Or perhaps before he was taken to task by Miss Cleo. Just about as reputable.

More reputable than someone who posts as "Dave J.". I admire the courage of your conviction.

Why should Earl care? He's a multi-millionaire (really.) Plus what does he spend to get re-elected every 2 years - $25?

I was there when this photo was taken, if it was from last night. It was a Toyota but I don't know which model. And I also saw him haul butt out of there, for what it's worth.

We can hope Blum'r ballots are cast 'Return to Sender.' Not for driving ToyoDetroit's late-model low-mpg, (albeit sans chauffeur).
Rather, failing to deliver for chickenshot fear of fictional 'terrification' and fear of butcher Bush, and Blumr's unforgiveably unspeakable self-promotion at the price of the blood of nearly 100 Oregon Guards and plus-a-1000 destroyed lives as casualties. Has Blumr bit the bullet yet, to appear -- driving, walking, or standing at even one single Oregon Guard's funeral ...?

Still, I am sure you all stoutly join as we BOYCOTT Carr Chevrolet and BOYCOTT Timberline Dodge, two of the community's oil-addiction pushers which top-off price tags to PUMP UP SUV tanking deaths fueled by ad money siphoned off to hate-talk radio. Which bought Kremer, today, to broadcast that Blumr et al. (unKremers) are "left moonbats," and further, his hate-talk listeners can DEPEND in themselves "someone(s) taking a pot shot at Obama" soon. Kremer said this because he is OBSESSED with Obama, and DEMANDS that Hillary be positioned as vice-president running mate BEFORE Kremer's incited listening-puppet obeys the broadcast-celebrated "pot shot." ( O'Reilly Attacks Woman Who Connects Dots Between Hate Speech and Violence, by Rory O'Connor, AlterNet, August 20, 2008.)

And Kremer is OBSESSED with Obama since McCain appeared on LIARS Larson broadcast, when LIARS asked, "is global warming caused by humans? and can humans fix it?", and McCain concisely said, "Yes, and yes." Kremer-LIARS have refused to mention McCain's name ever since, and so the only presidential-quality contender remaining for Kremer-LIARS is Obama OBSSESSING.

What makes a "left moon-bat" (such as bojack), according to Kremer-LIARS, is not only in identifying KXL broadcasts of treason for stating any listener can "pot shot" at a candidate for federal office, (with impunity as far as Blumr tacitly lets it go), but more that the "left moon-bats" are those advocating our government's recognition and action to address a climate crisis that the National Academy of Sciences, (and McCain, and Bush the buffoon), plainly states IS upon the Earth and caused by dissolute human profligacy -- Slash Global Warming Gases Now Urge 1,700 Scientists, Economists, Environmental News Service, WASHINGTON, DC, June 2, 2008: Hundreds of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists have issued a first-ever joint statement calling on policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming. -- name-calling all persons "left moon-bats" who notice Kremer-LIARS get percent-rakeoff money from oil-addiction, and whoever demeans their on-air oath that they (both) "know a dirty little secret" which is the N.A.S. using "junk Science." Except, Kremer-LIARS can NOT TELL anyone that exact "dirty little secret" because then they'd have to kill everyone.

But the clues to the mystery "secret" they HAVE aired, tell us it is something about cow burps and farts; and, that scientific truth might "destroy the American economy." (Sounds like the medieval Church's charges against Copernicus's scientific finding that the Earth is round and prelates are busted flat.) However, where an economy's base is murdering and polluting humankind, then it DESERVES to be DESTROYED. Like, when you STOP a meth pusher operating in the neighborhood, surely you 'DESTROY the drug-dealer's economy.' Yeah, darn tootin' stopping human-caused global warming is going to stun rapacious corporate-puke profiteering -- this is a good thing, and pretty well everything concerned-citizen activism hopes for, to stifle Kremer-LIARS. Despite our sharing with them their disgruntlement in cow farts.

