VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents spotlight object on science.
OBAMA: We'll restore science to its rightful place.
VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.
GLENN: I know, this isn't a science update but I want to get a science update on this. Can you check with all of our scientists on the Neckline Slimmer?
STU: Oh, that's very scientific, yes.
GLENN: Have you seen that?
GLENN: It's available only through this TV offer and you just move your neck up and down and push the little spring down and it tightens your skin and your muscles.
STU: You are saying it does more than tighten your skin? Because that would be enough for me.
GLENN: Oh, no, it tightens your skin and your muscles. I didn't know you could tighten your skin but apparently you can. If that's all it would take to get rid of that fourth chin.
STU: Just nodding a lot?
GLENN: I'm just sayin'.
STU: You got it.
GLENN: As you may have heard, I have recently ridden on Amtrak. Now, who I did or didn't introduce myself to in this story isn't important. What is is my green choice of transportation. Since the global warming crisis has reared its ugly head, being green is inevitable. Well, I shouldn't say that. Being green is absolutely avoidable. I still refuse to use fluorescent light bulbs and I always will. But the green message is unavoidable. The message is use public transportation, right? But the science appears not to be settled according to the rightwing group Britain's Institute of Physics. Boy, I hate those fascists, huh? As it turns out, scientists didn't take into account the production and maintenance of said buses, trains and planes. Government policy his historically relied on emission and analysis of automobiles, buses and trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes. Wait a minute. Hold it. So in other words, when people like me have asked the question, "Okay, so we have an electric car, we have to plug it in at our house, we get our electricity from coal fire plants. Aren't we just using more coal to provide the electricity?" Nobody actually looked into that? Just me? Science has only published specific data to support one side of an issue? Who would have seen this coming?
For example, Boston's rail system compared to San Francisco's rail system. Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is 82% of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels. Coal plants. By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy efficient who would have seen that one coming, California, less efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be greener, as only 49% of the electricity comes from fossil fuel. The paper points out that the tailpipe quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure, railways, airport terminals, roads, so on, so on, nor the emissions that come from maintaining this operational infrastructure over its lifetime. They also overlooked the issue of capacity.
Stu, where were we? We were in a city last week that had one of the clean rail systems and they were like, right, it's green, it's going to save the Earth, blah, blah blah. Every time we saw it, it was completely empty and the highway was packed. The train was empty. And I thought, think how much energy that train is saving by running completely empty! So science has decided to only pay attention to one aspect of the situation to favor the green agenda. Is it safe to say that perhaps, perhaps they are only sharing specific data in other areas to further an agenda? No, that was a trick question. I mean, what am I, nuts? Questioning settled science again? Oh, it's just me, that flat earther again.
VOICE: You've been listening to Spotlight on Science, exclusively heard on the Glenn Beck program, America's number one source for science and science related items.