Hello:

I seem to recall that when it was cold, the climate change deniers said, LOOK at that. It's cold. Global warming MUST be a hoax...

Ok, LOOK at that. Massive flooding in the mid west, massive drought in the south west, unending tornadoes, and a humongous snow pack. If we have a hot June, the west will flood. This is ANYTHING, but normal. Hurricane season is just around the corner... Whaddya want to bet that we see a couple of Katrina's?

I've been WARNING about crossing the threshold into the abyss. Now we have. Maybe it's too late to STOP throwing our garbage into the air. But, we oughta do it anyway, just in case.

excon

Saw this today, thought it was cool:

j0sCCJFkEbE

Blame the chicken little crowd for using junk science and questionable data to back up their claims. And their constant flip flopping claiming when it get hot... that's global warming... and when it gets colder that's global warming too.

A good volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the air than everything man has done has. Perhaps me digging those holes to plant more trees in my back your caused those Volcano's to erupt halfway around the world.

Never mind the fact the average mean temp has been decreasing for the last decade. And getting more snow in the winter doesn't mean its getting warmer. It means its getting colder. And we are actually returning to the larger and more frequent snowfalls that we had when I was younger. And I'm younger than you are but I remember them.

How about The ENTIRE west coast give up ALL their cars and everything that uses fossil fuels for a decade... lets see if that helps or hurts the situation. We hear so much about " The greater good" from them. Lets see them do it first. And see how many are really going to practice what they preach for a change.

Saw this today, thought it was cool:

j0sCCJFkEbE

Ha ha ha... that's actually a pretty funny commercial. Haven't seen that before.

'Climate change happens '. I am looking for that bumper sticker if there is one out there.

You are right that all reasonable means should be taken to reduce human emissions ;garbage ,whatever you like to call it.

CO2 is not one of those harmful emissions .
In fact ,recent studies show increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more related to cooling cycles.


Recent studies prove that CO 2 cannot possibly cause increased temperatures. The reverse appears to be the case. The more CO 2 in the atmosphere results in lower temperatures as CO 2 attains only 4/5ths of the atmospheric temperature. If you want to increase atmospheric temperature you have to increase water vapour, not CO 2 .

Ice core studies show that during the 1800s, CO 2 levels reached up to 450 parts per million. Far above IPCC levels of 280 parts per million. Each spike in CO 2 followed an increase in temperature. It did not precede temperature increases.
CO 2 not causing climate change The Gisborne Herald | Gisborne's latest News, Sport, Family Notices, Photos and Events (http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/opinion/column/?id=22676)

Even your Michael Mann's of the world cannot link tornadoes to climate change no matter how much they fudge the numbers .

It is generally agreed that the weather pattern we've seen has more to do with Pacific occilation between el nino and la nina.

Droughts in the Plains were around when the combustion engine was a new concept and few people drove. Flooding the Mississippi delta occurred long before levees were constructed to hold the river back. Part of the overall fertility of the land was the routine flooding that occurred.

Hello again, tom:

Had to go all the way to Grisbane to find another denier, huh? Even so, I SEE your expert WRITES about studies, but I don't see any LINKS to them... Any expert worth his salt provides LINKS to the studies he cites. Everybody else just flaps their gums.

Ho hum...

excon

PS> You know, of course, that you can find people who swear the earth is flat. I'll bet they even have studies...

That's one more link than was provided in the op.

But I'll provide the study the author was probably basing the article on. It's called 'Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission'. It was conducted by G. V. Chilingar and L. F. Khilyuk of the Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, and O. G. Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission – clothcap2 - My Telegraph (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap2/clothcap2/4650743/Cooling_of_Atmosphere_Due_to_CO2_Emission/)

PS> You know, of course, that you can find people who swear that CO2 causes atmospheric warming .I'll bet they even have studies...
Studies that were proven to be fraudulent that is.

It's really interesting to see this brought up, because the conversation among academics regarding climate change is very different.

Among my science professors, the whole "man made global warming" thing was a joke. But, that's because they all study millions of years worth of geological data that shows how the world's climate is a revolving thing.

I personally have no expertise on the issue. I just know that I would like to see us lower our impact and it would be great to see each person take personal responsibility in respecting our planet. The forests, fishes and other endangered species would certainly appreciate it.

Southy out.

that's one more link than was provided in the op.

But I'll provide the study the author was probably basing the article on. It's called 'Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission'. It was conducted by G. V. Chilingar and L. F. Khilyuk of the Rudolf W. Gunnerman Energy and Environment Laboratory, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, California, and O. G. Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of Russian Academy of Sciences

Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission – clothcap2 - My Telegraph (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/clothcap2/clothcap2/4650743/Cooling_of_Atmosphere_Due_to_CO2_Emission/)

PS> You know, of course, that you can find people who swear that CO2 causes atmospheric warming .I'll bet they even have studies...
studies that were proven to be fraudulent that is.

The one thing I find interesting about the content of your post is that CO2 absorbing heat is an unproven theory

To me its all about the sun and what has been happening over time. We are approching a critical time for our solar system and we are passing through the center of our galaxy (closest to the center) so its no wonder the weather has been getting a little weird.

Changing Sun, Changing Climate (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm)

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office (http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html)

Climate Change Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html)



BTW. The most accurate predictor of long range weather (The Farmers Almanac) also uses in its prediction that of sun activity.

Can't say what galactic effects might be but we need to be much more concerned about our own volcanic history. The predominant weather on Earth is Ice age interrupted with brief warmer periods, we should be thankful for the warmer periods

To me its all about the sun and what has been happening over time. We are approching a critical time for our solar system and we are passing through the center of our galaxy (closest to the center) so its no wonder the weather has been getting alittle weird.

Changing Sun, Changing Climate (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm)

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office (http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html)

Climate Change Science (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/Climate_Change_Science.html)



BTW. The most accurate predictor of long range weather (The Farmers Almanac) also uses in its prediction that of sun activity.

Yes ;there is a growing theory that solar activity (sunspot minimums ,maximums ) has a major impact on earth warming /cooling .

cant say what galatic effects might be but we need to be much more concerned about our own volcanic history. The predominant weather on Earth is Ice age interrupted with brief warmer periods, we should be thankful for the warmer periods

Indeed I think there is a case for the proposition that we are still coming out of the last ice age .

CO2 is not one of those harmful emissions .
In fact ,recent studies show increased CO2 in the atmosphere is more related to cooling cycles.




Hi Tom,

I'm glad you worked that out because the sentence," The more CO2 in the atmosphere results in lower temperatures as CO2 attains only 4/5 of the atmospheric temperature". The sentence is rather clumsy for a number of reasons.

On this basis I am not sure how you can draw any meaningful conclusions from the statement without clarification.Does he mean the atmosphere 'gets' 4/5 of its temperature from CO2? Or, does he mean that the atmosphere 'retains' 4/5 of its temperature in the presence of CO2?

Tut

You'd have to ask him about that specifics . His point was clear however . If the question is which came 1st ;C02 levels increasing or a rise in temps ;ice core samples show the rising temps were 1st .

The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728)

CO2 increases in the atmosphere was 800 more or less years later after the warming .
Surely that should be something that the climate scientists would find relevant . Maybe they should be looking for the initial cause of the warming to find out if humans have had any impact at all.

Indeed I think there is a case for the proposition that we are still coming out of the last ice age .Hello again, tom:

So there IS science you believe... As long as the science AGREES with your politics. I'd like the earth to be flat - therefore, it IS.

excon

You'd have to ask him about that specifics . His point was clear however . If the question is which came 1st ;C02 levels increasing or a rise in temps ;ice core samples show the rising temps were 1st .


I see. In other words, for CO2 to cause global warming the CO2 must come first. CO2 concentrations were significant after a warming period.
Therefore, CO2 levels have nothing to do with global warming.

And, you are happy with this?

Tut

I see. In other words, for CO2 to cause global warming the CO2 must come first. CO2 concentrations were significant after a warming period.
Therefore, CO2 levels have nothing to do with global warming.

And, you are happy with this?
I don't start with the assumption that CO2 causes global warming . That hypthothesis has more holes in it than swiss cheese.


Hello again, tom:

So there IS science you believe... As long as the science AGREES with your politics. I'd like the earth to be flat - therefore, it IS.

That appears to be the case with the proponents of AGW being a human caused event. We as a people have already spent billions of dollars in tax money in support of that political "science ".
You can call me a science denier all you want and it won't make it so.

I don't start with the assumption that CO2 causes global warming . That hypthothesis has more holes in it than swiss cheese.


Hi Tom,

A hypothesis is only a proposed explanation of phenomena. I think you mean the methodology is full of holes.

