This is a very powerful BBC documentary on the relationship between climate change, the sun and cosmic rays (strong correlation), CO2 production (weak correlation) and the the politics of anti -growth.
Very interesting, I thought I'd only watch a couple of minutes and expected it to be nothing more than oil company or neocon propaganda. I ended up watching the whole hour and I'll be thinking about it for days.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638
What do you think?
I had trouble with the link not connecting... anyone else?? :-?
I googled and found this.... looks like it may be it.... 1 hour 15 min. I'm D/L'ing it and going to bed. :)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638
I forgot to mpaste that in there last night. :(
It didn't open for me.
I think it's just a normal trend although I didn't see the video. I'll bet it was warmer when dinosaurs and troglodytes roamed the earth. :)
Thanks Mountain Don - that TinyURL link didn't work when I went back today. I copied in the same one you found.
This is a BBC production every bit as powerful as Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth" - which I thought was a good, if depressing, movie.
This makes a solid case for global warming happening but not from CO2 emissions, and particularly not from the relatively small human contribution to CO2. The warming is caused by long term solar flux changes and variations in cloud cover caused by incoming cosmic rays. These warming and cooling cycles do not align with the smokestack output of factories and cars as much as they do with sunspot cycles.
Anyway, take a look and see what you think. It surprises me what a good case they make for the politicization of science.
Note to Glenn: I know the dinosaurs are gone but I think there are still a few troglodytes roaming the earth. ;)
Quote
Very interesting, I thought I'd only watch a couple of minutes and expected it to be nothing more than oil company or neocon propaganda. I ended up watching the whole hour and I'll be thinking about it for days.
What do you think?
I think that your original thoughts would be pretty much on the money
Here is a bit of stuff gleaned from our great public library.
Incidentally the program was aired on Channel Four; this is not the BBC. Channel Four was established to provide a fourth television service to the UK. Mainly to break the duopoly of the BBC's two established television services and the single commercial broadcasting network, ITV. Although publicly owned it is entirely commercially self-funded.
http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/
This does not mean that these people should be demised out of hand but you would certainly want to take what the have to say with a pinch of salt. History is littered with civilizations that thought they could mess with nature and get away with it. You have only got to look to the southern part of your own continent or the Easter islands.
I've been a skeptic regarding the true causes of warming since day one. I don't think we know for certain what the real cause/effect relationship is. :-/ In the meantime making better use of the natural resources available to us does make a lot of sense. That includes cleaning up our world as best as we can.
We, as people, have not been totally negligent; our air and water is cleaner today. Transportation is safer than it used to be. We do grow a surplus of food. Social Security is in trouble because we live longer due to better medical care. No, we are not anywheres near perfect, but we're dong pretty good.
I would not want to live at any other past time; I'd no doubt already be referred to in past tense. :(
I also don't "buy" into a lot of the (bad) news the media feels they must report to us. Maybe that's just me.
Thanks Jonsey:
Good link to some spirited rebuttals. I do not know enough about climate science to know if the graphs are right or if the very important idea of what is driving climate change is CO2 or forces such as the sun and cosmic rays that are outside our control (if we presume to be able to control CO2).
I note that the rebuttal starts by claiming these people to be "climate change deniers" (putting them in the same camp with Holocaust deniers! :P). I think that is unfair. They are not claiming climate is not getting warmer and that this is not a concern and a problem. They are claiming we may not have the right answer as to why it is changing and what we can do about it.
I think one of the posters summed it up well:
"I regret to admit that human science has been as arrogant and vain as human nature itself. If our ancestor scientists knew that the remarkable combustion engines or electrical appliances they invented would cause so much harm, surely they wouldn't have done so. But they DIDN'T KNOW. If we knew that CFCs would plug a hole in the ozone layer, we wouldn't have used them in the first place. But NOBODY KNEW. Climatologists of the 70s proclaimed the anthropogenic ice age, but finally they DIDN'T KNOW. I'm afraid that a similar fallacy is happening with climate science, WE THINK WE KNOW BUT WE DON'T KNOW."
There is general agreement that we've been messing with Mother Nature and that we need to clean up our act. As Don mentions above there is a lot of this cleanup work that we've already done (at least in the wealthy countries). That is certainly well and good and further pollution control, recycling, doing more with less all make good sense and we can expect these to continue. But if we start a worldwide project to capture and sequester carbon as some would like to see us do, it would be good to know that it has a chance of making some positive difference.
John,
Here are a few more links you may interested in having a look at. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1857355.htm
QuoteIf we knew that CFCs would plug a hole in the ozone layer, we wouldn't have used them in the first place. But NOBODY KNEW.
I you ever follow the money you will know that the above statement is not true. Corporate and political insider greed and dirty politicians cause all kinds of things to be done that are not good for the environment or people in general.
When DuPont invented R12 Freon they lobbied to get propane removed as a refrigerant with stories of how unsafe it is. Now that the patent protection period is up for R12, all the sudden it is unsafe for the ozone layer - a rather unproven theory anyway... but it opens the door for another high tech refrigerant to come to the market and bring in its big share of business, rather than propane which is more efficient than freon, fair for the environment and costs next to nothing. In fact - propane is being sold as a refrigerant under a high tech name now of Duracool. No recorded accidents from it's use and a label is all that is necessary as a warning for mechanics. It is much safer to have a pound or so of this stuff in your A/C than it is to be sitting on top of a 25 gallon gas tank in a wreck. You must have an expensive change over to use it though. You can't just hook the two hoses together like I do and fill your A/C for fifty cents.
I'm following a similar thread on another (subscription) website I been a member of for years (www.bmyers.com (//www.bmyers.com)). It was where I first saw the BBC-4 movie link.