Inasmuch as we appreciate the photos, (which Kremer-LIARS attributed to Jim Karlock ... believe it or not), showing Blum's vehicle of exhausting transgressions, yet it appears short of an all-out awful SUV -- the top of it is lower than Blumr's face, which certainly does not stand tall. Kremer-LIARS approve of Blumr in their pollution cadre, but Kremer-LIARS can NOT TOLERATE any person or crisis which is TAXING.

Y'know, Ben the Frank One said, the only two certain things are death and taxes. In Earth's increasingly poisonous atmosphere, airing hate-talk advocacy, Kremer-LIARS fully explain that we CAN AVOID the latter by obeying them to the former.

Hey, I'm one of those anti-car windbags and I own an old Astro van (16 mpg). Probably gonna sell it and get me a 20-year-old F-150, 6 cyl, manual transmission (probably 18 mpg). Thing is, I drive about once every two weeks and when I do, it's to haul a bunch of stuff bigger than a bike rack can handle. It's not necessarily what you drive, but how much.

By the way, if anybody has an F-150 as described, or even better, an old F-100, let me know.

JK: Tenskwatawa, you seem very sure of your position, so I'll bet you can show me where to find a real peer-reviewed paper (a real paper with real data, analysis & conclusions) that proves, that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming.

As you know, if we cannot prove CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming, then there is no logical reason to cut CO2 on the basis of it causing dangerous warming. If it cannot be proven that CO2 causes dangerous warming, then there is no reason to blame man’s CO2 for melting ice caps, drowning polar bears, droughts, floods, hot, cold, feasts and famines.


JK: you are fun, but tiresome.

"A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused."

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618


Well, y'know, how do you 'prove' the world is round, without photos from space, which are unobtainable until you commence in and extend from the (provisional) conclusion the world is round?

You seem sure of your position, too, Jim, as you should; you sound like a bright voice. I am unsure what 'proof' proves out for you. 'Prove' the future is going to happen? I can't do that.

The Nat'l.Acad.of.Sci. usually does it for me; when they 'say so' I can go with that as true, until proven false. But, I am speaking from experience of all the times I tried to slip some junk science past 'em, and they caught me, (NOT). Yet, that group is NOT flippant, and NOT making things up, and NOT got a 'political agenda' -- the procedures and standards are rigorously stated, (e.g., peer review), and some premise the least bit contestable or controversial, has to stand up to scrutiny squared.

Here is a compilation of links, (10 pages?), and maybe something you find in it is going to float your 'belief' boat. Global Warming. A couple months back, a googlefind led me to the British journal 'Nature,' which has put together a FAQ sheet in all the sturm und drang, and in it particularly a treatment of the CO2 cause-and-effect.

Y'know, have a good one.

I just flat fail to understand why anyone resists or opposes accepting solid science in the matter. What, a 'weatherman' is more credible?, when they can't even forecast tomorrow? My BIG bafflement is why anyone would take LIARS Larson's or Rash Lamebrain's word or hunch or guesstimate, against consensus science -- especially when LIARS and Rash ROAR that they DO have a 'political agenda' into which they bend reality to force a fit. All I can figure is that the 'cult audience' believes in some tone of voice, not coherence. I mean, you must have known loudmouths like them in school -- were they the smart science geeks group? Ha. Hardly. They got nuthin'.

Science ain't some 'conspirators' in the back room, cookin' up The Next Thing we can 'fool' everyone with, (like they got nothing else to do). However, politics IS back rooms, and conspirators, hatching schemes, needing to take advantage of you somehow to make up for their shortcoming, being unable to deal level, fair, and straight with you.
Science is, like, working on atom bombs and lasers and electrical circuits and experiments 'to see what's out there' or 'in there' -- and none of it starts in knowing the Endpoint and then forcing and tricking and faking everything to it. Simply that LIARS and Lamebrain don't "get it" as proven, as a probablistic certainty of 99.9999999% chance, so what? It is them failing to grasp it, they are dolts. It is not that there is nothing there to "get."

