|
Post by itsallsurreal on Nov 22, 2009 22:31:04 GMT -5
I can only hope, John. I am so tired of hearing all the idiots spouting how horribly my SUV is for the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Nov 22, 2009 22:39:22 GMT -5
I can only hope, John. I am so tired of hearing all the idiots spouting how horribly my SUV is for the planet. The planet suffers from the fraud Al Gore's hot air
|
|
|
Post by johng on Nov 23, 2009 14:03:49 GMT -5
I can only hope, John. I am so tired of hearing all the idiots spouting how horribly my SUV is for the planet. One of the Main reasons I continue to "Service my Dodge Durango" there is something magic in that "Magnum power"
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Nov 24, 2009 13:24:44 GMT -5
This morning there is this headline on Drudge Report: Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...Which links to this story from the UK: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/The article ends with this: "I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane." "The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view." "Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover." *********************************************************** Of course, then I look at the UT and it's headline is: Climate scientists offer grim 'Diagnosis' Indicators near worst-case forecast, analysis suggestswww.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/24/warmings-impact-worse-expected-analysis-shows/The first paragraph: "Global warming is packing a harder punch than many scientists realized just a few years ago, according to a sobering analysis released Tuesday by some of the world’s top climate researchers including one from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla." *********************************************************** One side of this debate wants massive tax increases, world wide wealth redistribution and draconian lifestyle changes - the other side of the debate appears to simply seek the truth. Which one do you believe?
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Nov 24, 2009 14:03:45 GMT -5
This morning there is this headline on Drudge Report: Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...Which links to this story from the UK: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/"Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight. But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover." *********************************************************** Of course, then I look at the UT and it's headline is: Climate scientists offer grim 'Diagnosis' Indicators near worst-case forecast, analysis suggestswww.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/24/warmings-impact-worse-expected-analysis-shows/One side of this debate wants massive tax increases, world wide wealth redistribution and draconian lifestyle changes - the other side of the debate appears to simply seek the truth. Which one do you believe? Boy, that is such a tough question to answer, Jack. I might need a bit of time to think about this................. Ok... I think I have it .... Truth?
|
|
|
Post by lou on Nov 24, 2009 14:36:51 GMT -5
Brace yourselves, folks, our fearless divine O will sign the Copenhagen treaty, thus saving the world from extinction!!!! He might be considering running for the position of chief poop of this treaty's governing body, does that mean he is considering "leaving the office of the Presidency? " Based on his previous record, could we hope for this? ? In order for us to be held in its iron grip, doesn't this treaty need Congressional ratification?
|
|
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2009 14:58:21 GMT -5
Yes the treaty would have to be ratified but then do you really expect this Congress wouldn't follow his every wish with supreme expediency!
|
|
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2009 14:59:12 GMT -5
I can only hope, John. I am so tired of hearing all the idiots spouting how horribly my SUV is for the planet. Come on out an play my illusive muncher in crime. Where have you been hiding...
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Nov 24, 2009 15:00:01 GMT -5
Yes the treaty would have to be ratified but then do you really expect this Congress wouldn't follow his every wish with supreme expediency! I wonder, JG. With the latest data (server/email hacks) that is showing the falsification of information and the strong arming of opponents - will congress take that chance?