Here is a link to an interesting article about how heated the argument has now become... death treats no less.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
PS - The latest copy of Atlantic Monthly has a big article on where money will be made as global warming kicks in. In fact, to make money we don't have to KNOW what is going on we just have to have agreement on what can be SOLD and this is determined by PERCEPTIONS not truth or facts. It was, after all, manipulation of perceptions that got us into Iraq, Vietnam, etc.
So much for others views on thread hijacking, eh? :-/
Death threats = money to be lost if the official line isn't believed.
I do think that, whatever the cause, it is warming.
Sooner or later oil will run out.
Population pressures are greater for humans, extinction possibilities for everything else.
Using less, transporting fewer things shorter distances, are probably pretty good ideas.
There is a great deal of resistance to changing our way of life--this does include me.
And if working with those ideas also reduces the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, fine. Even if that isn't the number one cause.
By the way the LaRouche people are getting on the Global Warming hoax idea. Sometimes they sound sensible, sometimes they don't. But they have the reputation for the latter.
I agree totally Amanda.
What we need to do personally is pretty much the same no matter what the determinate mechanism is.
And it is true that there will be groups who will use these ideas for their own agendas. For them it is always politics first and science only if it aligns with the political.
That doesn't' necessarily mean the science is wrong. "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me!" :)
Glenn
Did I read that correctly are you using Propane as a refrigerant in your vehicle? does it work okay... Any problems with oil and the compressor or the seals?
-Peter
And Yes large corporations decide what is safe and unsafe based on how much money they can make...
This is why Toxic waste gets dumped in drinking water...It is why people diefrom taking vioxx... People have decisions to make...And instead of morality..Greed rules the day and drives the decisions.
Drug companies, chemical companies...They are all the same.... I wish there was more protection from these massive companies...Whether we like it or not they are continuosly trying to control everything we buy or use as a society...
A friend of mine is very impressed by this web site--just to see what happened a while back she applied for two credit cards, asserting that she was unemployed, no assets of her own, etc. She now has a credit limit of something like $13,000.00 dollars. ;) :
http://www.carolynbaker.org/
in general--this in particular:
QuoteIN DEBT WE TRUST AS THE ECONOMY GOES BUST: A Return To Serfdom?, By Carolyn Baker
This week the Senate Banking Committee has begun an investigation of credit card companies and that industry's lending practices of which Chairman, Carl Levin of Michigan said, "Millions of families...are kept in debt and are in over their heads not just because of their own purchases...but because of the abusive practices and excesses of the credit card companies."
Might also check out this link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/03/11/BUGC2OHQJ01.DTL&type=business
QuoteLet's say someone is spending about 11 percent of his or her paycheck to cover interest on outstanding debt. Erica Sandberg, a spokeswoman for Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San Francisco, says she'd immediately advise that person to seek help.
"This is a huge amount of a person's paycheck just to make ends meet," Sandberg said. "That's never smart. If you're borrowing that much, you might feel good for the short term. But over the long haul, you're going to be in real trouble."
Unfortunately, the person she's talking about is you -- and everybody you know.
As the national debt approaches a staggering $9 trillion, roughly $240 billion will be spent this year paying interest on the half that's held by public creditors (of which Japan and China are the largest). That translates to about 11 percent of projected tax revenue.
In other words, we're spending more on interest for our national credit card bill than was spent last year in discretionary funds for the Education, Veterans Affairs and Justice departments combined.
Apparently not a new idea to make us, though debt, into the new serfs--Baker quotes--and copies the illustration--from a last year's article.
Okay, I'm going to share a few of my thoughts on this. this thread is meandering off topic, but I can't help myself.
2. 1.
QuoteShe now has a credit limit of something like $13,000.00 dollars.
Good for her. You never know when some
genuine emergency could come along and having that available could be a quick ready way of covering it. Then you have some time to see if you can obtain the money at a lower interest rate, pay off the card in full, and get on with things. The DANGER, to many people, once they have all this money (credit), is that they cannot tell the difference between a "want" and a life event "necessity"
Quoteyou might feel good for the short term. But over the long haul, you're going to be in real trouble.
Pure common sense! It's the instant gratification syndrome at work. I guess I learned that from my parent's. Dad operated a milk delivery route for as long as I can remember. I think the only thing they bought on credit or with a loan was their home.
SA3.
QuoteUnfortunately, the person she's talking about is you -- and everybody you know.
No it's not me; but I'm certain a bunch of my friend's and neighbors are included. I know I'm an exception; always have been, and in more ways than just money and the management thereof.
About 1970 I recognized the value in having the then fairly new Chargex credit card. It morphed into Visa. It wasn't accepted in many places of business back then, but I got one and started using other people's money until the monthly bill became due. Then I paid it off in full. I have done that ever since. The only time I have ever paid interest (and a late fee) were those ocassions when I simply screwed up and forgot to send the payment in on time. I can count those times on one hand over the 30+ years I've had credit cards. And on several of those occasions a nice friendly low key phone call from me had the charges and fees dismissed.
We put virtually everything on a credit card. Only time we don't is when there's a extra fee (county property taxes for example) or it's not possible (my lawyer doesn't do Visa, for example). The bill from the credit card autopays every month from a bank account. This only works if you keep track of your financial situation.
I borrowed money the first time for my first home. The second time I borrowed money was for a 1976 Scout I just couldn't live without... one of my weak moments. But I made sure I could pay both of them off early without penalty, and I did just that.
As soon as the house was paid off I borrowed money against it to buy the business I worked in. That was paid off in a few years; partly due to hard work, partly due to great luck in that the retail photo business was exploding at the time.