Tut

[QUOTE=;][/QUOTE
The mythodology is proven fraudulent with manipulating data,and "hiding declines " , to conform with predetermined results .

Hello again,

All this gobbledygook is to mask your belief that if you ACCEPT the idea of climate change, you must support a massive change in the marketplace. You think it will have a deleterious effect - hence your disbelief...

I think it could foment the economic BOOM that will sustain our global business leadership through the 21st century and beyond.

But, instead of doing that, our business leaders RELY on congress to protect them. Instead of innovating, they've become lazy and fat. If congress wouldn't kiss their a$$, MAYBE we could be competitive again...

Let me ask you this... If you could make a profit by LOBBYING congress, or COMPETING in the marketplace, which one would you do?

I believe you succumb to politics, because I CAN'T believe that any rational human being TODAY believes that throwing trash into the air is a cool thing to do. Apparently, YOU do.

To support your POLITICS, you embrace the most ridiculous argument ever heard. You somehow believe that BECAUSE you exhale CO2, and the trees LOVE it, it CAN'T be dangerous. THAT is the substance of your argument... It's RIDICULOUS on its face...

I'm old. There was a time in my life when EVERYBODY believed that the earth was big enough to absorb all the trash that we threw on the ground, in the ocean and into the air. MOST of us found out that the earth CAN'T do that. How did that message MISS YOU??

excon

I just love the sort of logic we are getting into here
1. if you believe in climate change you must believe in a market mechanism to control it
What is this? Capitalist economics 101?
2. CO2 concentrations are higher after a warm period therefore the warm period caused CO2 to rise
So where did the CO2 come from?

... so in other words ;you believe in this pseudo-science because you believe it could open up new markets and business opportunities ;even though it's based on a proven fraud .

You can take all your Al Gore marketing schemes and put them in a push cart and peddle them to the gullible .


I believe you succumb to politics, because I CAN'T believe that any rational human being TODAY believes that throwing trash into the air is a cool thing to do. Apparently, YOU do.
I've already answered this nonsense charge enough times.

....so in other words ;you believe in this pseudo-science because you believe it could open up new markets and business opportunities ;even though it's based on a proven fraud .

I've already answered this nonsense charge enough times.Hello again, tom:

Yes, we have been over it... Nonetheless, although you SAY throwing garbage into the air isn't good, I've NEVER heard you say we should STOP.

Even if I accept your allegation of "proven fraud", and I don't, the OVERWHELMING worldwide consensus of scientific opinion, doesn't accept it. I don't Pick which science I believe.. You do - ala creationism..

But, in the FINAL analysis, it DOESN'T matter what we BELIEVE, because we ARE going to run out of oil in ANY case. That IS going to happen. It REALLY is. So, the changes that I say are coming, are coming whether I say it or not. Now, we can let that FACT ruin our economy, or we can let that FACT be the basis for an energy revolution...

So, whether we STOP throwing our trash into the air because it's a good idea, or whether we stop doing it because we run out of stuff to burn, we ARE eventually going to stop. I think we should take ADVANTAGE of that, instead of letting IT take advantage of us.

Beyond that, as a winger, you DON'T seem to have much faith in our ability to innovate our way out of this. You keep on saying that the technology ISN'T there, but you won't INVEST in MAKING the technology be there. Now, it's true. I don't know if there IS another source. But, if that fact is going to take us down, I'm not going down without a fight.. You? Not so much.

excon

I've NEVER heard you say we should STOP.
Indeed I have... as recently as my first reply to this posting .


Beyond that, as a winger, you DON'T seem to have much faith in our ability to innovate our way out of this. You keep on saying that the technology ISN'T there, but you won't INVEST in MAKING the technology be there. Now, it's true. I don't know if there IS another source. But, if that fact is going to take us down, I'm not going down without a fight.. You? Not so much.

A few centuries Alchemy ago was cutting edge and popular science in it's time. It would've been a complete waste of money to invest in it ;and I'm sure many kings did and got fleeced.
Eugenics was all the rage at the end of the 19th and early 20th century .The National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council were both proponents of that settled science . Aren't you glad our government didn't waste their money ? Most reseach in that abomination came from private philanthropy.

The race to the moon was a proven doable before government investment was made . All the promise of atomic energy was already known before the investment was made .

Now ;that being said ,I've never said there shouldn't be investments in alternate energy sources. That's just more words you've put in my mouth. What I don't think we should do is tax whale oil lamps to death on the promise of some future discovery of electric lighting . Let the discovery come 1st BEFORE the massive outlay of investment .

I just love the sort of logic we are getting into here
1. if you believe in climate change you must believe in a market mechanism to control it
what is this? capitalist economics 101?
2. CO2 concentrations are higher after a warm period therefore the warm period caused CO2 to rise
so where did the CO2 come from?

You really don't understand where the CO2 came from during a warming period where humans didn't burn fossil fuels ? Aren't you the one who keeps on mentioning tectonics ? Volcanoes releasing CO2 and other particulates ? Here's another possibility . The methane trapped under permafrost or on the seabed is released due to the initial warming and turns into CO2 after some lag time .

'Climate change happens '. I am looking for that bumper sticker if there is one out there.

Here ya go (http://www.zazzle.com/it_happens_bumper_sticker-128834829354595780), complete in 60's psychedelic color.

Hi Tom,

A hypothesis is only a proposed explanation of phenomena. I think you mean the methodology is full of holes.

Tut

In this case hypothesis may be the correct word for the subject matter. The basis of the climate change and global warming came from looking at Venus. Then later brought into the measures of the scientific world around 1959 by a swedish scientist who was trying to avoid an ice age. He proposed that by adding CO2 to our atmosphere we could artificially warm our plant avoiding it or at least minimizing the effects of it. Those of us that lved through the 60's might remember that the big push at that time was that an ice age was coming.

In this case hypothesis may be the correct word for the subject matter. The basis of the climate change and global warming came from looking at Venus. Then later brought into the measures of the scientific world around 1959 by a swedish scientist who was trying to avoid an ice age. He proposed that by adding CO2 to our atmosphere we could artificially warm our plant avoiding it or at least minimizing the effects of it. Those of us that lved through the 60's might remember that the big push at that time was that an ice age was coming.


Hi Dad,

Yes, in this case it is still very much up for debate. You are probably right about CO2 causing Venus to be a 'runaway greenhouse'. I think scientists are like everyone else. We all have a habit of thinking like cause must have like effects. If it works on Venus so why not here?

To try and establish a DIRECT LINK between CO2 and Global warming was probably doomed from the start ( too many independent variables on earth). It even forced some scientists to act dishonestly when it came to establishing a link.

To suggest that global cooling is the result of increased CO2 is to fall into the same trap as global warmists. What scientists seems to be saying now is there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and climate change. Is this correlation enough to demonstrate a statistical significance? If enough scientists in a particular area believe there is a strong correlation then you will get a consensus.

Tut

If enough scientists in a particular area believe there is a strong correlation then you will get a consensus

Yes ,especially when their research funding depends on supporting the consensus..

You really don't understand where the CO2 came from during a warming period where humans didn't burn fossil fuels ? Aren't you the one who keeps on mentioning tectonics ? Volcanoes releasing CO2 and other particulates ? Here's another possibility . The methane trapped under permafrost or on the seabed is released due to the initial warming and turns into CO2 after some lag time .

No Tom what I am decrying is the false logic implicit in these ideas.

No market mechanism is going to make any difference to climate change all it will do is make someone richer than they already are and impose costs on those who can least afford it

I am aware that volcanic activity supplies much of our CO2. What we don't have is a record tying in volcanic activity to high concentrations of CO2

I am also against the false logic of theory postulated as absolute truth. So you can wrap Mr. Gore and his ilk up in that one. All he has done is demonstarte that much deeper research is needed

According to the evidence, carbon emissions have risen far more than 'experts' feared over the last decade. By now, with their worst fears realized, we should be noticing some significant global warming. Where's the warming?


Ten Years And Counting: Where’s The Global Warming?
(http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/)
Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/record-greenhouse-gases-jolt-bonn-climate-talks). But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years (http://www.drroyspencer.com/). This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/recent-cooling-of-northern-hemisphere-mid-latitudes-viewed-from-aqua/). This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/06/uah-temperature-update-for-may-2011-0-13-deg-c/), which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole (http://www.drroyspencer.com/).

