Evidence of Global Cooling; Global Warming is not a Consensus.

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by huevonkiller, Mar 1, 2008.

  1. huevonkiller

    huevonkiller Change (Deftones)

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,798
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Student.
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    I found some interesting articles over the weekend.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Human-caused global warming is just a facade for a political agenda


    Letters to Editor
    March 1, 2008

    Comment Comments Print Friendly Print Email Email

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it" -- H. L. Mencken

    Of all the propaganda campaigns mounted during the past century in the United States, and there have been some whoppers: World War I, Red Menace, World War II, Nuclear Annihilation/MAD, overpopulation, natural resource shortages, species extinction, air and water pollution, Three Mile Island, global cooling, nuclear winter. None of them comes close to comparing with human-caused global warming. Indeed, the threat of terrorism takes a backseat to human-caused global warming!

    I thought the hype, the pseudo-science and the absurd catastrophic scenarios concocted by the "nuclear winterites" were a bit over the top. However, the catastrophic scenarios advanced by the anthropomorphic global-warming crowd not only go beyond the absurd, but are surely destined for some kind of record book. Even the men who advanced the absurd nuclear winter scenario, Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack and Sagan, didn't bend up known facts and methods of scientific investigation like the proponents of human-caused global warming.

    As every honest scientist knows, the Earth's atmosphere and its workings are not only complex, but are poorly understood. Furthermore, the results obtained from studying ice cores, sediment samples, tree rings, fossils, etc., clearly reveal that the Earth, since the time of Noah's disembarkation, has cycled through periods of warming and cooling.

    The last warming period, called the Medieval Climate Optimum (900-1300 A.D.), featured average temperatures well above today's average temperature. Indeed, the weather was so mild that the ice sheet we know as Greenland was really green when Leif Ericsson stumbled upon it in the 11th century.

    Not only does life flourish in periods of warming, but the weather cycles also are not as harsh and unpredictable as they are in periods of cooling. What is more, during the Medieval Climate Optimum, the polar ice caps didn't melt and cause the world's oceans to alarmingly rise. The polar bears and other inhabitants of the polar ice caps didn't die out. The planet didn't become some impossible greenhouse as in the movie "Soylent Green." Carbon dioxide didn't cause the Medieval Climate Optimum. It didn't cause the Little Ice Age (1300-1850). And, it hasn't caused the current warming trend, which began around 1850.

    The annual human-caused increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which primarily comes from burning hydrocarbons, is approximately 1 part in 10,000 of that contained in the oceans and biosphere. Contrary to the propaganda, carbon dioxide and methane, although greenhouse gases, possess physical properties that render their greenhouse effects very weak, as opposed to water vapor, which is the greenhouse gas that induces the greenhouse effect and makes the earth habitable.<u>

    The truth is global warming and cooling correlate closely with fluctuations in solar activity, sunspots, and the solar system's orbital position in the arms of the galaxy, cosmic ray bombardment.
    </u>

    As should be obvious, especially with the boatloads of draconian legislation enacted over the past few decades to "protect the environment," global-warming propaganda isn't about saving the environment, making the Earth a better place, or promoting peace. No, AI Gore and his ilk are working a political and economic agenda that is simply stated by David Rockefeller in his Memoirs: "Global political and economic integration: one world." And by one world, Rockefeller means a dictatorial world government controlled by and for the global elite. The other 98 percent of the world's population in this arrangement will be little more than serfs on the Czar's estate.

    R.P. Adamson Jr. was born, raised and educated in Greeley. He is in the drywall business.</div>

    http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/2008030...ADERS/301331375

    There is also brand new evidence of "Global Cooling" (really there isn't but it obviously neutralizes the idea of Global Warming). Heh.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Evidence of Global Cooling

    Cold Reception

    Tuesday we told you about several areas around the planet experiencing record cold and snowpack ?€” in the face of all the predictions of global warming.

    Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

    That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years
    . It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded ?€” up or down.

    Some scientists contend the <u>cooling is the result of reduced solar activity ?€” which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.</u></div>

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

    Enough to wipe out all evidence of Global Warming.

    This is the amazing article I found:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><u>Fire and Ice

    Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can?€™t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
    </u>


    Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond
    The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.

    Global warming has replaced the media?€™s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same ?€“ the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

    The recent slight increase in temperature could ?€œquite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet?€? argued the Jan. 18, 2006, Washington Post.

    In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.

    ?€œWe spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don?€™t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,?€? he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.

    Kristof?€™s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term ?€œclimate change.?€? While his column was filled with references to ?€œglobal warming,?€? it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.