Vacations, hobby expenses (full size race cars, radio control airplanes & race cars, 4 wheel drive Jeeps, etc) and nice things to have (DVD recorder, power tools, computers, electronic sewing machines, (my wife's), the RV, etc.... you get the idea.... these things have all been paid for with money saved and on hand at time of purchase. Well, except for timing some purchases to extract the full benefit of the credit card grace period.
I have used a variety of bank accounts, CD's (the money kind, not The Who or whoever), and other investments to make money on the money I have/had
unspent... You can be in control , rather than be at the mercy of the banks and credit card companies. But only if you can get over instant gratification. And yes, I have had so-called impulse purchases, but only because I knew I had the reserves to pay for them.
I admit it is a fact of financial life that it's easier to get a good rate, borrow money, etc if you have good collateral. I've heard it put "it's easier to borrow money if you don't need to borrow it". True, but that is a reflection on the risk the lender is taking on. If I did have a real financial emergency, because I've handled things well, I could take advantage of the lower interest rate (lower than credit card) available to me on an already setup home equity line of credit.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, Yes, there is a tremendous amount of consumer debt out there. But in most cases very foolishly so. Nobody
needs that 52" big screen TV, the new SUV; they just
want it bad enough they become blind to the real cost when financed on their credit card. Nobody (average size family, Mom and/or Dad, 2+ kids and a dog)
needs a 2500 sq ft home (I think that's the USA average). They make a conscious decision to buy it. And go into debt. And work the stressful job to pay for it. Etc. Etc.
Leaving out the factor of an extremely costly medical emergency, family or other "outside" financial disaster, most people are where they are financially today because of decisions they made. Some just handle it better than others.
Okay, I'm done. I promise to stay off my soap box for at least a day or two.
FYI, if you wonder about, or are confused about the "soap box" reference it comes to us courtesy of Merry Olde England where anyone could speak out on whatever was on their mind on Sunday's in Hyde Park, London, England. It was common to stand on a wooden soap box to elevate oneself above the crowd. The tradition carries on today.
Sorry for being so long winded, but as an ex-banker I've met my fill of fiscally irresponsible people. I just hope you are not among them.
Two more words: Personal Responsibility
QuoteGlenn
Did I read that correctly are you using Propane as a refrigerant in your vehicle? does it work okay... Any problems with oil and the compressor or the seals?
-Peter
Yes - you read it right - it is approved as Duracool legally after the R134A conversion is noted to be somewhat of a disappointment (You have to make sure the proper people get paid off.) If you forget this step and accidentally go right to propane - oh - well ---
It is a better refrigerant than R12 - safe - Duracool is a commercial brand of propane (costs more) check out the MSDS for ingredients. Yes - it is compatible with current existing compressor oils. This information as posted by a group of retired GM car dealers in an RV forum. I have been running it for over a year in my truck and the Stealth when it runs. Haven't had seal problems.
Duracool comes with labels to warn mechanics that the gas is flammable. Supposedly better for the Ozone if that is real. I think I may be an Ozone Hole Denier. :-/ I think a piece of Duck Tape with the words Duracool or Propane refrigerant should take care of the safety problem - but hey -- that's just me.
Glenn
I may need to call you on the propane thing...You have my brain working overtime here....
I will have to get back to this when I get some time from the house work...
Not a problem -
It is listed in the old tables of refrigerants.
I use it the same as freon watching head pressures and for bubbles to disappear in the glass. The auto group claimed it wasn't even necessary to evacuate the system totally.
I've only had a chance to look at a bit of this site - I'm glad to see that there are more people bringing out the other side & using science to back it up - although no one has a definitive answer.
I don't hear too many people mentioning HAARP or chemtrails... remember all the hoopla about the holes in the ozone? I'd reckon they've been helped along by HAARP along with several other countries who have the same set-up...
Sassy
I was reading somewhere that the ozone layer is healing itself quite nicely...Yes they predict another 100 years or something...But NASA has released photos and scans and all that business showing modest improvements in Ozone....
They said that there would be so many CFC's in the atmosphere for years to come that growth would remain slow for a long time...But the thing that made me glad was that the damage is not long term we did not totally screw the world it will heal itself if we leave it alone
Same thing in my opinion with greenhouse gas...If we stop polluting the world will heal itself and correct itself...All that needs to happen is....We need to stop polluting....Something that can not happen in our lifetimes....So the warming and the carbon being released is going to get much worse before it slows down or attempts to get any better...
Coal is still number one on the worldwide electrical generation grid...And I am not talking about the type of powerplant where they pressurize coal or inject steam underground so the carbon is not released in the atmosphere... I am talking smoke stack acid rain coal burning...
When that ceases to exist...The world will start to cool.....
It would be nice in the meantime if we could as a whole planet plant more trees to offset all the carbon being released...I mean if we increased forest cover by 5% the trees could suck up all the carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere...
Although I did see on yahoo news that Europe Parts of Asia and North America have reversed the deforestation trend and forest growth while slow is happening in these places...So it is possible to replant and revive our forest cover...
Quote
Although I did see on yahoo news that Europe Parts of Asia and North America have reversed the deforestation trend and forest growth while slow is happening in these places...So it is possible to replant and revive our forest cover...
I can't put my mouse cursor on it right now but out of something like 50 countries inventoried about 20 - 25 have gone from net
deforestation to net
reforestation, and the USA is one of them. I'll search some more tomorrow and see what I can find/post.
When I used to fly to Oregon I could see that the mandated tree replanting programs were working great and the forests were growing back just fine. Not old growth but a good start.
Glenn
you just touched on one of the two main problems I have with a rosy eyed report that we are reforesting the world...
One is that we are losing our old forest growth trees that are hundred and hundreds of years old for new trees....No way a 500 year old tree can be replaced in 50 years....the new tree does not absorb as much pollution or make as much oxygen for us to breathe either.