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

There is a difference between global warming theory and alarmist global warming theory. Global warming theory holds that certain atmospheric gases warm the earth. Unless other factors intervene, adding more of these gases will tend to warm the atmosphere. This is well accepted across the scientific community. Alarmist global warming theory entails the additional assertion that the earth’s sensitivity to even very modest changes in atmospheric gases is extremely high. This is in sharp scientific dispute and has been repeatedly contradicted by real-world climate conditions.

Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.

Which brings us back to the sharp scientific disagreement about whether the earth’s climate is extremely sensitive or merely modestly sensitive to minor variances in the composition of its atmospheric gases. Carbon dioxide comprises far less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. In fact, we could multiply the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere a full 25 times and it would still equal less than 1 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. The alarmists claim that the minor increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 100 years, from roughly 3 parts per 10,000 to roughly 4 parts per 10,000, is causing climate havoc. Real-world temperature data tell us an entirely different story.

The Scientific Method requires testing a proposed scientific hypothesis before accepting it as the truth. When real-world observations contradict the hypothesis, you go back to the drawing board. For more than a century now, real-world climate conditions have defied the alarmist global warming hypothesis. This is especially so during the past decade, when temperatures should be rising dramatically if the alarmist hypothesis is correct. Temperatures are not rising dramatically. They are not even rising at all.

Oh well, back to the old drawing board…

Throwing trash into the air isn't good, OK? So where's the warming? We're having a nasty hot June here, but that's not proof of anything other than it's hot this year. Is there some delayed effect we should be expecting? Climate-wise, not Obama's promise (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0612-rates-20110611,0,7432941.story) for electricity rates to "necessarily skyrocket."

Throwing trash into the air isn't good, OK? So where's the warming? Hello again, Steve:

It's out there.. You can't see it, and you can't feel it. You just have to trust the scientific community that it's there. After all, that's WHY we have scientists in the first place.. But, you don't trust 'em, do you? Ain't nothing to say about that.

excon

Ah, so it is a faith based exercise, eh?

Ah, so it is a faith based exercise, eh?Hello again, Steve:

Yeah... I'm not a climatologist. I just believe 'em. I can't see the black hole at the center of the galaxy, but I believe it's there. You don't?

excon

Sounded kind of like someone describing God, so I get it. But with science, I tend to like it a little more concrete.

I don't need science to tell me that the creek is rising, the poles are melting, the bees are disappearing, the fish are dying, the air stinks, the earth is shaking, and its one helluva storm coming.

Call it whatever you want, but mother earth is doing her thing no matter what humans want to argue about, build at, or dig for. Leave it to us humans to think we have it all figured out, when in fact we have much, much more to learn.

Doesn't matter what you call it, or who makes money from it, it doesn't take a scientist to know, that the Earth does what it does, and gives life as we know it a chance to live. So messing up the air, the water, and the land ain't such a great idea, not if you intend to live here very long.

If all you are worried about is where you money comes from, is going, taxes, or how much something will cost you, boy will you be surprised when Mother Nature sends you a bill, because whether you like it or not, you got to pay it.

But maybe you could pray for a loan, or more time to pay up. Good Luck with that! The climate is changing, and thats all the facts you need to know. All that matters is what we do about it, when the creek has risen, you can't breath the air, and ain't no food no where. Ya think the Earth will care about your 401K then??

Drill, baby, drill!

Okay, end of rant!

I stated already, and repeatedly prior to that, that throwing our trash in the air is not a good thing. Just wondering where the evidence is that it's causing this climate change... and why we should turn to technology that just very well may be worse than what we have?


Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576)
Britain's Department for Transport is spending $66 million over the next year giving up to 8,600 buyers of electric cars a grant of $7700 towards the purchase price. Ministers are considering extending the scheme.

The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.

Greg Archer, director of Low CVP, said the industry should state the full lifecycle emissions of cars rather than just tailpipe emissions, to avoid misleading consumers. He said that drivers wanting to minimise emissions could be better off buying a small, efficient petrol or diesel car. “People have to match the technology to their particular needs,” he said.

But hey, at least someone is getting rich off them, right?

Unfortunately Americans will not buy small, efficient petrol or diesel cars so alternatives need to be found.

Ever see what a pot hole does to those small efficient cars? Not a pretty site.

I drove a 1982 Toyota pickup for 12 years or so, it was undeterred by potholes. They don't make 'em like that any more.

I would agree with you that Toyota vehicles are remarkable vehicles

I don't need science to tell me that the creek is rising, the poles are melting, the bees are disappearing, the fish are dying, the air stinks, the earth is shaking, and its one helluva storm coming.

Call it whatever you want, but mother earth is doing her thing no matter what humans want to argue about, build at, or dig for. Leave it to us humans to think we have it all figured out, when in fact we have much, much more to learn.

Doesn't matter what you call it, or who makes money from it, it doesn't take a scientist to know, that the Earth does what it does, and gives life as we know it a chance to live. So messing up the air, the water, and the land ain't such a great idea, not if you intend to live here very long.

If all you are worried about is where you money comes from, is going, taxes, or how much something will cost you, boy will you be surprised when Mother Nature sends you a bill, because whether you like it or not, you gotta pay it.

But maybe you could pray for a loan, or more time to pay up. Good Luck with that! The climate is changing, and thats all the facts you need to know. All that matters is what we do about it, when the creek has risen, you can't breath the air, and ain't no food no where. Ya think the Earth will care about your 401K then???

Drill, baby, drill!

Okay, end of rant!

Can you link a pix of the yurt you live in, and bicycle you use for your every day transportation ?

I don't need science to tell me that the creek is rising, the poles are melting, the bees are disappearing, the fish are dying, the air stinks, the earth is shaking, and its one helluva storm coming.

Call it whatever you want, but mother earth is doing her thing no matter what humans want to argue about, build at, or dig for. Leave it to us humans to think we have it all figured out, when in fact we have much, much more to learn.

!

I like what this boy says! It is time for us humans who are no more than fleas on a dog to stop thinking we own the dog.

We seem to have completely lost the plot, particularly where I live. Even if we stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere immediately, which means a return to the stone age, the planet will continue to heat up for a hundred years. Any abatement program is trying not to control the weather tomorrow but trying to control the weather in a hundred years time.

This is not to say alternative and renewable energy sources should not be found but let us not give the lie that we do this for posterity, now here is a very good reason to do something about it, this is serious
http://www.news.com.au/features/environment/climate-change-threatens-australias-wine-industry-study-warns/story-e6frflp0-1226068502698

According to the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory, we could be headed for another mini ice age thanks to solar inactivity.

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/)
Time to ramp up emissions?

Time to ramp up emissions? Hello again, Steve:

Let me ask you this. IF man is causing climate change, WHY are you afraid of doing something about it? It seems to me you have a STAKE in it being a hoax instead. What stake would that be??

Personally, I have a STAKE in the future of my species and my family. But, I'm not wedded to bad news. I'd be THRILLED to find out that throwing trash into the air DOESN'T do the bad stuff that scientists SAY it does. After all, I LOVE burning gasoline, and I can afford it.

But, I'm mystified about what I should be afraid of. Do you think we're going to go back to the stone age? Really. Tell me. Maybe I should be afraid too.

excon

It seems to me you have a STAKE in it being a hoax

Not nearly as much as the climate "scientists" who's careers are dependent on the continuation of the hoax .

There is a much more scientific and historical record to make the claim that solar cycles ,geological ,and extra-terrestrial events like meteor strikes determine Earth's climate cycles much more than human activity .

If the concern is humans "throwing their trash in the air " then why make policy on an alternate fraud?Why not just make policy that encourages conservation and development of alternative energy sources on that rationale instead of jiving us with
C02 emissions baloney ?

I'll answer that question for you... because a bunch of hucksters found a way to get rich on the premise.

Let me ask you this. IF man is causing climate change, WHY are you afraid of doing something about it? It seems to me you have a STAKE in it being a hoax instead. What stake would that be??

That's a mighty big IF and I'm not ready to sell my soul to a bunch of doomsayers and hypocrites.


But, I'm mystified about what I should be afraid of. Do you think we're going to go back to the stone age? Really. Tell me. Maybe I should be afraid too.

Good question, what are you afraid of?

I want clean air and clean water, too. Heck, I'd almost support a ban on Styrofoam because it lasts forever and I'm tired of picking up everyone else's cups that blow into my yard. I find that, along with Wal-Mart bags flying in our trees, an ugly disgusting mess. Do it because it's the right thing to do, not because some hypocrite Nobel winner that's making tons of money on this says it's our fault the planet has a fever.

picking up everyone else's cups that blow into my yard. I find that, along with Wal-Mart bags flying in our trees, an ugly disgusting mess.
What do you do with them after you pick them up or snag them out of the trees? Why do we have to deal with them in the first place?