    The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.

    The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with ?€? everything.

    The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.

    The warm currents of the Gulf Stream, according to a 2005 study by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., have decreased 30 percent.

    This has raised ?€œfears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age,?€? as the Gulf Stream regulates temperatures in Europe and the eastern United States. This has ?€œlong been predicted?€? as a potential ramification of global warming.

    Hollywood picked up on this notion before the study and produced ?€œThe Day After Tomorrow.?€? In the movie global warming triggered an immediate ice age. People had to dodge oncoming ice. Americans were fleeing to Mexico. Wolves were on the prowl. Meanwhile our hero, a government paleoclimatologist, had to go to New York City to save his son from the catastrophe.

    But it?€™s not just a potential ice age. Every major weather event becomes somehow linked to ?€œclimate change.?€?

    Numerous news reports connected Hurricane Katrina with changing global temperatures. Droughts, floods and more have received similar media treatment.

    Even The New York Times doesn?€™t go that far ?€“ yet.

    In an April 23, 2006, piece, reporter Andrew C. Revkin gave no credence to that coverage. ?€œAt the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.?€?

    Unfortunately, that brief brush with caution hasn?€™t touched the rest of the media.
    Time magazine?€™s recent cover story included this terrifying headline:

    ?€œPolar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More; Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon ?€”and what we can do about it?€?

    That attitude reflects far more of the current media climate. As the magazine claimed, many of today?€™s weather problems can be blamed on the changing climate.

    ?€œDisasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast ?€” when the emergency becomes commonplace ?€”something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming,?€? Time said.


    Methodology
    The Business & Media Institute (BMI) examined how the major media have covered the issue of climate change over a long period of time. Because television only gained importance in the post-World War II period, BMI looked at major print outlets.

    There were limitations with that approach because some major publications lack the lengthy history that others enjoy. However, the search covered more than 30 publications from the 1850s to 2006 ?€” including newspapers, magazines, journals and books.

    Recent newspaper and magazine articles were obtained from Lexis-Nexis. All other magazine articles were acquired from the Library of Congress either in print or microfilm.

    Older newspapers were obtained from ProQuest. The extensive bibliography includes every publication cited in this report. BMI looked through thousands of headlines and chose hundreds of stories to analyze.

    Dates on the time periods for cooling and warming reporting phases are approximate, and are derived from the stories that BMI analyzed.


    Conclusion
    What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

    Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can?€™t possibly be accurate.

    For ordinary Americans to judge the media?€™s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

    Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. <u>Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

    It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.
    </u>


    Recommendations
    It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases ?€” a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

    Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

    *

    ?€œSupport the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.?€?

    *

    ?€œGive voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.?€?

    *

    ?€œDistinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.?€?

    That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.

    Some other important points include:

    *

    Don?€™t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn?€™t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

    People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

    *

    Don?€™t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton?€™s term.

    Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

    *

    Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, ?€œ20th Century Climate Not So Hot,?€? ?€œdetermined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
    </div>

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

    Solar activity appears to have much more to do with Warming than anything man has done.
     
  2. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
  3. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    <span style="font-size:24pt;line-height:100%">"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it" -- H. L. Mencken</span>
     
  4. huevonkiller

    huevonkiller Change (Deftones)

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,798
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Student.
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
  5. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2...0303175301.aspx

    Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
    TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

    By Jeff Poor
    Business & Media Institute
    3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM

    The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

    Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

    “The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

    The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

    Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

    have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

    Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.

    Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
     
  6. AEM

    AEM Gesundheit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Legal
    Location:
    Still near open water
    ... and here I was trying to sweep up my carbon footprint. [​IMG]

    Whenever data is secondary to political hysteria, it's less that persuasive.
     
  7. Thoth

    Thoth Sisyphus in training

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the 801
    Some use terrorism to frighten. Others use rising sea levels, etc...

    Jane Goodall was here in SLC recently and the first sentence in the local paper was, Jane Goodall asked only for the amount of water she need to drink at the time. Some damage is being done to the planet. Desertification, which is even more linked to man's activities, is a better example than climate change.

    Environmental useage all boils down to common sense.

    The funny thing is this has really primed the need for alternate energy sources. I'm not saying thats bad. But, Ethanol which is the flavor of the month has only jacked up corn and soybean prices and has played some part in rising food cost and in turn part of the economic slowdown.

    Unlike Warren Buffet, I did not use the R word. lol.
     
  8. Dumpy

    Dumpy Yi-ha!!

