Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.

Global Cooling
#361
Posted 06 May 2008 - 08:31 PM
Former vice president tells NPR's 'Fresh Air' cyclone is example of 'consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/6/2008 4:04:54 PM
Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.
Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.
http://www.businessa...0506160205.aspx
See what I mean.
#362
Posted 07 May 2008 - 07:40 AM
Shame on himAl Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming

#363
Posted 08 May 2008 - 04:34 PM
April 2008 had the third highest recorded amount since records were started in 1979, contradicting media coverage of diminishing sea ice.
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/6/2008 8:52:34 AM
Don’t expect to hear this reported on the your evening newscast, but according to new data, sea ice levels in the Southern Hemisphere are at 25-year highs.
“On a global basis, world sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years,” Steve McIntyre wrote on Climateaudit.org on May 4. “Levels are the third highest (for April) since the commencement of records in 1979, exceeded only by levels in 1979 and 1982.”
McIntyre, along with Ross McKitrick, debunked the validity of the “hockey stick” graph used in a journal article by Michael Mann, which described the increase in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature. The two claimed Mann’s graph was based on flawed calculations and data defects.
That data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) suggests the effects of global warming aren’t as dire as some media reports would have you believe. A segment on ABC’s March 28 “Good Morning America” warned melting sea ice is endangering the global warming alarmists’ favorite mascot, the polar bear.
“[I] realize what I need to do is try and tell these stories through National Geographic magazine by using animals such as polar bears to hang this campaign on, to say that if we lose sea ice in the Arctic, and projections are to lose sea ice in the next 20 to 50 years, we ultimately are going to lose polar bears as well,” National Geographic magazine photographer Paul Milkin said to ABC’s Sam Champion.
According to the NSIDC data, sea ice had declined in 2007 to record lows, but showed a rebound in 2008, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere.
An Aug. 19, 2007 CBS “60 Minutes” segment warned melting sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere was endangering the penguin, another species often trotted out by global warming alarmists.
“Getting manhandled may ruffle their feathers, but it was key to discovering their fate,” “60 Minutes” contributor Scott Pelley said. “These are grown penguin chicks chasing their mothers for food, which she delivers beak to beak. Soon, the chicks will go to sea to hunt for a shrimp-like crustacean called krill. The krill grow beneath the sea ice, but in the warming ocean, the sea ice is melting away.”
“So the penguins have been going to sea and starving to death?” Pelley asked Sue Trivelpiece of NOAA’s Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division.
“The chicks are declining and we think they just can’t find the krill,” Trivelpiece replied.
Although sea ice has actually increased, it isn’t clear if the penguins’ food supply will increase and the species native to the polar regions of the Southern Hemisphere will once again thrive.
http://www.businessa...0506084437.aspx
sponsored ad
#364
Posted 09 May 2008 - 01:14 AM
#365
Posted 09 May 2008 - 01:48 PM
UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2008
The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.
http://www.ncdc.noaa...ch/cag3/na.html
Edited by biknut, 09 May 2008 - 01:48 PM.
#366
Posted 09 May 2008 - 05:09 PM
Question, how many La Nina's have there been in the last 114 years?
According to the chart here there have been 13 La Nina episodes since 1950 (including the current La Nina). Prior to 1950 records are not as complete or detailed.
#367
Posted 09 May 2008 - 06:38 PM
The only chart that I've seen showing a cooling was the one that started at a temporary highpoint in 2002 (Jan 2002?) and ended at a low point. That graph was a stunning piece of seletive data collection.One thing I noticed in this sciencedaily article about the same research is that their graph stops at 2000. Since 2000, of course, there has been a slight cooling. Why not include the last 8 years? To a skeptic, it would seem to be a subtle manipulation.
Edited by QJones, 09 May 2008 - 06:38 PM.
#368
Posted 09 May 2008 - 09:20 PM

#369
Posted 10 June 2008 - 04:59 PM
Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots
ScienceDaily (Jun. 9, 2008) — The sun has been lying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites.
That's good news for people who scramble when space weather interferes with their technology, but it became a point of discussion for the scientists who attended an international solar conference at Montana State University. Approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered June 1-6 to talk about "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment."
The scientists said periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual.
"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission. "That's a small concern, a very small concern."
The Hinode satellite is a Japanese mission with the United States and United Kingdom as partners. The satellite carries three telescopes that together show how changes on the sun's surface spread through the solar atmosphere. MSU researchers are among those operating the X-ray telescope. The satellite orbits 431 miles above ground, crossing both poles and making one lap every 95 minutes, giving Hinode an uninterrupted view of the sun for several months out of the year.
Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. Minimum activity generally occurs as the cycles change. Solar activity refers to phenomena like sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions. Together, they create the weather than can disrupt satellites in space and technology on earth.
The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why.
"It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.
Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.
Tsuneta said he doesn't know how long the sun will continue to be inactive, but scientists associated with the Hinode mission are ready for it to resume maximum activity. They have added extra ground stations to pick up signals from Hinode in case solar activity interferes with instruments at other stations around the world. The new stations, ready to start operating this summer, are located in India, Norway, Alaska and the South Pole.
Establishing those stations, as well as the Hinode mission, required international cooperation, Tsuneta said. No one country had the resources to carry out those projects by itself.
Four countries, three space agencies and 11 organizations worked together on Hinode which was launched in September 2006, Tsuneta said. Among the collaborators was Loren Acton, a research professor of physics at MSU. Tsuneta and Acton worked together closely from 1986-2002 and were reunited at the MSU conference.
"His leadership was immense, superb," Tsuneta said about Acton.
Acton, 72, said he is still enthused by solar physics and the new questions being raised. In fact, he wished he could knock 22 years off his age and extend his career even longer.
"It's too much fun," he said. "There's so much exciting stuff come up, I would like to be part of it."
http://www.scienceda...80609124551.htm
Edited by biknut, 10 June 2008 - 05:02 PM.
#370
Posted 13 June 2008 - 02:59 PM
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.
http://www.kusi.com/...r/19842304.html
#371
Posted 13 June 2008 - 03:44 PM
What is rational about rejecting new, clean, healthy economy building technology in favor of expanding carcinogenic, filthy out dated carbon fuels?
There is really not much continuity in life extension and fossil fuels, and nukes for that matter. If we are interested in long life and eventually immortality, then sucking oil and soot is hardly advantageous, and the mining of uranium and the related cancer rates and reproductive damage to women as a result of the contaminated groundwater is not a very appealing way to go through eternity either, sparky.
And don't let me forget to dismiss the silliness of the idea that Al Gore is responsible for this ***ed up economy because of Global Warming. Asinine!! new technology has been the source of every single economic boom in the history of markets. When you "pro-business" (HAH!) conservatives figure out how much money is being made in the new energy sector, you'll be singing a different tune.
In the words of one of my favorite blowhard cartoons "GIMME A BREAK!"
[quote name='biknut' date='13-Jun 2008, 09:59 AM' post='245275']
This is the voice of reason.
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
#372
Posted 13 June 2008 - 04:46 PM
There is really not much continuity in life extension and fossil fuels, and nukes for that matter.
what do you propose to supply 510 exajoules a year (and rising) as an alternative to fossil fuels that does not involve nuclear power (that is remotely cost effective)?
Nuclear power is not classified as renewable energy, but there is more than enough from fission alone to sustain our civilization until the useful lifetime of our solar system is extinguished. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for the so-called renewable energy sources (which all ultimately lead back to the nuclear power generation of the sun...), however nuclear energy must play a very large role indeed. Modern nuclear energy production is safe, and I think we can spare the few square miles that would need to be isolated for waste disposal more than we can spare the many many times that much surface area we would loose with enormous solar arrays. Not to mention the latter being more expensive.
#373
Posted 13 June 2008 - 05:41 PM
Mining Uranium is deadly, as is the waste storage. Now when we get into fusion that is a whole other story. Fusion is a way to go and that possibility is improving yearly.
I wish I had the time to post all the links out there that can show you the numbers on what the potential of wind and solar represent, but you are just going to have to do your research because I do not have time. I can tell you that with just the wind flowing through the badlands alone, there is the space and potential to supply all the electricity for half the country. Of course that is not going to happen, but you can put the picture together in your head and see that we have plenty of uninhabited exposed surface in this country to do the job with wind alone.
Why does it not happen? Because people are lazy and there is a streamlined system for the energy companies to get free money via the govt. giving them our tax dollars, and that is a gravy train that will defend itself with violence to keep rolling. We are not the country of businessmen that we once were, we like easy money and the elite have become accustomed to getting free money and providing sub standard products. We have become an economy emphasizing ease of use for big business, rather than the ingenuity of the little guy rising up with new technology.
I think that is the best way to think about the energy debacle.
There is really not much continuity in life extension and fossil fuels, and nukes for that matter.
what do you propose to supply 510 exajoules a year (and rising) as an alternative to fossil fuels that does not involve nuclear power (that is remotely cost effective)?