The other problem I have is that a lot of the re-forestation are actually tree plantations or tree farms.....Where a diverse and unique balance of trees and plants are lost and one specific type of tree replaces them....Technically it is forest...But to other plants, insects and animals it is devastating to the ecology to lose everything and get just one type of plant in return.....and that is what is happening in many parts of the world where we are planting trees.... We are only planting the trees that have the absolute most economic value.....
I think we can overcome both of these issues easily by making sure that what is left of the worlds old forest growth is protected and never hewn upon....And making sure that part of all reforestation projects get all the natural types of trees and pants back into the forest for all the animals and environment...
I am happy that in parts of the world at least they are at least planting trees...That is a good start to a working solution.....It is amazing with all the complex problems of the world...this one is easily solved by getting dirty and planting trees....No high tech research needed....Get out there and plant trees....The rest of it will take care of itself...
Imagine if the USA, China, Russia spent one year of nuke research money on tree planting.....Bam! all the forestation issues would be a thing of the past...
I live across the Rio Grande from Albuquerque. They're giving away 5000 trees for property owners tomorrow.
http://www.cabq.gov/sustainability/green-goals/trees/5-000-tree-giveaway
Trees are vital to arid parts of the world....Drought resistant trees absorb rainwater that would just rin off the dry clay like soil in arid regions.. It keeps the water table up...Prevents erosion...Reduces winds...
For all the scientists out there trying to save the damned world...we can do as much as all the scientists combined by just planting trees
Good story and link...Nice to see that Albequerque gets it...and is working hard to clean itself up....
Here's another article on Global Warming - true or not? Some scientific arguments...
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/56/7135/mercer.asp?wid=56&nid=7135
And from a totally different point of view--something very like this has happened before:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece
The author's blog:
http://www.marklynas.org/
And his conclusion, from the timesonline piece:
QuoteRED ALERT
If global warming continues at the current rate, we could be facing extinction. So what exactly is going to happen as the Earth heats up? Here is a degree-by-degree guide
1c Increase
Ice-free sea absorbs ?more heat and accelerates global warming; fresh water lost from a third of the world's surface; low-lying coastlines flooded
2c Increase
Europeans dying of heatstroke; forests ravaged by fire; stressed plants beginning to emit carbon rather than absorbing it; a third of all species face extinction
3c Increase
Carbon release from vegetation and soils ?speeds global warming; death of the Amazon rainforest; super-hurricanes hit coastal cities; starvation in Africa
4c Increase
Runaway thaw of permafrost makes global warming unstoppable; much of Britain made uninhabitable by severe flooding; Mediterranean region abandoned
5c Increase
Methane from ocean floor accelerates global warming; ice gone from both poles; humans migrate in search of food and try vainly to live like animals off the land
6c Increase
Life on Earth ends with apocalyptic storms, flash floods, hydrogen sulphide gas and methane fireballs racing across the globe with the power of atomic bombs; only fungi survive
Chance of avoiding six degrees of global warming: zero if the rise passes five degrees, by which time all feedbacks will be running out of control
The article is scary, Amanda... Lynas has done a lot of research - so how do we get China & Mexico & some of the other countries to cut down on the greenhouse gases?
When we used to go to Mexico the air was so terrible in the towns - the cars spewed out the most obnoxious pollution - & per that article I posted - the transport trucks from Mexico, that aren't required to have the same standards as those in the US will now be driving through California to the tune of thousands of trucks a day... that article said it would be like adding 2.2 million cars to the # already on the road every day... so that we can have cheap products... :-/
Sassy
Yes the older cars and trucks are nasty...They will go away as they wear out...Automobiles is a small part of this problem...Coal is the major one..
Worldwide Coal is the Number one source for electricity...If there exists viable technologies for trapping the carbon released when the coal is burned...That technology is not being used...
There is a rush world wide to build as many old low tech coal fired plants as possible right now with the thinking that they will be grandfathered in when the world comes to a consensus on what restrictions there needs to be on all electricity generation worldwide.
India and China will enter into the international community and there will be strict pollution guidelines world wide...
Taking the Military budget of the top powers in the world and planting trees would solve 90% of the problem.... Yes we need to use cleaner fuels...Yes we need to find ways to conserve energy and reduce the amount of fuel we need... But planting trees is a guaranteed way to reduce carbon levels worldwide.
One thing that the scientists fail to mention when they are trying to scare us to death is that the population in Europe, Canada, America is getting smaller...North America and Europe rely on Immigration from Asia and South America to maintain their population levels...The population growth rate has also slowed dramatically in China and in India...They are still growing but not nearly so quickly as 20 years ago...
What I mean to say is that there is a stabilizing of world population...meaning that eventually it will start to slowly reduce.... This is great news for the planet...As less people and slower growth means less pollution. It also means the huge demand for power will wane... Allowing green technologies to catch up and be implimented...
The last decade has seen such huge growth for the need of electricity that they just started to build coal plants worldwide with reckless abandon... When the worlds demand for electricity wanes we can make smarter choices as to how we replace old existing power plants and how we design and build new ones.
For all the gloom doom and scare tactics...We can have this well in hand in a decade with smart decisions...
Interestingly leaders in the People's Republic of China are paying increasing attention to their country's severe environmental problems. In March 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency. This reflects the growing importance China's Government places on environmental protection. In recent years, the PRC has strengthened their environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html
And, to add to Amanda's scary post, more gloom doom and scare tactics.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36963
I read that about China a week or two ago Jonesy. Good reason for them to look into pollution as all of our manufacturing and jobs go over there. Of course we don't work that cheap and without jobs can't afford to pay more anyway. Note that I have no quarrel with China or buying from them - just with our pollys and corporations for selling us out so the elite can make even more. Most investors don't receive a great benefit.