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is my view on the matter, take it or leave it as you please. Whether man-made polutants are producing global warming may be an unresolved issue, but the fact remains that mankind is polluting the environment, which is causing other damage that is not as controversial. For me, focusing solely on the global warming issue misses the point: we are polluting our rivers, streams, and wetlands; destroying environments and decimating species. It's convenient to say: "Aha! Man isn't causing global warming!" Maybe that's true. But to ignore these other clear effects of our shortsightedness is irresponsible. The global warming issue is being used as a "hook" to focus attention on the overarching pollution issue. Maybe it has been overstated and misused; that isn't for me to say. I'm not a scientist, I haven't reviewed the data, and I'm not comfortable just picking sides based on who makes the best argument. But if pandering to the global warming alarmists has the effect of getting mankind to act to stop destroying the environment, I'm all for it.
     
  9. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).

    While I'm consistent in hammering the global warming hoax, I'm also consistent in saying that pollution is not good and that we should be doing things in cleaner ways, especially as they become cost efficient.
     
  10. Dumpy

    Dumpy Yi-ha!!

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    4,231
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    38
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).

    While I'm consistent in hammering the global warming hoax, I'm also consistent in saying that pollution is not good and that we should be doing things in cleaner ways, especially as they become cost efficient.</div>

    well, there ARE too many people, at least in certain concentrated areas. Taking a look at the nationwide population and population density tables is pretty eye-opening. The numbers can be a little misleading, if, for instance, a large part of a country is uninhabitable, but they still paint a disturbing picture. For instance, Bangladesh, with a population of 150 million, has a population density of just over 1,000 per km^2. That just seems unsupportable to me.
     
  11. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    The entire population of the world can live in Texas.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...10121847AA2jAh6
    (1131 sq. ft. per person, not including making 2 story or more buildings)

    I've seen numerous proposals that would clearly work for feeding them all.

    I don't think there are too many people, nor would I even begin to ponder how to get rid of most of 'em. I'm sure Gore and his ilk do have a plan, and that's scary. About as scary as wanting to stifle his critics.

    Beyond wanting to be control freaks (controlling everyone and everything), I get the sense that the objective is more to knock the US down a few pegs in the world order (wealth-wise), which is truly petty jealousy. Why? That's the result of implementing their plans , diverting much of our energies into inefficient endeavors.
     
  12. Thoth

    Thoth Sisyphus in training

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the 801
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).</div>

    Actually, Denny. We don't need to worry about floods living in Vega$ & SLC respectfully. Though, I may have to come down there to get all the water you guys are "stealing".... How's that for keeping the take only what you need/environmental use tanget going? Hmmmmm!? [​IMG]

    Seriously, I think people are starting to warm up (pun intended) to the idea of sustainable energy/resources as the next big $ making thing. But, I don't know if you can count Venture capitalists and investment bankers as people. Shame we can't ask an attorney for a 2nd opinion. [​IMG]
     
  13. AEM

    AEM Gesundheit

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    Legal
    Location:
    Still near open water
    Well, at least we know that attorneys aren't people. [​IMG]
     
  14. Thoth

    Thoth Sisyphus in training

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the 801
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 6 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well, there ARE too many people, at least in certain concentrated areas.</div>

    Like Bombay & Shanghai? [​IMG]
     
  15. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 6 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).</div>

    Actually, Denny. We don't need to worry about floods living in Vega$ & SLC respectfully. Though, I may have to come down there to get all the water you guys are "stealing".... How's that for keeping the take only what you need/environmental use tanget going? Hmmmmm!? [​IMG]

    Seriously, I think people are starting to warm up (pun intended) to the idea of sustainable energy/resources as the next big $ making thing. But, I don't know if you can count Venture capitalists and investment bankers as people. Shame we can't ask an attorney for a 2nd opinion. [​IMG] </div>

    The odd thing is the water from Lake Mead and the power from the Hoover Dam goes mostly to LA.

    When "sustainable" (they're not) energy sources are efficient, let me know. Right now, they only way they work is if govt. pays most of the cost. If govt. dropped the subsidies, there wouldn't be a single VC dollar invested in these things, because they're a stupid waste of money and intellectual energy. VCs don't care if the investments are in stupid futile things as long as they make their money, and the govt. almost assures they make their money.

    This article explains in mathematical detail why hydrogen (fuel cells) is a waste of time:
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm
    I don't agree with his conclusion, though, as the supply of ethanol or methanol is far from sufficient to make a dent in our energy needs. More on that...