We have no local recycling options for styrofoam so it goes in the trash. We recycle plastic bags. As for your last question, how should I know?

We have no local recycling options for styrofoam so it goes in the trash. We recycle plastic bags. As for your last question, how should I know?
Let's get useless styrofoam banned, and go back to recyclable paper bags at stores, or bring your own reusable cloth bags.

...or bring your own reusable cloth bags.

I have enough laundry to do without having to wash my grocery bags (http://tucsoncitizen.com/rynski/2010/06/29/e-coli-germs-in-reusable-shopping-bags-could-kill-us-study-says/).

I have enough laundry to do without having to wash my grocery bags (http://tucsoncitizen.com/rynski/2010/06/29/e-coli-germs-in-reusable-shopping-bags-could-kill-us-study-says/).
They wouldn't have to be washed very often, or else choose recyclable paper bags.

One woman had reported she bought meat right from the butcher at the store and put it in her own containers to take home. She's still alive.

I have not seen a more ridiculous approach to the environment that exchanging plastic bags for "recycable" cloth bags, we already had perfectly good alternatives such as reusing cardboard packaging as was the case before plastic bags, using paper bags and shopping trolleys, but recycable bags is just marketing, selling another supermarket product, I don't know how people can be foolish enough to be taken in by this. Butchers don't need to market meat in plastic containers this again is just marketing and taking the labour out of service

recycable bags is just marketing, selling another supermarket product
Job creation, or I'll make my own. (It's not real hard to make one. Even you could do it. Heck, bring some sturdy pillowcases to the store.)

I think my cloth shopping bags are old enough to have predated plastic carriers lol. I even have a basket that my mother in law gave me that she bought about 70 years ago. I wash the cloth bags once or twice a year and occaisionally wave a duster round the basket. :o

What is called fashionably 'green' now - mend, re-use, recycle, just used to be called thrifty.

Job creation, or I'll make my own. (It's not real hard to make one. Even you could do it. Heck, bring some sturdy pillowcases to the store.)

No I don't need to do that as I said there are alternatives that don't require me to carry around packaging material

No I don't need to do that as I said there are alternatives that don't require me to carry around packaging material
How do you get the groceries into your house?

How do you get the groceries into your house?

Carry them, Look it's easy Place a cardboard box in the boot of your car and pack your items into that. Use the trolley to move them from the supermarket to your car. An number of things come with handles anyway such as fruit juice and some items are too big for bags anyway. I expect you haven't met with Aldi over there. They don't provide any packing assistance so you either use discarded cartons or refill your trolley, but the idea is sound (european) and less waste

Yup, we have Aldi's and shop there once a week at least.

Back to climate change, I expect you have heard that the Chilean vocano is expected to offset AGW for a while and make things a little chilly. I can tell you it was chilly enough without the volcano. I would really like to know where this supposed global warming is happening because it sure isn't happening here despite our emissions record and hasn't been for some years now. My daffadils don't know whether to bloom or hibenate with most opting to hibenate. Perhaps it is happening right next to the Hawaiian volcano where they take the readings. I go back to my original statement AGW is a northern hemisphere myth and we shouldn't be trying to do anything about it because it like spitting into the wind, it just comes back to you

I can tell you it was chilly enough without the volcano. I would really like to know where this supposed global warming is happening because it sure isn't happening here despite our emissions recordHello again, clete:

Global warming isn't weather.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Global warming isn't weather.

excon

Ex the question isn't whether Global warming is weather but whether global warming is. AGM, as distinct from climate change, which is weather, is a concept, a theory, a model on someone's computer and thus far they are working hard to prove it and the planet is working hard to demonstrate there are more parameters than they have in their models. The theory is constantly revised, as most theories go, but their predictions are widely out in many directions and many lies have been told to uphold the theory, and the lucatrive grants which go with them. Many models have been manipulated so that the data they use is what best fits their theory. If the theory is correct, the planet will have a runaway greenhouse effect it has survived previously, even if a little ice did form. The marvel is you can have an ice age with high CO2. As the ice forms mainly in the northern hemispere, I still say it is a northern hemisphere problem

AGM, as distinct from climate change, which is weather, is a concept, a theory, a model on someone's computer and thus far they are working hard to prove it and the planet is working hard to demonstrate there are more parameters than they have in their models. The theory is constantly revised, as most theories go, Hello again, Clete:

This, from a person who doesn't believe in evolution.

excon

Hello again, Clete:

This, from a person who doesn't believe in evolution.

excon

You are right Ex evolution is another man concocted theory which is unproven.

Next Ex you will be telling me you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. I'll give you an Irish take on the whole thing, it's the little people, those maneviolent leprechans, they're manipulatin the weather, don't you see. It's as good a theory as AGM and about as provable as evolution. Please tell me Ex which one of your forefathers was it that was an ape? Do you have an opposable thumb on your foot?

Hello again, clete:

My point is, that it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about science with people who don't believe in science... That's all.

excon

Ex like many people I find science useful, it offers explanations that can be demonstrated and cures for some malady's. Misuse of science has caused some problems notably the over perscription of antibiotics which have been administered to us by "scientists" and the atom bomb, please excuse me for thinking our scientists are more like the scorcer's apprentice. Now I place this AGW in the same category, for which I should not be admonished, in a century or so we will be laughed at as much as those who condemned Galileo. I think there are some branches of science that have lost the plot. I always remember the experience of a friend of mine in his first day in his university science class; he was told forget everything you have ever learned, it is all wrong. We had to teach you something so we taught you that

Please remember Mars, it has a CO2 atmosphere but no global warming, just various stages of cold and yet we have scientists who want to live there. I say good luck and can you go soon

The questioning of a couple of popular scientific hypothesis is not a rejection of science... it is science in it's pure definition. If your hypothesis doesn't survive the falsifiability test then it is no different than an unprovable belief.
I happen to think evolution survives that test. I see nothing that convinces me man made AGW does. The conduct of the lead scientists who make a good living dependent on the hypothesis leads me to think 'there's something rotten in East Anglia'.

The questioning of a couple of popular scientific hypothesis is not a rejection of science.....it is science in it's pure definition. If your hypothesis doesn't survive the falsifiability test then it is no different than an unprovable belief.
.

Hi

The conduct of the lead scientists who make a good living dependent on the hypothesis leads me to think 'there's something rotten in East Anglia'.Hello again, tom:

You keep bringing up the scientist in East Anglia, as though what HE says or does is important... I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...

excon

I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...


It is.

The UN Climate IPCC report on climate change extensively used the "research " from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia headed by Phillip D. Jones.That's just a fact. But if you'd like I'll also add another exposed fraudster who's results were widely used by the man made AGW crowd... Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University . His so called 'hockey stick ' graph showed a rise in warming since the industrial revolution only when it ignored critical data from (hide the decline ) a lenghty period of cooling . He completely left it off the graph.

It was emails between Jones and Mann that exposed the extent of their fraud.

Most governments policies around the world related to climate change were bolstered by the results of the IPCC reports .

Hello again, tom:

Here's the problem I'm having... Even IF the two guys you're talking about DID fudge their numbers, the world of science isn't run by TWO guys. Besides, the other million or so scientists didn't do that. Don't they count?

excon

Hello again, tom:

You keep bringing up the scientist in East Anglia, as though what HE says or does is important... I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...

excon

Well ex we can be reassured by your lack of knowledge on the subject

Hello again, clete:

Well, I guess we can shut down this thread... I know nothing, and if I did, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

excon

Ex it is not the world of science that's the problem (although it goes much deeper than 2 guys as I've previously explained ) .The problem is that the research by the groups they led made it into UN reports that are used extensively by governments to develop policy.
I admire your FAITH in the integrity of the climate science community . But science doesn't work that way . You should be very suspicious of scientists who have vested interests in results . If I was talking about scientists working for the tobacco industry you would be agreeing with me.

If I was talking about scientists working for the tobacco industry you would be agreeing with me.Hello again, tom:

I would. But, the scientists I'm talking about work for SCIENCE.

Look. I don't doubt there are a FEW scientists who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. But you want to indict the ENTIRE profession. From a scientific point of view, it's just not reasonable to believe that the OVERWHELMING body of climate scientists are in the pocket of some, as of yet, un-named groups.

excon

But, the scientists I'm talking about work for SCIENCE.
Yeah OK... Imagine them getting hired in East Anglia by Jones if they dared challenge conventional wisdom.
I don't know which scientists you are talking about . Every major player so far has come under suspicion. Jones' emails openly discussed the supression of results they don't agree with . There is enough and growing scientific evidence to counter the conventional wisdom(I can't believe I just used that phrase discussing science ) to make the "overwhelming" "concensus" suspect.