In a little local NW news, the new premier of British Columbia was expected to push for offshore oil drilling but instead has made a green turnaround and met with the governor of CA to plan a big infrastructure project to put in hydrogen fueling stations from San Diego to Whistler, BC. I guess this would allow you to drive your hydrogen car to the 2010 winter Olympics. :)
The interesting thing is that these are both considered to be conservative politicians!
Personally, I don't think hydrogen will make it too far into the future as a transportation fuel, but.... This is a much better "make work" project than building military hardware! ;)
John
I like Hydrogen...But for it to work...We need better batteries and we need more advancements in Clean Coal...
If we have abundant electricity...Then everyone who owns their own home can hook a water hose into a small gizmo twice the size of a toaster that spearates the hydrogen from water...And you can fuel up your hydrogen car at home...For pennies a day
Cheap abundant electricity is the key...And for the electricity to be generated without killing the environment we need clean coal...True capturing of the carbon emissions...Not some pie in the sky
There are several ways for the hydrogen car to go...There is the fuel cell...there is the electric car... and then there is just a hydrogen car that burns hydrogen
I like all/any of the above and I think that a hydrogen electric hybrid will be very popular.... Battery technology needs to increase the storage capacity and recharge rates for batteries... But this combo would allow you to fuel up at either an electrical outlet or a hydrogen filling receptacle... So when Travelling you would have 2 options on how to fill up...
We have uber coal....And I am all for using it cleanly to produce electricity if the electricity is used to power electric cars... hybrid cars.... hydrogen cars and electric hydrogen cars.....This reduces the amount of oil we consume... import.. burn...And it makes a huge difference for the world...The less we use oil the more demand goes down...The less emissions worldwide....
The trick is going to be to get the world to use clean coal technologies...So that this cheap abundant energy source is clean....and we can make real advances in the environment... There is little to no net gain if we burn nasty dirty coal to generate electricty for electric cars....We substitute the pollution from burning oil and gas by burning the coal...Carbon and pollutants still get released into the atmosphere.
Someone posted a great article about burning waste in Landfills to create syngas to generate electricity....Innovative ways to generate clean electricity such as this will allow the Hydrogen economy to flourish...
Solar panel technology is important too... We are making better windmills to generate electricity and they are harnessing the energy of waves from oceans...But cheap efficient solar panels means that every homeowner in the world could have a solar panel...Meaning they generate part of their own or all of their own electricity needs... Meaning that they can generate their own Hydrogen for their cars or charge up their electric Hybrids...
Creating a massive influx of cheap abundant clean energy
And as for china....There is a massive green push there....Their economy in 20 years will be cleaner than ours.... They are making money in China and are a model of progress and efficiency...Growth there is 10% or more annually.... Their workforce is highlky motivated and educated...When they get green and turn their waste into energy they will become more efficient....From their garbage to their sewage they will be recycling it all in the next decade...
Then America will truly have no excuse not to enter into treaties that curb emissions like Kyoto
The rest of the world is already working on a new Kyoto like treaty that has more stringent restrictions on emissions..Kyoto expires in 2011 or 2012 I think...
Unless major changes have been made, current hydrogen technology that is being actively pursued is hydrogen being produced from oil, and is just another oil company swindle. Current cost for a hydrogen capable car is over $1,000,000
://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/fuelcellcars.html
(https://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d184/glennkangiser/ScreenShot013-1.jpg)
from http://www.pluginamerica.com/whyev.shtml
Some info on the plan - I haven't read it yet.
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/vision/vision.pdf
I went looking online to buy one - these cars are available in 2006 - 2007 if I read that right. I didn't find one for sale yet. If someone does please post it.
Found this 2018 per Honda. Looks like another reason for gov to squander our money.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/03/is-84-000-for-a-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-reasonable/
I have seen small time inventors and back yard tinkerers get a lot farther than gov.
One commenter mentioned it may be Yen instead of dollars but can't be as 84000 yen is $719 per a converter.
California Fuel Cell Partnership list Oil companies who combined have partnered with or own nearly all the rest of the oil companies. Chevron bought up the patent rights to the electric car batteries that made them feasible and killed them.
http://www.cafcp.org/about_members.html
http://stationaryfuelcells.org/
QuoteThe Prophet of Garbage
Joseph Longo's Plasma Converter turns our most vile and toxic trash into clean energy—and promises to make a relic of the landfill
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
I posted this under the heding "The Prophet of Garbage" but I guess that wasn't a catchy title - here it is again - sounds like a plan to me, although the prototype converter took 20 yrs of research & tinkering & millions $$ - but now it could be duplicated much easier...
Here's a link I posted elsewhere on electricity from the ocean waves
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wave11mar11,0,2922563.story
Peter - the US has lots of coal, also - but how does mining it affect the environment, not to mention the miners themselves & the dangers (ie Russia's lastest coal mining disaster)?
Key to the Oil Companies:
QuoteHydrogen-rich fuels. FCVs can also be fueled with hydrogen-rich fuels, such as methanol, natural gas, petroleum distillates, or even gasoline. These fuels must be passed through onboard "reformers" that extract pure hydrogen from the fuel for use in the fuel cell. Reforming does emit some carbon dioxide (CO2), but much less than gasoline engines do.
The fuels mentioned above contain enough hydrogen to allow FCVs to travel the same distance as a conventional vehicle on a single tank of gas; about 300 to 400 miles. Also, unlike hydrogen gas, liquid fuels like methanol and gasoline wouldn't require a completely new system for delivering fuel to consumers.
Although there are advantages to powering FCVs with these fuels, there are also several disadvantages.