    WashingtonPost good enough for you? USA Today?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6063001480.html http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/and...20-kantor_x.htm

    What about Solar? It's a giant hoax in its own right. The best estimate by proponents is that one day 15% of our power will be solar. Yet, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all power is created by solar panels. Why? They take more energy to make than they put out in their lifetime - shifting the energy somewhere "upstream" (like a real power plant).
    http://www.energybulletin.net/648.html

    Wind?
    http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/04/08/...newable-fantasy
    It takes more energy to make the windmills than they produce, and they only work when the wind is blowing. OK, so you store the electricity in batteries - inefficient and the batteries cost energy to make (upstream) and need to be replaced frequently.

    What do you suggest? I'm all ears.

    I suggest coal or nuclear plants as the only sane options.

    I'm 100% satisfied to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain near here.
     
  16. huevonkiller

    huevonkiller Change (Deftones)

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,798
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Student.
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 7 2008, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 6 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).</div>

    Actually, Denny. We don't need to worry about floods living in Vega$ & SLC respectfully. Though, I may have to come down there to get all the water you guys are "stealing".... How's that for keeping the take only what you need/environmental use tanget going? Hmmmmm!? [​IMG]

    Seriously, I think people are starting to warm up (pun intended) to the idea of sustainable energy/resources as the next big $ making thing. But, I don't know if you can count Venture capitalists and investment bankers as people. Shame we can't ask an attorney for a 2nd opinion. [​IMG] </div>

    The odd thing is the water from Lake Mead and the power from the Hoover Dam goes mostly to LA.

    When "sustainable" (they're not) energy sources are efficient, let me know. Right now, they only way they work is if govt. pays most of the cost. If govt. dropped the subsidies, there wouldn't be a single VC dollar invested in these things, because they're a stupid waste of money and intellectual energy. VCs don't care if the investments are in stupid futile things as long as they make their money, and the govt. almost assures they make their money.

    This article explains in mathematical detail why hydrogen (fuel cells) is a waste of time:
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm
    I don't agree with his conclusion, though, as the supply of ethanol or methanol is far from sufficient to make a dent in our energy needs. More on that...

    WashingtonPost good enough for you? USA Today?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6063001480.html http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/and...20-kantor_x.htm

    What about Solar? It's a giant hoax in its own right. The best estimate by proponents is that one day 15% of our power will be solar. Yet, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all power is created by solar panels. Why? They take more energy to make than they put out in their lifetime - shifting the energy somewhere "upstream" (like a real power plant).
    http://www.energybulletin.net/648.html

    Wind?
    http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/04/08/...newable-fantasy
    It takes more energy to make the windmills than they produce, and they only work when the wind is blowing. OK, so you store the electricity in batteries - inefficient and the batteries cost energy to make (upstream) and need to be replaced frequently.

    What do you suggest? I'm all ears.

    I suggest coal or nuclear plants as the only sane options.

    I'm 100% satisfied to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain near here.
    </div>

    Hah, I remember we had one of these conservative elitists as a presenter in my class once, and he totally owned this environmental engineer peer of mine with similar comebacks.
     
  17. Chutney

    Chutney MON-STRAWRRR!!1!

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2004
    Messages:
    12,944
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Toronto
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 6 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is my view on the matter, take it or leave it as you please. Whether man-made polutants are producing global warming may be an unresolved issue, but the fact remains that mankind is polluting the environment, which is causing other damage that is not as controversial. For me, focusing solely on the global warming issue misses the point: we are polluting our rivers, streams, and wetlands; destroying environments and decimating species. It's convenient to say: "Aha! Man isn't causing global warming!" Maybe that's true. But to ignore these other clear effects of our shortsightedness is irresponsible. The global warming issue is being used as a "hook" to focus attention on the overarching pollution issue. Maybe it has been overstated and misused; that isn't for me to say. I'm not a scientist, I haven't reviewed the data, and I'm not comfortable just picking sides based on who makes the best argument. But if pandering to the global warming alarmists has the effect of getting mankind to act to stop destroying the environment, I'm all for it.</div>
    Great post. This is basically about where I stand on the issue. I get annoyed with both extremes.
     