There is enough and growing scientific evidence to counter the conventional wisdom(I can't believe I just used that phrase discussing science ) to make the "overwhelming" "concensus" suspect.Hello again, tom:

We got a he said, she said, thing going on. You SAY, scientists believe thus and so... I SAY scientists believe OTHER thus's and so's. Consequently, we'll NEVER solve the problem on these pages SCIENTIFICALLY...

I'm GOOD with that, because both you and I agree that throwing our trash into the air does SOMETHING bad, even if we don't know exactly what. But, who cares particularly WHAT it does, because if we STOP throwing our trash into the air, WHATEVER bad it WAS doing will STOP doing it!

Beyond that, whether we agree about the climate or not, we ARE going to run out of oil. That is indisputable. Is it better to sit on our hands and wait till we do, or is it better to invest into technology that might avoid that crunch?

From MY point of view, sitting on our hands enriches our enemy's, and weakens us. Now, I don't disagree with you, in that the technology isn't there YET, so investing in it COULD be a waste. But, if we're going to revert back to the dark ages, I'm not going to give up without a fight. You seem willing to accept our fate. You seem willing to pay upwards of $5, $10, or even more for your gasoline as it runs out.. You seem willing to transfer the bulk of our wealth to the Arab's.

What have I got wrong?

excon

What have I got wrong?

How about using the resources we have here at home?

Btw, we just installed a fire alarm at a huge new wind facility and you know what the guys there told us? We'll never get enough out of wind to make it worthwhile, but as long as everyone feels good about it and they keep getting subsidies and making a killing, that's OK.

What have I got wrong?

More strawmen in a single posting than I've seen in a long time. We are hardly out of carbon based energy sources ,and will not run out for quite some time . We are sitting on a clean burning natural gas source that rivals what the Saudi's could ever provide. Yes there are challenges in extraction ;but there is NO energy source that doesn't have an environmental impact... not one .

The technology of the next generation will develop long before the last source runs out. That's how human invention works . It doesn't depend on government command and control; and it doesn't depend on wishful thinking on what will be. That is where corn ethanol subsidies come from... wasn't that a great idea!!

As you know I've never advocated "sitting on our hands " until the last of the carbon based sources are depleted .
What I don't get is penalizing people for using a source ,when there is no other choice currently ,to fund some future energy source that no one can name .

You complain about the cost per gallon . But how much of that is taxes ? The greenies would have you paying much more per gallon to make it worth your while to convert to things currently available that neither address the future energy needs of the planet,nor answer energy security issues ;nor are particularly environmentally friendly either .

As an example ,to just pour the concrete needed to construct the windmills in the Pickens Texas plan would require (429 tons of concrete per windmill) 8,346,707 tons of concrete to supply Texas 20% of it's energy from windmills . Each ton of concrete produces one ton of CO2.

Manufacturing cement is an energy-intensive process. It requires 3 to 6 million BTUs (British thermal units) of energy and 1.7 tons of raw materials, mostly limestone, to make one ton of clinker. Coal or coke is typically used to fire the kilns that are used to burn the limestone, clay, shale, and other materials; the materials must be heated to 1450 degrees C to form C3S. The process is a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions, in addition to nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. Concrete manufacturing is one of the most significant sources of CO2 emissions from manufacturing sources; production of iron and steel also produce significant CO2 emissions. One ton of CO2 is emitted per one ton of cement produced, about half due to the use of fossil fuels and half from the calcination of limestone.Worldwide, cement production is estimated to produce approximately 5 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions from human sources.

The Environmental Literacy Council - Cement (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1257.html)
The carbon footprint from just pouring the base consumes the same amt of c02 as 1million SUVs driving around 13-15,000 miles in a year.
Mind you... Texas would still need to find 80% of their energy from other sources. And this doesn't include the strip mining of rare earth minerals to provide battery storage ;or the price in dollars and carbon foot print to run the transmission infrastructure to the populated areas .
The garbage blowing into the air just comes from different sources.

The truth is that Europe has them ;has solar all over the place . Yet it has done NOTHING to reduce Europes greenhouse emissions .
Climate Change Paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html)
Nor has it answered Europes future energy needs (and they already pay a heavier price per gallon /litre of gas/petrol whatever in both base costs and punitive taxes.)

The Germans are going to shut down all their nukes over the hysteria from the Japanese disaster . They will be permanently dependent on the good will of the Russians energy supply.

The price you pay for NOT cleaning the air of fossil fuel emissions and rebuilding the energy delivery grid, is less protection from solar influences like UV rays and solar radiation. That science is not in dispute.

Pay me now, or pay me later, but it will be a lot more expensive when you are desperate for clean air, and water. Not just the cost of clean air and water, but efficiency in its use which we now lack.

Doesn't matter about the costs now, that corporations don't want to pay, nor do consumers want passed on to them, but you will pay it later, so we do have options to consider, if you want to be objective.

Corporations have no incentive, other than money, but government does and we as consumers should be requiring safety over profits. Better to have fire protection, and not use it, than to need it, and not have it. Just ask the guys who work on rigs that drill in the ocean, or miners that dig for coal, just to name a few. Safety can be expensive, but so is health care, so how much is your life, and the quality of life worth? Don't leave that to a CEO, or a paid scientist, or the Government for that matter.

The air is much cleaner than it was in the 1970s or any time in the last 3 decades... or for a century for that matter (anyone see pictures of D*ckens London ? )[fyi... it's absurd that the name
D1ckens is censored on this site ]

Why is the air cleaner ? Because legitimate pollutants like , sulfur dioxide were identified and addressed. Carbon monoxide,mostly from automobiles, is down 74 percent in that time despite Americans continued love affair with the car ;and Americas increased usage of coal(60 percent ).

Think about it.. the skys are cleaner in a century despite the fact the US population has quadrupled in that time . That's because true pollutants were identified and technological measures were created to combat them .


It's a bridge too far to say that C02 is a pollutant . Americans will jump on board when a legitimate issue is identified . C02 as pollution doesn't pass the smell test.

It's a bridge too far to say that C02 is a pollutant . Americans will jump on board when a legitimate issue is identified . C02 as pollution doesn't pass the smell test.

Sorry Tom, but your science is way off. All you have to do is watch any weather report on any TV station and they always give an air quality report, and warning to certain groups and in Texas, they tell certain people to stay indoors during periods of high temperature, not just for overheating, but some people with breathing disorder are especially affected. Why? Because even naturally occurring chemical combinations are subject to change when conditions of temperature are introduced. Like water turning to ice or steam.

CO, is dry ice in a frozen state, and will burn unprotected skin, and don't let it be subjected to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, where as a gas its density changes and becomes more dangerous to us humans. City humans and those around highways and industrial sites that emit CO2 as a by product run the risk of serious health problems through constant exposure.

So for my money, your argument is incorrect, and as a pollutant, and a deadly one, it more than passes the smell test, just on scientific facts.

This ain't junk science

Hey Ex which scientists do you want me to believe? Those who predict a hotter Earth? Or those who predict a colder one? It seems an ice age is back on the agenda courtesy of Sol our sun.
Earth could be heading for another 'Little Ice Age,' US scientists say | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/world/earth-could-be-heading-for-another-little-ice-age-us-scientists-say/story-e6frfkyi-1226076813033)

You see seventy years is enough time for us to get our act together or is it? I'm going to put it down to normal variability because at this rate I won't be here to worry about it, which of course I am not doing

Tal , around here they give ozone warnings when the temperature heats up. What is ozone ? Trioxygen... not C02.

Perhaps you weren't around when the smog was visible floating around our urban centers and the Cuyahoga River burned .

Om gosh! Now I know the problem, you flunked chemistry, and didn't pass basic science 101.

ozone (trioxygen) - (trioxygen) - Oxygen, Gas, and Radiation (http://science.jrank.org/pages/17797/ozone-(trioxygen).html)


A colourless gas, O3, soluble in cold water and in alkalis; m.p. –192.7°C; b.p. –111.9°C. Liquid ozone is dark blue in colour and is diamagnetic (dioxygen, O2, is paramagnetic). The gas is made by passing oxygen through a silent electric discharge and is usually used in mixtures with oxygen. It is produced in the stratosphere by the action of high-energy ultraviolet radiation on oxygen (see Ozonation) and its presence there acts as a screen for ultraviolet radiation (see Ozone Layer). Ozone is also one of the greenhouse gases (see Greenhouse Effect). It is a powerful oxidizing agent and is used to form ozonides by reaction with alkenes and subsequently by hydrolysis to carbonyl compounds.