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Nov 24, 2009 15:37:54 GMT -5
www.eastangliaemails.com/index.phpAlleged CRU Emails - Searchable Enter keywords to search (no need for quote marks) On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change. As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. As of today, Saturday 21 November, there have been no statements that I have seen doubting the authenticity of these texts. It is here just as a curiosity! ----------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2009 15:46:36 GMT -5
Yes the treaty would have to be ratified but then do you really expect this Congress wouldn't follow his every wish with supreme expediency! I wonder, JG. With the latest data (server/email hacks) that is showing the falsification of information and the strong arming of opponents - will congress take that chance? I graduated management school with the full expectation that People are basically good and given the opportunity they will do the right thing! I have been proven wrong so many times by people with much greater honor than those in Congress today. I wish I had that which is needed of me to reach out where you want to go.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Nov 24, 2009 17:18:44 GMT -5
JG, This is the crossover with the Gore comment on Geothermal energy: ---------------------------------------------------- Al Gore and Geothermal Posted on: November 18, 2009 4:33 PM, by Matt Springer There's a little bit of buzz burbling around over Al Gore's scientific goof during a Conan O'Brien interview. Discussing geothermal energy, he said the following: It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy -- when they think about it at all -- in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot ... Of course the interior of the earth is extremely hot, but not that hot. It's several thousand degrees rather than several million. If the earth were several million degrees it would be a rapidly diffusing cloud of metallic vapor. Even the center of the sun is only perhaps 13 million degrees C. But I'll let him slide; pretty much everyone blanks out from time to time. And it gives us a chance to do a little thinking about just how much thermal energy is in the earth. First of all, just because something is hot doesn't mean you can squeeze energy out of it. You can only squeeze energy out of temperature gradients - you need something hot and something cold. This is why we can't just set up a temperature-to-energy machine in the desert and have free energy. In your car, for instance, you need both the heat of the burning gasoline and the much cooler ambient temperature from the outside air via your radiator to turn the hot gasoline vapors into forward progress. Power plants frequently have large cooling towers for that very reason. It's not the energy of the hot substance, it's the process of moving that heat to a cooler place that creates useful work. Think of it in the same way as water flowing downhill can turn a paddlewheel - it won't work unless the water starts off high and ends up low. But that's not a problem here. The interior of the earth is hot and the exterior is much colder. The difference in temperature is such that the efficiency of heat-to-work conversion could be near 100% in theory, though in practice it would be much lower. And we're not likely to run out of geothermal heat any time soon. As a slightly wild Fermi calculation, assume that the earth is uniformly iron at 3000 C. The specific heat of liquid iron is about 611 J/kg K, so cooling the earth to room temperature this yields about 1.8 million joules of energy per kilogram. Multiply by the mass of the earth, and the total energy content might be in the neighborhood of 10^31 joules. The total energy consumption of the world's human population is in the vicinity of 5e20 joules per year. Divide out, the earth's geothermal energy could support that consumption rate for about 21 billion years. We're not likely to use it up. So why isn't it in widespread use? After all, every nation has domestic access to it - all you have to do is drill straight down. The main problem is that the temperature really doesn't start getting ramped up until dozens of miles down. Drilling a hole that deep and pumping water (or whatever) down and up is technically unfeasible. Geothermal is at its best at those places which are close to geological activity that brings the heat closer to the surface. Volcanic and other geologically active locations often do very well with geothermal power. Iceland in particular produces vast quantities of usable energy from the internal heat of the earth. Most other places are much farther from the hot regions of the earth's interior and geothermal is correspondingly much more difficult to get. Sadly Al Gore's hopes for geothermal as a major clean energy technology are probably futile until deep drilling develops into a much more mature form. It would be nice if that happened; the energy to be tapped is pretty close to inexhaustible. scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/11/al_gore_and_geothermal.php
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Nov 25, 2009 15:35:01 GMT -5
This article shows the ignorance of the author and the 'experts' cited - even though she somewhat agrees that the current hacked email evidence of data manipulation brings into question current Global Warming theories. The comments section is excellent. Scientists and other objective thinkers are bringing points up that are some of what I have been saying for years. What is great as well is that it is not about personal attacks - it is about dissecting the actions of the Global Warming Community/Scientists/Science in general. business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_real_problem_with_the_climate_science_emails.php
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Nov 27, 2009 11:36:12 GMT -5
UK researchers dismissed the work of scientists challenging global warming as 'crap'. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html#ixzz0Y4uGrM7uIf climate change activists want governments to IMPOSE massive new TAXES and CONTROLS that curtail growth and lower everybody else's living standards, the ONUS is on THEM to prove to us that this DOOM-SAYING about the future is real and all this pain and belt-tightening they want to force on the world is necessary. Without positive proof to support this new form of ECONOMIC INTERVENTION, climate prophecy is just ideological, and the extra demands on taxpayers are impertinent. Until they have positive proof, green is the new red. Just another form of social control being rationalized through pseudo-science, and cheered on by credulous journalists.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 28, 2009 3:24:08 GMT -5
|
|