  18. huevonkiller

    huevonkiller Change (Deftones)

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    25,798
    Likes Received:
    90
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Student.
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 7 2008, 04:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Mar 6 2008, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is my view on the matter, take it or leave it as you please. Whether man-made polutants are producing global warming may be an unresolved issue, but the fact remains that mankind is polluting the environment, which is causing other damage that is not as controversial. For me, focusing solely on the global warming issue misses the point: we are polluting our rivers, streams, and wetlands; destroying environments and decimating species. It's convenient to say: "Aha! Man isn't causing global warming!" Maybe that's true. But to ignore these other clear effects of our shortsightedness is irresponsible. The global warming issue is being used as a "hook" to focus attention on the overarching pollution issue. Maybe it has been overstated and misused; that isn't for me to say. I'm not a scientist, I haven't reviewed the data, and I'm not comfortable just picking sides based on who makes the best argument. But if pandering to the global warming alarmists has the effect of getting mankind to act to stop destroying the environment, I'm all for it.</div>
    Great post. This is basically about where I stand on the issue. I get annoyed with both extremes.
    </div>

    Yeah, just to clarify, that's also where I stand as well.
     
  19. Thoth

    Thoth Sisyphus in training

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    7,218
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    the 801
    Denny;

    There is solar thermal; A pioneering company in solar geothermal .

    http://www.ausra.com/

    I can't understand how Hydrogen is a bad idea especially when it virtually unlimited. If memeory serves you can split water to get the hydrogen.

    Is the author from the corn belt or worked for the PR Dept of Archer Daniels Midland previously?

    I have no problem with nuclear. It's coal that I am skeptical of.

    If you have no problem w/ Yucca mountain glowing in the dark then have at it. Its kind of funny that Easterners have no qualms about shipping their biohazrd here yet also like to come to Moab & southern Utah to enjoy the natural beauty.
     
  20. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,957
    Likes Received:
    10,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 7 2008, 01:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 7 2008, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 6 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 6 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Pandering to the global warming alarmists means a shift of 150% of the world's GDP into doing things like building levees everywhere due to the sure-to-come floods that are going to destroy every city on earth! I'd like to think we'd simply all have to just live in the dark in caves, but that's actually not good enough for the alarmists - they want half the population dead (there's just too many people).</div>

    Actually, Denny. We don't need to worry about floods living in Vega$ & SLC respectfully. Though, I may have to come down there to get all the water you guys are "stealing".... How's that for keeping the take only what you need/environmental use tanget going? Hmmmmm!? [​IMG]

    Seriously, I think people are starting to warm up (pun intended) to the idea of sustainable energy/resources as the next big $ making thing. But, I don't know if you can count Venture capitalists and investment bankers as people. Shame we can't ask an attorney for a 2nd opinion. [​IMG] </div>

    The odd thing is the water from Lake Mead and the power from the Hoover Dam goes mostly to LA.

    When "sustainable" (they're not) energy sources are efficient, let me know. Right now, they only way they work is if govt. pays most of the cost. If govt. dropped the subsidies, there wouldn't be a single VC dollar invested in these things, because they're a stupid waste of money and intellectual energy. VCs don't care if the investments are in stupid futile things as long as they make their money, and the govt. almost assures they make their money.

    This article explains in mathematical detail why hydrogen (fuel cells) is a waste of time:
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm
    I don't agree with his conclusion, though, as the supply of ethanol or methanol is far from sufficient to make a dent in our energy needs. More on that...

    WashingtonPost good enough for you? USA Today?
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6063001480.html http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/and...20-kantor_x.htm

    What about Solar? It's a giant hoax in its own right. The best estimate by proponents is that one day 15% of our power will be solar. Yet, the more solar panels we put up, the less a % of all power is created by solar panels. Why? They take more energy to make than they put out in their lifetime - shifting the energy somewhere "upstream" (like a real power plant).
    http://www.energybulletin.net/648.html

    Wind?
    http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/04/08/...newable-fantasy
    It takes more energy to make the windmills than they produce, and they only work when the wind is blowing. OK, so you store the electricity in batteries - inefficient and the batteries cost energy to make (upstream) and need to be replaced frequently.

    What do you suggest? I'm all ears.

    I suggest coal or nuclear plants as the only sane options.

    I'm 100% satisfied to bury the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain near here.
    </div>

    Hah, I remember we had one of these conservative elitists as a presenter in my class once, and he totally owned this environmental engineer peer of mine with similar comebacks.
    </div>

    It's really simple physics. You don't get out more energy in a system than you put in. Some is always lost in the form of friction or heat or transmission.

    Except nuclear reactions, where you are converting matter to energy via chain reaction. There you get so much energy for near free that loss due to transmission isn't going to cost that much.

    Coal? We simply have vast quantities of it. The problem is that it makes smoke and pollutes the air when you burn it. Massive dollars have already been spent to make it pollute less; maybe the pollution it causes can be reduced to the point it's better than the alternatives by a lot.
     

Share This Page