Temperature, and electricity are factors (catalysts) in changing gases, and elements from one form to another. Actually the air is full of gases that have various affects on the air quality, and the humans that breath them. Electricity is good, natures way of cleaning the air. Heat only helps to bond gases because it speeds up the atoms making them bondable to other atoms (of the gas). Any weakening of the ozone layer, and we are vulnerable to radiation, and those gases that we are warned about that are trapped by the ozone layer, is dangerous and deadly.

You are talking apples and oranges because ozone is deadly when mixed with other gasses that are a by product of man, who creates pollutants. Too much pollutant introduced into the ozone layer cut the effective chemical balance of that layer to protect us humans and other residents of EARTH from UV rays that the Sun produces.

Sorry Tom, but your science is way off. All you have to do is watch any weather report on any TV station and they always give an air quality report, and warning to certain groups and in Texas, they tell certain people to stay indoors during periods of high temperature, not just for overheating, but some people with breathing disorder are especially affected. Why? Because even naturally occurring chemical combinations are subject to change when conditions of temperature are introduced. Like water turning to ice or steam

I live in Texas, we never get air quality reports. We get allergy reports, but not air quality because our air is here is clean.


CO, is dry ice in a frozen state,

CO is carbon monoxide.

Speaking of alternative energy, the 38 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/166869-feinstein-wins-headline-senate-votes-to-kill-ethanol-tax-break-tariff-protection).

Speaking of alternative energy, the 38 Democrats and 33 Republicans in the Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies.Hello again, Steve:

I've noticed that you're a throw the baby out with the bath water type of guy. It's true, the government made a mistake trying to turn food into fuel... That doesn't, of course, mean the government should NEVER EVER put our money into the future development of alternative energy...

The difficulty we have here, is when we want to SOLVE a real problem, some congressmen thinks the problem we're about to solve, is HIS re-election problem, or some lobbyist thinks the problem we're solving relates to the bottom line of HIS clients, or some farmer thinks the problem we're solving is how to put his children through private school. So, ALL the money designed to fix the real problem, goes elsewhere..

When and/or IF we finally address our real problems, maybe our real problems can get solved. But, we're fiddling, while our country burns.

excon

Nope, I'm not that kind of guy but you keep describing me that way. If I were, I'd be dumping half my team every time my lead drops a point or two. But no, I'm patient and I just give it a tweak or two here and there to keep it humming along nicely and everyone else a distant second.

I've said it all along, do it smartly. I'm not interested in "feel good" 'solutions' that add more headaches and make me spend more of my money. In other words, until we have real answers let's use what we have and what we know works wisely. We need to invest in research and technology and to use another idiom, stop putting the cart before the horse as in ethanol subsidies, CFL's and electric cars (http://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/ideology-vs-economics-feds-plan-to-buy-116-electric-cars/).

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
I live in Texas, we never get air quality reports. We get allergy reports, but not air quality because our air is here is clean.
Texas and coal - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Texas_and_coal#Texas_faces_biggest _increase_in_toxic_coal_ash_waste_from_new_power_p lants)

And Texas news stations give pollen and mold counts along with air quality reports all day long. Just watch Fox News, or any other weather channel for that matter because the higher the temperature, the more it reacts to other things in the atmosphere, like pollutants.

Maybe Amarillo has no big industry, or major pollution makers, but the Metroplex, where I am, is famous for dangerous air when the temps ar 90's, and 100's, like now. Allergies or NOT.



CO is carbon monoxide.
My bad, I meant CO2 carbon dioxide, my point was though that as a by product, of other natural, and artificial catalysts, it dangerous.

You had a great draft, did you use the system they provided, or from your own list, as I did?

Maybe Amarillo has no big industry, or major pollution makers, but the Metroplex, where I am, is famous for dangerous air when the temps ar 90's, and 100's, like now. Allergies or NOT.

We make fiberglass, smelt copper and gold, build nukes and have coal-fired electricity... and clean air.


You had a great draft, did you use the system they provided, or from your own list, as I did?

Ah, so you're the StrangerRangers? No I basically left ESPN's rankings untouched. I haven't got a clue about fantasy baseball but I'm learning... and winning :)

The air quality in Amarillo is twice as clean as the Metroplex. I lived in Collin County a few years ago, nothing but farms and ranches, and great clean air. Should have stayed.

we have great clean air here to and we have coal fired power stations within 30 miles. We have particulate pollution from pine forests and canola in season, this causes asthma. The environmentalists should realise that supposedly environmentally friendly industries also pollute. I am unaware that CO2 is a health hazard, but then before I came here I was also unaware canola was a health hazard.

This AGW is a load of hogwash, CO2 emissions are not the only source of supposed global warming. Volcanos account for far more methane and CO2 than humans, how about we work on curbing those emissions? We don't do it because it is in the too hard basket, so we have taken the soft option of attacking the coal and oil industries. Variations in the sun spot cycle also account for more warming and cooling than AGW. You cannot control a problem by attacking one variable.

I suggest we research tapping the energy potential of volcanos rather than wasting our time measuring atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and allegedly measuring changes in ambient temperature

I am unaware that CO2 is a health hazard,Hello clete:

Really? Plug yourself into a tank of it, and report back...

excon

Hello clete:

Really?? Plug yourself into a tank of it, and report back...

excon

No Ex I prefer my CO2 in beer

That's the thing about science, sometimes we draw a conclusion before all the facts are in. Last time I checked, volcanoes and trees where a part of nature, both uncontrolled and little understood by man. But a million cars on one highway, and a few polluting industries that do affect human health, are something man can do something about and should knowing a bit about its effects. Now I have nothing against coal, and oil, except when they put profit before human health, and safety, and it's a fact of history they do nothing they don't have to in those areas. Wonder why they want to gut the EPA,. wait for it... its ALL about the MONEY, because something's are to expensive, or slow down the flow of CASH into their pockets.

Even after the BP spill, and all that that entailed, which may not be in the news anymore, after a disaster like that, they are still rushing to drill, baby drill, without even correcting the problems that made it a disaster in the first place. HOW SOON WE FORGET.

But as they say, when you don't learn from history, you are bound to repeat it. Which is how I explain the conservative movement in the Republican party by the way. Profits before humans.

Profits before humans.

But this is the market economy we are told is the answer to every problem. Right now the market is exercising its prerogative not to create jobs, but cling to its profits, and this is seen as something bad, something that must be overturned.

You can't have it both ways. If a government is to create employment it must spend, often in areas where spending wouldn't ordinarily be directed.

So what do you get; subsidies to replace old vehicles, install solar panels and paint rocks white. Perhaps you have reached the stage where you need a nice set of famine walls. How about a subsidy to bulldoze all those old houses that are in mortgage default to create parks

Right now the market is exercising its prerogative not to create jobs,
But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

Are you suggesting nature knows how to run a country and the elect don't? Didn't I just say Bulldoze those default mortgage properties? So are you suggesting employment to tear down levies, compulsorary disposal of old vehicles, ripping up parks and returning farmland to the wild. You could have a whole new industry building houseboats for river dwellers, makes more sense than fighting the river

But Mother Nature is creating jobs by blowing down homes, pulling up trees, wrecking stores and government buildings, tossing vehicles into the air, flooding civilization and newly-planted farmland.

T'was ever thus

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban (http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/06/20/texas-tells-feds-shove-your-light-bulb-ban#ixzz1PvMvkWlJ)

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249868/texas-model-rich-lowry) for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.Hello again, Steve:

So, throwing your trash into the air isn't so bad after all? How did I know that's how you really felt?

excon

So, do you want me to live in the dark, or live with the toxins? Which is it?

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they?

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

Since the technology is not in the stores and at a price I can afford, my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?

my choices are limited to incandescent, living in the dark, living with the toxins or burning oil lamps. Which would ex prefer for me?Hello again, Steve:

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

excon

Don't worry Steve, you are on the clean end of the process, the finished product. The problem is on the production end of it, where the dirty stuff goes on.

You did know there is NO such thing as clean coal don't you?

If my impudent teenager asked me that question, I'd tell her to do without makeup.

Well there's no need for makeup if you live in the dark. Ok, so how about we do without real meat?

Artificial meat could slice emissions, say scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/artificial-meat-emissions)

Mm, mm... can't wait to try me some cultured cube steak.

Extra: More climate change news, the world's oceans are in "shocking" decline (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479) according to a group called IPSO. The solution?


"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.

How are we going to do that?