Nuclear power is not classified as renewable energy, but there is more than enough from fission alone to sustain our civilization until the useful lifetime of our solar system is extinguished. I'm not suggesting that there isn't a place for the so-called renewable energy sources (which all ultimately lead back to the nuclear power generation of the sun...), however nuclear energy must play a very large role indeed. Modern nuclear energy production is safe, and I think we can spare the few square miles that would need to be isolated for waste disposal more than we can spare the many many times that much surface area we would loose with enormous solar arrays. Not to mention the latter being more expensive.
#374
Posted 13 June 2008 - 06:20 PM
Nuclear technology is not safe at all
Modern nuclear reactors cannot melt down. Nuclear energy is clean, and certainly safer than our fossil fuel economy (gasoline explodes and pollutes).
Mining Uranium is deadly, as is the waste storage.
Not when following proper protocols compared to other forms of mining (namely maintaining adequate ventilation to prevent the accumulation of radon gas in the mine). And storage, though extremely politically sensitive, is a red herring. Even of yucca mountain became a complete radioactive wasteland (which it will not, the radioactive materials will be stored in deep underground vaults), this is a minuscule area.
but it is not the panacea that the energy company controlled media tells you
I find the media to be very anti nuclear...
this may be subtly changing as oil goes above 130 dollars a barrel.
Edited by elrond, 13 June 2008 - 06:21 PM.
#375
Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:08 PM
#376
Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:17 PM
Why does it not happen? Because people are lazy and there is a streamlined system for the energy companies to get free money via the govt. giving them our tax dollars, and that is a gravy train that will defend itself with violence to keep rolling.
Such as the ethanol subsidies, not violent but certainly a gravy train. The grain ethanol business would cease tomorrow (yes - tomorrow) without "easy" government money.
Wind is nice, but still has a storage problem. Solar is one of the better bets and is growing. Nanotechnology will help. There is a fast proliferating number of solar companies around the world. These are the entreprenuers that you don't say exist decide2evolve. They are out there and they will make money because oil is not getting any cheaper.
#377
Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:24 PM
I like wind because each unit is so small. If you have a small town, a couple local towers can drastically reduce their drain on the grid. Large urban centers can more likely supply the demand necessary to make nuclear cost effective.
We'll do fine regarding energy (and CO2 pollution) as long as we're not stupid. There're enough smart people thinking about it that the hiccups will be noticeable, but not painful for the average Westerner. Those in threshold poverty obviously need help, regardless.
#378
Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:24 PM
But please don't misinterpret me, or let me clarify whichever the case needs to be. I am aware of the entrepreneurs out there and if they are given a level playing field they will solve our problem, but it is laziness that maintains the status quo. Yes, the micro and nano tech are already making huge strides with solar.
"We" can do this, but "they" won't let us.
Why does it not happen? Because people are lazy and there is a streamlined system for the energy companies to get free money via the govt. giving them our tax dollars, and that is a gravy train that will defend itself with violence to keep rolling.
Such as the ethanol subsidies, not violent but certainly a gravy train. The grain ethanol business would cease tomorrow (yes - tomorrow) without "easy" government money.
Wind is nice, but still has a storage problem. Solar is one of the better bets and is growing. Nanotechnology will help. There is a fast proliferating number of solar companies around the world. These are the entreprenuers that you don't say exist decide2evolve. They are out there and they will make money because oil is not getting any cheaper.
#379
Posted 13 June 2008 - 07:29 PM
#380
Posted 14 June 2008 - 02:03 AM
Just because you're a commie loving left wing socialist type that doesn't like fossil fuel, don't fake a crises that doesn't exist to force everyone to live your commie lifestyle..
Go out and start your own hippy wind power company and compete with the other forms of power. If the profit is so good what's stopping you.
#381
Posted 14 June 2008 - 02:29 AM
Edited by elrond, 14 June 2008 - 02:30 AM.
#382
Posted 14 June 2008 - 03:07 AM

My point is get govt. out of the process, and let the big oil companies compete on a level playing field with New Energy so we can solve the problem.
The Socialist perspective which supports the big oil/ govt. keeps things from being honest, let the new entrepreneurs be seen and get them out of the shadows so people know what is available and the new demand can drive the economy.
It is ironic that people who claim to be "pro business" support the Socialist status quo and help to suppress the new innovations that can solve the problem and drive the economy.
I think at some point soon this reality is going to "click" and all these "pro-business" people are going to realize that they have been duped by the anti-individualist neo-cons.