And always the ones who dismiss or reject the 'latest' science, saying they 'know better,' (Kremer Friday was a laugh riot: "I know a dirty little secret" -- oh, do tell, Rube K., do tell), they are the SAME ones who deny evolution. It all seems to connect to that. It's like they got some religion-soaked, God-is-watching-you, prejudiced locked-tight head, whether it was when they were a kid, I don't know; and they simply plainly cannot connect any other thought. They don't think. Probably they can't. They recite.

I don't know. I planned to restain from a rant, but now I've gone and done it. You know, I have no idea what 'proof' you accept, Jim. You want 'peer review,' you can have 'peer review;' it exists. And the scientific 'peers' also say it is a 99.999999% probability of eventuating. But if you are going to refuse to accept that when the first one says it, as meaning 'inevitable,' you can probably refuse thousands more 'peers' saying the same thing. If you are going to live life in unremitting fear that everyone out just doing their job is trying to 'trick' you, and 'put one over on' you, out to 'get' and 'defeat' you, well, I feel sorry for you.

The ones who are really exploiting you, are the ones always trying to convince you to be afraid, (of everything except them, they're your buddy), and live your life in fear. Commies! Terrorists! Cougars! Wolves! Illegal immigrants! All of them coming to getcha! Except your buddy, there, you can trust him, give him all your money. And your life.

Look, bottom line is that industrial processes since 1830 have affected the planet atmosphere and perturbed the stable- or steady-state climate conditions which had existed for the last 10-15,000 years during which humankind leaped forward, evolutionarily. And those processes are going to be stopped. Either we do it voluntarily, or Mother Nature 'tough loves' us to death and starts over with survivors' seed.

And, yeah, if you've got your life and 'wages' dependent on the ways and societal constructs of industrial processes, you are going to have to stop, change, and adapt. Or die. It isn't really even a 'political' thing, (except for those doing 'political' scams, such as hate-talk broadcasting). For all the rest of us, humankind, it's an 'evolution' thing.

I don't know what to tell you, Jim. I flat don't know. I can tell you one thing, though, the 'Stay Behind In the Old Ways' position is the minority position, the lesser informed, and definitely definitely outnumbered. Especially outnumbered by young folks, under age 30, and they sort of hold the upper hand in matters of the future, don't-cha think?

Last evening, I forgot a point I had planned to rant; and now the morning paper has how bad it is -- read 'em weeping.

A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash, By AMY HARMON, August 23, 2008

ORANGE PARK, Fla. — David Campbell switched on the overhead projector and wrote “Evolution” in the rectangle of light on the screen.

He scanned the faces of the sophomores in his Biology I class. Many of them, he knew ... had been raised to take the biblical creation story as fact. His gaze rested for a moment on ... a football player who attended the 6 a.m. prayer meetings of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes in the school gymnasium. “If I do this wrong,” Mr. Campbell remembers thinking on that humid spring morning, “I’ll lose him.”

In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.

But . . .

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out. With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan.

He started with Mickey Mouse.

On the projector, Mr. Campbell placed slides of the cartoon icon: one at his skinny genesis in 1928; one from his 1940 turn as the impish Sorcerer’s Apprentice; and another of the rounded, ingratiating charmer of Mouse Club fame. “How,” he asked his students, “has Mickey changed?”
“His tail gets shorter,” Bryce volunteered.
“Bigger eyes!” someone else shouted.
“He looks happier,” one girl observed. “And cuter.”

Mr. Campbell smiled. “Mickey evolved,” he said. “And Mickey gets cuter because Walt Disney makes more money that way. That is ‘selection.’ ” Later, he would get to the touchier part ....

For now, it was enough that they were listening.


Jim, the point I forgot is to ask you what 'proof' you are waiting for that is going to 'commit' you to seeing climate crisis coming. What does 'proof' look like to you? Where does it appear?

Or is it that, for you, nothing shows it incontrovertible, and you never are going to foresee it? The best that all the evidence and models could ever do, is get you to suspend your judgment -- not arguing but not advocating -- and you only 'wait and see' what happens?