* Onboard reformers add to the complexity, cost, and maintenance demands of a vehicle's fuel cell system.
* If the reformer allows carbon oxides to reach the fuel cell anode, it can gradually decrease the performance of the cell.
* Reformers produce small amounts of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.
It is not yet clear which method of fueling fuel cells will prevail. Research and development continues for all of these fueling options.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_fuels.shtml
EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION BILL ON FAST TRACK (http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest81.htm) (article from 2006)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517 S. 517 [109th]: Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005
"U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight, is on the "fast track" to be passed early in 2006.
"This bill is designed to implement experimental weather modification. The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures.
"Trimethyl Aluminum (TMA) and barium are just two of the toxic chemicals used in recent atmospheric heating and testing programs according to NASA. The Alaska H.A.A.R.P. atmospheric heating program may have the capability of changing the Jet Stream which could also change our weather."
CONTRAILS: KILLING US SOFTLY? (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd257.htm)
"Over time, I met Rosalind Peterson, who has been doing the hard research on this issue; her credentials here. Rosalind's research has gone far and above what most people can imagine. One of the most important presentations she made during our meeting at the State Capitol in Sacramento, California (details here) were the water tables showing the spikes in aluminum and barium, and the FAA fly over sheets for the Mendocino area. Even the nit wit at Rep. Neillo's office was surprised when Rosalind presented these documents which clearly showed military and civilian plane patterns; color ink is used to designate which is military and which are civilian planes, private or commercial. Neillo's aide could clearly see was one set of fly overs were unidentified. These fly over patterns are silly when you look at them. They go crisscross and in circles and then simply fly off into the sunset. No one can tell you why this crazy fly over pattern on a specific day or who these planes belong to and unfortunately, Neillo's aide simply refused to look into the matter. He arrogantly told me the contrails in Sacramento that I observed from my house only three miles from the airport were from commercial jets. Of course, it makes perfect sense that 2-4 commercial jet liners like Delta or United, would take off from the Sacramento airport at the same time, fly north and south and then east and west for 3-4 hours and then head for Philly or Boston. Now, why didn't I think of that!"
Here's another article on weather manipulation - A Doctor Speaks Out About Chemtrails http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=21473
Global warming editing as approved by the Bush administration and big oil.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11417&print=true
Quote from: Sassy on March 20, 2007, 05:16:09 PM
EXPERIMENTAL WEATHER MODIFICATION BILL ON FAST TRACK (http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest81.htm) (article from 2006)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-517 S. 517 [109th]: Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005
"U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995, a bill that would allow experimental weather modification by artificial methods and implement a national weather modification policy, does not include agriculture or public oversight, is on the "fast track" to be passed early in 2006.
"This bill is designed to implement experimental weather modification. The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures.
"Trimethyl Aluminum (TMA) and barium are just two of the toxic chemicals used in recent atmospheric heating and testing programs according to NASA. The Alaska H.A.A.R.P. atmospheric heating program may have the capability of changing the Jet Stream which could also change our weather."
CONTRAILS: KILLING US SOFTLY? (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd257.htm)
"Over time, I met Rosalind Peterson, who has been doing the hard research on this issue; her credentials here. Rosalind's research has gone far and above what most people can imagine. One of the most important presentations she made during our meeting at the State Capitol in Sacramento, California (details here) were the water tables showing the spikes in aluminum and barium, and the FAA fly over sheets for the Mendocino area. Even the nit wit at Rep. Neillo's office was surprised when Rosalind presented these documents which clearly showed military and civilian plane patterns; color ink is used to designate which is military and which are civilian planes, private or commercial. Neillo's aide could clearly see was one set of fly overs were unidentified. These fly over patterns are silly when you look at them. They go crisscross and in circles and then simply fly off into the sunset. No one can tell you why this crazy fly over pattern on a specific day or who these planes belong to and unfortunately, Neillo's aide simply refused to look into the matter. He arrogantly told me the contrails in Sacramento that I observed from my house only three miles from the airport were from commercial jets. Of course, it makes perfect sense that 2-4 commercial jet liners like Delta or United, would take off from the Sacramento airport at the same time, fly north and south and then east and west for 3-4 hours and then head for Philly or Boston. Now, why didn't I think of that!"
Just thought I'd bring this back up to the surface.... Some of the wording since the above post has been changed on the U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995 that was put on fast track back in 2006 but worth a look...
We are being ruled by mad men.
When I read about these things, all I can think is these are methods of funneling public money into private hands. Car companies are given billion of dollars to develop new battery and fuel technologies. Corporations are given billions to reduce their carbon emissions. Research foundations and universities are given billions through federal grants to "study" global warming. Public money into private hands, but it's not enough.
Some people are duped into giving their money to private companies to invest in "green" technologies so their carbon footprints will be "offset." Celebrities are recruited to make people feel responsible for something they have virtually no control over. "Calculate your carbon footprint," they advise "so you can pay the correct offset and become carbon neutral." Yeah, right.
So much for green building & all our technology... read this a couple weeks ago...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241872/EXCLUSIVE-Inside-Chinas-secret-toxic-unobtainium-mine.html
EXCLUSIVE: Inside China's secret toxic unobtainium mine
By Richard Jones In Baiyun Obo, Inner Mongolia
Last updated at 11:19 AM on 10th January 2010
"Last week it was reported that China - which has a global monopoly on the production of rare-earth metals - is now threatening to cut off vital supplies to the West. A shortage would jeopardise the manufacturing and development of green technologies such as wind turbines and low-energy lightbulbs. RICHARD JONES is the first Western journalist to visit the rare-earth mines in Inner Mongolia to discover why China is unwilling to give up its precious elements...