Then we will see some positive action.
Edited by decide2evolve, 14 June 2008 - 03:16 AM.
#383
Posted 14 June 2008 - 03:42 AM
Hi biknut. I found this commie mag called the Wall Street Journal. They used to be OK but I think they've gone red, or at least pinko. Anyway, they have an article about this hippy by the name of T. Boone Pickens. He's building America's largest Wind Power farm in Texas. It's going to be 4 gigawatts when it's done. The comsymps over at Seeking Alpha have an article on it here.Just because you're a commie loving left wing socialist type that doesn't like fossil fuel, don't fake a crises that doesn't exist to force everyone to live your commie lifestyle..
Go out and start your own hippy wind power company and compete with the other forms of power. If the profit is so good what's stopping you.
#384
Posted 14 June 2008 - 06:06 AM
Edited by mike250, 14 June 2008 - 06:07 AM.
#385
Posted 14 June 2008 - 06:14 AM
Check out this article about nukes: http://thelastgassta...nslaught-o.html
As far as I'm concerned ANY green house gas bill that doesn't talk about increasing nuclear power should be shot down. The fact that we haven't gone nuclear is at this point beyond absurd. Nuclear is cleaner by a mile than coal. There is less radioactive waste given off by nuclear than coal and unlike coal the nuclear waste is contained and again minimal today. Hydrogen shows great promise, but we are not really there technologically yet. Solar is moving on quite well and wind requires miles and miles of free land.
#386
Posted 15 June 2008 - 01:31 AM
#387
Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:16 AM
Hi biknut. I found this commie mag called the Wall Street Journal. They used to be OK but I think they've gone red, or at least pinko. Anyway, they have an article about this hippy by the name of T. Boone Pickens. He's building America's largest Wind Power farm in Texas. It's going to be 4 gigawatts when it's done. The comsymps over at Seeking Alpha have an article on it here.Just because you're a commie loving left wing socialist type that doesn't like fossil fuel, don't fake a crises that doesn't exist to force everyone to live your commie lifestyle..
Go out and start your own hippy wind power company and compete with the other forms of power. If the profit is so good what's stopping you.
Well that's great, but that environmentally friendly power is consuming 200,000 acres of land for 4 gigawatts, but the "little" Nuclear power plant south of Dallas in Glenrose puts out 2.3 gigawatts on I'm guessing less than 100 acres. Think about it.
#388
Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:20 AM
i think global warming is really happening too, not really humans' fault, tho we should do everything we can to control it. it would've have happened in the natural cycle anyway.
I agree except I'd put it this way. There was warming, but now it's cooling, and neither was caused by man. It would probably be alright if we could control the weather, but we can't.
#389
Posted 15 June 2008 - 04:30 AM
It's not just the process of getting the power, it's the pre-production and post-production as well. Please read this:http://thelastgassta...nslaught-o.html
i think global warming is really happening too, not really humans' fault, tho we should do everything we can to control it. it would've have happened in the natural cycle anyway.
I agree except I'd put it this way. There was warming, but now it's cooling, and neither was caused by man. It would probably be alright if we could control the weather, but we can't.
Edited by decide2evolve, 15 June 2008 - 04:31 AM.
#390
Posted 15 June 2008 - 04:53 AM
Hmm. that would be a square 17.7 miles on a side. Around here we call that a "county"! Of course, you can still use 99% of that land for farming and grazing. If you have a large chunk of agricultural land in the middle of nowhere on a windy plain, you might as well stick some windmills on it. I've been pro-nuclear power for 20+ years. I was against it for a few years but came around based in part on some good arguments presented on Usenet sci.environment or sci.energy. (Yeah, I've been on the net for, umm, 24 years?)Well that's great, but that environmentally friendly power is consuming 200,000 acres of land for 4 gigawatts, but the "little" Nuclear power plant south of Dallas in Glenrose puts out 2.3 gigawatts on I'm guessing less than 100 acres. Think about it.Hi biknut. I found this commie mag called the Wall Street Journal. They used to be OK but I think they've gone red, or at least pinko. Anyway, they have an article about this hippy by the name of T. Boone Pickens. He's building America's largest Wind Power farm in Texas. It's going to be 4 gigawatts when it's done. The comsymps over at Seeking Alpha have an article on it here.Just because you're a commie loving left wing socialist type that doesn't like fossil fuel, don't fake a crises that doesn't exist to force everyone to live your commie lifestyle..
Go out and start your own hippy wind power company and compete with the other forms of power. If the profit is so good what's stopping you.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users