It is not just "what's proof?" The question is: Are you going to change your life? What 'proof' do you require for that -- before you voluntarily reduce your own, and help 'lead' others (family, friends, acquaintances, etc.) to reduce, carbon footprint EIGHTY PERCENT, whether you are a short-timer or long-timer remaining in life's material plane?

Or are you never going to voluntarily quit 'living it up' and so, have to have your carbon footprint forcibly pried out of your cold dying days?

Dave J. JK: you are fun, but tiresome.

"A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused."
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

JK: First that is an ESSAY, not even peer reviewed, not a paper with data, analysis and conclusions. Second it is the infamous Naomi Oresks paper where she lied about her search criteria and made it so narrow that it would only have caught papers that specifically mentioned “global climate change”. I applied that phrase to my collection of papers debunking your belief and got few hits. (You see, any thinking person can quickly see that a paper proving that the sun causes earth temperature would probably not even use the search phrase.)


Tenskwatawa: It is not just "what's proof?" The question is: Are you going to change your life? What 'proof' do you require for that -- before you voluntarily reduce your own, and help 'lead' others (family, friends, acquaintances, etc.) to reduce, carbon footprint EIGHTY PERCENT, whether you are a short-timer or long-timer remaining in life's material plane?
JK: 80% - You are asking people to reduce their standard of living to that of a third world country. You are asking people to spend most of their money on just a little energy to literally avoid ice cycles in their living room. That is why good proof is required.

So far no one even seems to have the first step in a chain of evidence of the type that would be required, in a court of law, before imposing a $100 fine. You want to impose a multi thousand burden on every family. Too bad you too far into the mantra to see this.


... but the "multi thousands" that "families" have (obtained) which a "burden" is going to go against, has been obtained by fraudulence.

The fraud of looking away (as in when receiving stolen property -- 'but it's a GREAT price savings!'), and not asking where it came from, or how it is gotten so cheap. In this case, (of carbon gluttony and waste), what is so 'cheap' is life. That so many, have so much, ('on paper', not substantial), for so little effort. They say they are "living."

Yeah, either me in my mantra, or eventuality in her tough love, is going to "burden some families" who are two-dimensional 'cut-outs' of life.

Now I'm not a climatologist, nor even a meteorologist, and I would wager that the authors of the above comments aren't either. I do, however, read well, and I'm smart enough to know to keep a very open mind. My personal opinion is that, while anthropogenic global warming may even be a real phenomenon, a lot of people without any scientific background are going to start to look very silly as it becomes apparent in the coming years that the natural cycles of the Sun have a far greater effect on the climate of the Earth than we do.

Some very bright minds have been convening to discuss this very thing over the past year and a half, as the Earth has cooled down at an astonishingly rapid pace, coinciding with a very peculiar anomaly in sunspot cycles.

What is going to be especially hilarious is the attempt by various Marxist ideologues to pin the blame for global cooling on...global warming.

See, Mother Nature does not care that Al Gore burns tens of thousands of gallons circling the Earth with his message, nor that he hangs solar panels on his obscenely huge mansion. Mother Nature is much bigger and more important than we are...she is the ultimate Fascist, really.

Is that Blumenhummer?


How in the world did you ever conclude that us skpetic-deniers are simply victims of Lars or Rush? Get a grip.

The abundant and growing AGW debunking that can be found with a google search includes nothing from Lars or Rush.
I've never heard of anyone being convinved specificlly by Lars or Rush.

If your obsession with Lars and "hate radio" has left you somehow missing the solid science that contradicts the IPCC you are lacking some vital skills.

Here's a current summary of just how bad the global warm case is.


You're hopelessly lost when it comes to other angles in your skreed.

Who has the 'political agenda'?

You certainly don't know.

Who has the 'cult audience'?
Al Gore.

Who has the loud mouth?

Look at your own rants.

If you think AGW is has any "probablistic certainty" of any % you are failing to grasp the issue.

And you haven't noticed the AGW ones who are really exploiting you? The ones always trying to convince you to be afraid?

Unfortuantely you are not afriad of being foolish.


Clicky Web Analytics