It looks like a scene from an apocalyptic science-fiction movie. High on the frozen plains of Inner Mongolia, giant trucks rumble across the floor of a lunar-like crater so vast that it looks as if it might have been gouged out by a meteorite.
As we peer down at the eerie spectacle from the crater's edge, a security guard behind us barks out in Mandarin: 'Explosives! Move away!' Seconds later, a deafening crack rings out and part of a 660ft high rock face is brought crashing down."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241872/EXCLUSIVE-Inside-Chinas-secret-toxic-unobtainium-mine.html#ixzz0dfEjHWeH
more here... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/business/global/01minerals.html
Climate Flimflam Flaming Out
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519049 (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519049)
Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to this article, I assume no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information disclosed.
The billion-dollar hoax
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564)
Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to this article, I assume no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information disclosed.
;D
Good article here in Der Spiegel for which I don't require any disclaimer:
Confidence Melting Away - Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html#ref=nlint (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,674087,00.html#ref=nlint)
The hysterics and exaggerated prophesies of pundits like Al Gore, as well as scientific inaccuracies in the IPCC report, along with the indications that more than a few climate scientists have acted as activists has done irreparable damage to the credibility of the scientific community at large and as a whole.
Sad times. Good job, guys.
It sure is satisfying that the "conspiracy theorists" questioned Gore et al on the validity of global warming ;D There were lots of scientists who were blackballed due to their questioning the "scientific evidence" >:(
Took someone hacking the emails for the truth to come out... they were caught with their pants down & couldn't cover up fast enough heh heh
Quote from: Sassy on January 28, 2010, 12:31:51 PM
It sure is satisfying that the "conspiracy theorists" questioned Gore et al on the validity of global warming ;D
[frus]
Sorry Raindog. [noidea' What's up with this. ???
Everytime something doesn't fit your belief of how it should be, you conspiracy theorists scream ripoff and try to make big business look bad. We are all aware global warming is real and yet you find some obscure scientist and a bunch of obviously faked e-mails to question the obvious fact that we have warmed the globe by several degress. Enough to melt the polar ice caps and drown half of the people in low lying cities under 500 feet elevation. :(
I personally am exceeding my carbon footprint and am sending Al a check to buy credits from some non-polluting troglodyte in a third world country.... [waiting]
I did one of those carbon footprint calculators and it claimed I had a smaller carbon footprint when I lived in NYC than I do now living in central Vermont.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on January 28, 2010, 12:40:57 PM
Sorry Raindog. [noidea' What's up with this. ???
Everytime something doesn't fit your belief of how it should be, you conspiracy theorists scream ripoff and try to make big business look bad. We are all aware global warming is real and yet you find some obscure scientist and a bunch of obviously faked e-mails to question the obvious fact that we have warmed the globe by several degress. Enough to melt the polar ice caps and drown half of the people in low lying cities under 500 feet elevation. :(
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not a global warming denier.
From above:
"The hysterics and exaggerated prophesies of pundits like Al Gore, as well as scientific inaccuracies in the IPCC report, along with the indications that more than a few climate scientists have acted as activists has done irreparable damage to the credibility of the scientific community at large and as a whole."
That's my problem with it. Not that I think climate science is nonsense or a big lie. My problem is with the politicization and industrialization of climate change studies, the solutions lobbied for, and the extreme scare tactics used to promote the agenda of those who wish to profit by it in a financial or ideological sense, rather than the science behind it.
Hmm, Raindog.... I think you should be... I'm so confused... ::)
RainDog posts all of those links claiming the science behind global warming is fake, misleading, exaggerated, based on cherry picked data, etc., and then says he's not a denier. Confusing indeed.
I'm a denier. I think global warming is BS and Al Gore needs to be put in a straight jacket.
My bad. Haven't been clear.
What I see in this whole debacle is science subverted by politics and ideology. The systems being studied here (climate) are very resistant to reductionism and rely heavily on modeling. When Al Gore, with his wildly successful self-advertising campaign and recklessly exaggerated doomsday prophesies, and his ilk managed to create a religion out of global warming, it created a scenario in which money flooded into grants with grand expectations of more and more alarming conclusions, which in turn, considering that climatology is a rather soft science, made it too easy for scientists to, consciously or sub-consciously, manipulate data in their modeling that bolstered the religion in bids for continuing funding.
The end result is what we see now. Not only has climatology been demonized, but to some extent scientific method as a whole as well. We see this in other areas, such as the reduction of evolution by the religious right.
And he gets a Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Quote from: pagancelt on January 29, 2010, 08:42:53 AM
RainDog posts all of those links claiming the science behind global warming is fake, misleading, exaggerated, based on cherry picked data, etc., and then says he's not a denier. Confusing indeed.
Yeah, I can see what you mean. Totally my fault. I've been posting links without stating
why I've posted them. Hopefully I've made my position clearer above.
Quote from: RainDog on January 29, 2010, 08:49:33 AM
My bad. Haven't been clear.
What I see in this whole debacle is science subverted by politics and ideology. The systems being studied here (climate) are very resistant to reductionism and rely heavily on modeling. When Al Gore, with his wildly successful self-advertising campaign and recklessly exaggerated doomsday prophesies, and his ilk managed to create a religion out of global warming, it created a scenario in which money flooded into grants with grand expectations of more and more alarming conclusions, which in turn, considering that climatology is a rather soft science, made it too easy for scientists to, consciously or sub-consciously, manipulate data in their modeling that bolstered the religion in bids for continuing funding.
The end result is what we see now. Not only has climatology been demonized, but to some extent scientific method as a whole as well. We see this in other areas, such as the reduction of evolution by the religious right.
And he gets a Nobel Peace Prize for that.
Very well put. The first clue you get that this is an agenda and not science is the name change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". They can say climate change is real and not be lying because the climate is always changing. But it's not the same thing as Global warming.