I did not even know this was in the works, but Texas has told the feds what they can do with their light bulb ban.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban (http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/06/20/texas-tells-feds-shove-your-light-bulb-ban#ixzz1PvMvkWlJ)

Do we make incandescent bulbs in Texas? If not, I reckon there's another job creator (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/249868/texas-model-rich-lowry) for our state. And think of all the light bulb tourism dollars headed our way. Things are looking brighter in Texas.

Well it's a good move but they may find incandescent light bulbs become a great deal more expensive. Any bets on a ban on the importation of incandescent light bulbs?

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

You don't have to do either. The technology is out there to have power, and a clean environment. Its expensive but you get a tax credit for using it. So why don't they??

For the same reason you didn't get a carburetor that allowed you greater range and better efficiency, even though they had that technology too (and still do).

There is a lot of resistance to changes, and the resistance has the money. They always have, Steve.

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

As far as a carburetor goes that was replaced by fuel injection only because of the high cost involved in making one to meet the emission standards of the time. You can only run an engine so lean before you lose all benefits so going to direct injection has solved tha part of the puzzle. When is the last time you heard a car in a parking lot diesel ? It takes a carb to do that. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

On the first part we have old technology that works just fine for power generation and its not listed as "green" by the government. Why ? Did you know hydro power isn't a "green" power source? All it has is moving parts and the footprint to make it happen. The building of a damn plus what it takes to make the generating turbines and upkeep. It doesn't use fuel to make electricity. Why are the enviromentalists against it?

Dad you know there is no sense in this climate change debate, we have to have new technologies, not technologies that last a hundred years. You could not build enough dams to generate the power anyway and hydro is the system of the local power scheme, no money in it for big generators, who have to fight the environmentalists tooth and nail to build a dam.


. Also the standard that the industry is held to rather then a free standing method is holding back many inovations in the auto industry.

What has been holding back innovation in the auto industry for years is the oil companies, they didn't want the impact of moving away from the internal combustion engine or having to meet emission standards

As to ISPO concern about the oceans all I can say is the only way to solve that problem is a mass extinction of humans, let's face it folks, we are in the middle of a MEE, that's mass extinction event

I can't agree we're in the middle of a mass extinction event, but you're right on the other. The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.

Speaking of emissions though, the bad economy is exciting to the left in this sense, emissions are down.

American Economy Quickly Nearing Perfection (http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/06/08/american-economy-quickly-nearing-perfection/)

The only way to get to zero CO2 emissions is for everyone and everything to stop breathing. Of course all the plants would die so then the final MEE can take place.Hello again, steve:

If you'd just STOP the hysteria for a minute, we could actually SOLVE the problem... But, as long as you frame the choice between one disaster or another, there's NO solution...

That's the problem with science deniers. They THINK they're saying something very profound, but they're not. Nobody, absolutely NOBODY thinks we should get rid of all the CO2. But, I'm sure you'll come up with something equally ridiculous like, should I go dark or throw my trash into the air.

Oh, that's right. We JUST did that one.

excon

Such hyperbole !We've gone from AGW skeptics to science deniers .lol. Do you not think your own rhetoric equally ridiculous ?

But ex my friend, the scientist said (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/climate-change-579204-11.html#post2829616) the only solution was zero CO2 emissions. You keep thinking I'm making this stuff up and I'm not. When someone makes an absurd claim such as that I'm going to point out that absurdity, which you call my hysteria. I know he isn't the only scientist to make such a claim.

And on that note, noted Nobel winner and filthy rich, jet-setting environmental activist Al Gore wants to "stabilize the population" (http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/21/gore-promoting-fewer-children-to-curb-pollution/) by empowering women so there will be fewer of us throwing our trash in the air.

You're the one that's over the top, I'm just being sarcastic. I didn't think you needed the sarcasm font.

Michael Mann is in the thick of it again . He and a group of scientists did another 'pick and choose' the data studies about the oceans. This time it was convenient for him to choose to account for the Medieval Warming period that he ignored in his hockey stick graph(although this time it was rename the "Medieval Climate Anomaly").

In this case the scientists looked at a single sea fossil(foraminifera... single-celled protists ) from a single region of the Atlantic Ocean to make broad predictions of global sea level rises .
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=119841&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click

And they even used radio carbon dating to verify their claims. I'm sorry, I find hard to believe anyone can accurately measure a millimeter of sea level rise, especially from 2000 years ago.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice all the creeks and rivers are higher than normal, and precautions are losing ground. Where did all that water com from, and how come we can't get some in Texas??

Its on its way as we speak. The condition that has had our weather doing screwy things has now ended officially.

La Nina over, ocean conditions return to neutral in the Pacific, forecasters say - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/la-nina-over-ocean-conditions-return-to-neutral-in-the-pacific-forecasters-say/2011/06/09/AG19hINH_story.html)

I can spot a rise in the creek, especially Turkey Creek behind my dad's house. But how does one measure a millimeter of sea level?

Nebraska Flooding Threatens Nuclear Plant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110620/us_ac/8671805_nebraska_flooding_threatens_nuclear_plant)

Floods threaten Nebraska nuclear plants - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/20/floods-threaten-nebraska-nuclear-plants/)

http://www.mbari.org/staff/oreilly/schoolPresentation/seafloor/depthmeasurement.html

Jean-Michel Cousteau : Ocean Adventures . In-depth: Climate Change and the Marine Environment | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/kqed/oceanadventures/episodes/treasures/climate/)

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,000 years - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8586961/Sea-levels-rising-at-fastest-rate-in-2000-years.html)

Just food for thought.


Rivers and Flooding Module 3 Environmental Geology (http://wapi.isu.edu/envgeo/EG3_rivflood/eg3_rivers.htm)


Urbanization Effects on Flooding

Urbanization has had a major impact on river systems! Many towns and cities are located next to major rivers and their tributaries. Many of these cities are sitting smack in the middle of flood plains! Highways, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings now cover large areas of ground surface-areas that "use to" absorb excess rain water, vegetated areas that slowed a stream's discharge rate.

Now the hard-covered surfaces act as conduits for excess stormwater to rapidly travel over. The time between the peak rainfall and peak discharge (called lag time) decreased drastically! The result? Increased flooding!! And, if the lag time is short enough, "flash flooding" may occur. Major disaster!

Airspace Over Flooded Nebraska Nuclear Power Plant Still Closed (http://www.businessinsider.com/faa-closes-airspace-over-flooded-nebraska-nuclear-power-plant-2011-6)


"Asked about the FAA flight ban, Hanson it was due to high power lines and "security reasons that we can't reveal." He said the flight ban remains in effect."

Security reasons?

Security reasons that's breaucraticesses for get out of there

They tried not telling you anything in Japan, and we all know how well that worked. The foreign aid boats had to retreat to a safe distance, and be scrubbed to prevent contamination.

Wouldn't want anyone to lose money, never mind the other costs...

Fukushima Nuclear Fuel Leaking Into Groundwater, Tepco Says Barrier Too Expensive, Will Hurt Stock Price | Myweathertech.com (http://www.myweathertech.com/2011/06/22/fukushima-nuclear-fuel-leaking-into-groundwater-tepco-says-barrier-too-expensive-will-hurt-stock-price/)

I just can't help but wonder how the compliant press would be reporting this if the President's name was Bush. 1993 another flood did damage to the Cooper plant . But the President then was Bill Clintoon so although it was covered ;it did not become a major story.

The head of the NRC will be there Monday to inspect their flood preparations. That tells me that they don't see this as urgent. This is definitely not Japan. The Japanese did not have the prep time to deal with a rushing wall of water . The Nebraska plants are prepared for the flooding .

This is also not Japan in that the operators of the Nebraska plants are not covering anything up.

BTW ;I'm surprised the press has lost interest in the Japanese plants. The crisis is far from over . They got filters for the cooling water ;but the filters have failed . That means eventually they will fill the basement with contaminated water and will have no choice but to pump it into the Pacific.

The Russians are suggesting the Chernobyl solution. That was enlisting suicide helicopter pilots to dump lead and concrete on the reactors to seal them.

We all know the solution, Tom, no more nuclear plants. So the Japs can encase their little disaster in concrete and go back to what? Generating electricity from coal. I feel a boom coming on, must go and buy some coal shares and ditch my uranium, oops! I forgot, those are already worth nothing

Maybe they should have built the concrete, and lead enclosure before they had a problem. We humans do things so backward, then wonder what happened when it goes wrong. Then we have to go through it again, and again until we get it right. Safety first, then buy the stock!

Maybe they should have built the concrete, and lead enclosure before they had a problem. We humans do things so backward, then wonder what happened when it goes wrong. Then we have to go thru it again, and again until we get it right. Safety first, then buy the stock!