Cleared up for me, thanks.
My take is scientists want the grant money to do their research, hell, they don't want to go out and get real jobs where the produce something tangible, right? So they write their proposals in such a manner as to get the money. Politicians are stupid and care only about getting reelected. They're more concerned with looking weak in front of their electorate, so they push a public agenda they think the public wants, and then Gore comes out with his movie. Scientists are smart, and Gore gave them all they needed for them to write proposals to get tons of government grant money. As long as your research is related to Global Warming you're all set. Now you've got millions of sheeple crying about polar bears and melting glaciers screaming at stupid politicians to do something who then turn to greedy scientists to perform more research to FIX the climate. The whole thing feeds itself.
The ultimate in moronic convergence, bin Laden becomes a global warming activist.
(AP) - Bin Laden Blasts US for Climate Change
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHCO002.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHCO002.html)
Poor little Osama, doesn't he know most American products are made in China?
I came in late to this one so if I post something you've already read don't beat me! :P
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
There are many articles like this one -- hundreds really -- that debunk the Global Warming Myth. However, my favorite (and I'll have to search for it) is one on the warming trends on Mars, Jupiter's moons and perhaps Pluto.
No Global Warming Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling Alarmist has yet to explain this.
Of course they also have a hard time with the fact that it's been cooling since 98 or 2001 (still uncertain which year was the peak) and might not go back to warming for a while -- but it will since there are cycles of solar activity which influence earths global temperatures.
Of course, they also have not addressed the fact that it was warmer in 1300 then it is now -- funny that.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
That's just one of many on the mars connection..
And I almost forgot (and will have to search for) the article pointing out that the Satellite used by Gore's researchers was broken...DOH!
And Ice Caps are at 1979 levels...and Antarctic ice shelf is growing and and and
They are full of crap.
Great god in heaven - GOP vs. Dems square off again. Here's my take: If you buy any particular party's line, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
The only question worth asking is "Is there something happening, and is it likely to be a problem for humans?". If the answer is yes, I don't give a rat's *** if it is man-made or caused by solar radiation or evil dragons. "What are we going to do to make sure it's not a problem for us?" is the only question that matters.
Both political parties have a lot to gain to make sure we battle each other over it. Not a single person here has anything to gain by playing into them. Debates like this is what is going to transform this great country of ours into a two-bit banana republic.
Sorry for the rant, but god I'm tired of smart people buying into media-driven political sound bytes.
(Boy am I going to catch hell for this - I'm already sorry I had that third beer...)
All Bin Laden tapes are special effects created by the US Government special film team. The guy has been dead for years. The gov just needs a bogeyman to keep the sheeple scared.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on March 05, 2010, 11:43:26 PM
All Bin Laden tapes are special effects created by the US Government special film team. The guy has been dead for years. The gov just needs a bogeyman to keep the sheeple scared.
I love you and you know I do not subcribe to allyour conspiracies....This is one that I can actually say "Yep, that is possible and believable" Of course I really have no idea....But it's not far reaching.
Quote from: cabinfever on March 05, 2010, 08:08:46 PM
Great god in heaven - GOP vs. Dems square off again. Here's my take: If you buy any particular party's line, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
The only question worth asking is "Is there something happening, and is it likely to be a problem for humans?". If the answer is yes, I don't give a rat's *** if it is man-made or caused by solar radiation or evil dragons. "What are we going to do to make sure it's not a problem for us?" is the only question that matters.
Both political parties have a lot to gain to make sure we battle each other over it. Not a single person here has anything to gain by playing into them. Debates like this is what is going to transform this great country of ours into a two-bit banana republic.
Sorry for the rant, but god I'm tired of smart people buying into media-driven political sound bytes.
(Boy am I going to catch hell for this - I'm already sorry I had that third beer...)
Actually, this post is no different then any others.
Quote from: StinkerBell on March 06, 2010, 11:28:12 AM
Quote from: glenn kangiser on March 05, 2010, 11:43:26 PM
All Bin Laden tapes are special effects created by the US Government special film team. The guy has been dead for years. The gov just needs a bogeyman to keep the sheeple scared.
I love you and you know I do not subcribe to allyour conspiracies....This is one that I can actually say "Yep, that is possible and believable" Of course I really have no idea....But it's not far reaching.
I love you too, Stinky, and all I can say is, "Would you like a subscription to all of them?"
If you go back through all the pix of Osama from old to new - posted in various places on the net, you will see that they vary in ridiculous amounts. He was pretty much on his Death bed in Dubai when the CIA visited him July before 911. He said he did not do it - it was our government and associates that pulled it off. I have heard that he at least was telling the truth and was an honest person. If he wanted to tell you he wanted to kill you he would. Not sneak around lying about it like our officials. He worked for the CIA in Afghanistan against the Russians. Once Cia - always CIA they say.
Any more subscriptions you would like, Stinky? :)
I like that word myself. It indicates what I would buy into....You have certain subscriptions I would not buy yet othes I could see myself buying, or at least considering to buy.
I have an unhealthy love for you. I hope you understand....bwahhahahahah
Not a problem, Stink. I can handle it. Care to subscribe?.... [waiting]
Right now I am just kinda looking through the pages. I hate subscriptions that havenothing but advertisement in it. heh
Study on, Stink. I hope you find something of interest.... [waiting]
glenn,
I always get a kick out of the so called Bin Laden 9-11 confession tape, where he allegedly takes credit for planning the attacks. That guy doesn't even look anything like Bin Laden. It's laughable in its absurdity.
I know -- I read somewhere that even told where we were having the videos made.
Laughable for sure, but for some reason it still keeps on working with the ones who get their news from the TV. [ouch]