I won't be investing in nuclear. You have just outlined the capitalistic, least cost model. We once had an airline with a perfect safety record owned by our government. What happened to it, it was privatised, now it is plagued with safety problems and they are saying they will operate from Asia. Least cost model, least safe model, least service model. I wouldn't buy the stock now.

It's the same thing with coal, and oil, profits before people, and even after people DIE, they roll them aside and keep making money. Do people really have to die or get injured so companies can make a profit?

Qantas is one of the highest rated airlines for safety and overall performance.

Its the same thing with coal, and oil, profits before people, and even after people DIE, they roll them aside and keep making money. Do people really have to die or get injured so companies can make a profit??

Profits are good . A company that doesn't profit doesn't exist long or hire employees for long. Energy profits are especially good . Most pension plans and 401-Ks are directly or indirectly invested in them.

Profits are good . A company that doesn't profit doesn't exist long or hire employees for long. Energy profits are especially good . Most pension plans and 401-Ks are directly or indirectly invested in them.

And think of all the money they will save on pensions if the emplyees don't live long enough to quailify to get any...

I'd like to see the stats that shows being in the energy industry is a more dangerous occupation than some other more PC acceptable industries . I imagine it is probably in line or safer than agriculture,construction and transportation .

Of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. there isn't anything in the energy industry in the top 10 (http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/08/fishing-construction-logging-business-most-dangerous-jobs.html). Sanitation workers, including recycling collectors, was no. 7.

So because the job doesn't make a list we should regard the deaths as the cost of doing business? That works great if you are a corporation, but not so great if its your loved on that died in preventable accidents. Especially when you find that company in violation of safety standards that were ignored, or the fines were insufficient to make changes for a safer environment.

Like the BP oil spill, or the mining disaster in Virginia, or the refinery explosions in Texas to name a few, or even including the millions exposed over the years to dangerous chemicals, or materials who develop life threatening conditions, that change there lives and that of their families. Like coal miners, or residents of communities that living over sites of natural gas deposits, that they use frakking as a means to extract the gas.

They could do better, and we all know it, no matter the industry, or occupation.

Don't be so dramatic, Tal. No one is excusing occupational injuries or deaths.

Safety is my field so I know the lengths corporations go to in order to insure a safe work place for their employees and the contractors they use. I see both ends of it as a seller of safety equipment and as a contractor - in oil country - held to those high safety standards required to set foot on their property. Those standards are what keeps the energy industry out of the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

To my mind it is a question of attitude. Of course profits are good, if they are generated responsibly. And yes there are Companies who have a genuine regard for the welfare of both their own employees and those of the general world community.

Unfortunately there are also many companies for whom profit is all at any expense. Unproperly tested products, cost-cutting exercises without a thought to the consequences etc. For other companies health and safety issues are about doing whatever minimum they need to tick the boxes without real regard for whether they work. Probably part of the reason why some health and safety rules have gone so far beyond common sense as to be a joke. As long as we don't get sued mentality.

There are still companies responsible for massive chemical leaks, tearing up natural resources without thought, failing to build in contingency safety plans etc. The indirect negative consequences of these activities won't get them on most dangerous job lists but the impact is still real.

Qantas is one of the highest rated airlines for safety and overall performance.

That may have once been true Tom but recent performance has a list of problems that doesn't reassure me and management's intention to move maintenance and operational bases to Asia means it will become mediocre.

They are now more interested in pursuing cut price operation than they are of providing a premium service

You don't often get to see the other side of the argument
Australia headed for disaster: Monckton (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-headed-for-disaster-monckton-20110630-1gslb.html)
And ex this is the other side of the coin to your throwing garbage into the air argument which of course is garbage

Here's some more on the other side of the argument, The University of East Anglia you remember those of climategate fame has agreed to realise its data
UK watchdog: University must share climate data (http://www.mail.com/int/scitech/news/532858-uk-watchdog-university-share-climate-data.html#.1258-stage-set2-1)
This of course is not without some coaxing

The UN has completed its study of what it will take for the entire world to go green (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/06/even-un-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion/#ixzz1RYJ3X7K7) - $76 trillion, or $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.


Two years ago, U.N. researchers were claiming that it would cost “as much as $600 billion a year over the next decade” to go green. Now, a new U.N. report has more than tripled that number to $1.9 trillion per year for 40 years.

So let's do the math: That works out to a grand total of $76 trillion, over 40 years -- or more than five times the entire Gross Domestic Product of the United States ($14.66 trillion a year). It’s all part of a “technological overhaul” “on the scale of the first industrial revolution” called for in the annual report. Except that the U.N. will apparently control this next industrial revolution.

The new 251-page report (http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf) with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”

Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N. with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.

The press release for the report discusses the need “to achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050.” That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.


Ok, have at it.

Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.
Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

From what I had read. There is no problem sustaining nor keeping up with the growth. The outline is that it would as currently applied increase green house gases as the result of increased production.


What did you read ?

Ref:

Summary
The recent food crises have revealed deep structural problems I � n the global food system and
The need to increase resources and foster innovation in agriculture so as to accelerate food
Production. Food production will have to increase between 70 and 100 per cent by 2050 to feed
A growing population. With current agricultural technology, practices and land-use patterns, this
Cannot be achieved without further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution
And land degradation. The consequent environmental damage will undermine food productivity
Growth.

Actually that's correct, it has mostly to do with an expanding population growth and energy demands that are not sustainable. I urge people to read the actual PDF instead of taking Fox News' version of it.

The link which I provided.

So who is going to pay this $1.9 trillion per year and to whom?

No one has to follow their research recommendations, you know that, it's a choice.

No one has to follow their research recommendations, you know that, it's a choice.

I fail to see how that answered the question.

So who is going to pay this $1.9 trillion per year?Hello again, Steve:

Those dumb enough to follow the UN plan... But, those who follow the excon plan'll MAKE money.

excon

I fail to see how that answered the question.Well that that's your failure.

That sounds more like global redistribution of wealth than worrying about the earth’s thermostat.

Spreading resources and ideas and solving problems isn't redistibution of wealth, its working for the common good.

It's a complex problem. Spending trillions to benefit everyone, is a drop in the bucket as compared to fighting over dwindling resources with an ever expanding population.

Tal, spreading resources and ideas is fine, we've been doing that for quite some time and it's done little to change circumstances for poor countries but maintain power and lifestyle for the ruling class. Then we send UN peacekeepers into these troubled countries who rape and abuse the populace. I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.

I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.
Exactly how does it throw the rest of us back to the stone age?

I'm sure this UN plan will be just as useful as everything else they do, with the added benefit of throwing the rest of us back to the stone age.Hello again, Steve:

And, THAT'S the reason why we MUST continue to throw our trash into the air..

Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..

excon

And, THAT'S the reason why we MUST continue to throw our trash into the air..

Aren't you tired of that straw man? We've knocked it down over and over and yet you keep propping it back up.


Uhhh... By the way, you either think the UN is inept, or you think they can "throw us back to the stone age".. I didn't know you was afraid of them..

Never said I was afraid of the UN, but wasn't it you that said something about "those dumb enough to follow" them?

Aren't you tired of that straw man? We've knocked it down over and over and yet you keep propping it back up.How about explaining your "stone age" straw man?

How about explaining your "stone age" straw man?

Must I engage the sarcasm font for you, too?

Must I engage the sarcasm font for you, too?I guess excon will have to do for you as well. :rolleyes: By the way it's not sarcasm what you did there, it's called hyperbole (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole) and does not lend well to civilised discussion.

Do you have anything better to do than police the boards?

Do you have anything better to do than police the boards?
Quit whining. Geez...

Quit whining. Geez....

:rolleyes:

Global warming is REAL! But the main source of it is being kept very quiet!
How many motor vehicles do you suppose are being used in the world today, on a daily basis? Do any of them have catalytic converters? Why do they need them? Think back to your physics classes, if you had any. For those of you who did have those classes, ask yourself, why is the catalytic converter getting HOT on your vehicle? Can that heat be achieved without any energy? Not according to laws of physics as they are taught in schools today! Way back in the 1930's, a Canadian by the name of Charles N. Pogue invented a carbureator (look it up!) that was claimed to get 200 MPG (miles per gallon). What do you suppose was the typical weight of those 1930 vintage cars? They were made of REAL STEEL, not plastic crap! Pogue carburetors worked on micro-vaporizaion principles -- using nearly ALL the energy in the gasoline! Why are catalytic converters HOT? Because of the UNburned gasoline that is burned in them, which does NOT contribute to moving your vehicle down the road! Why do you think all the vehicle manufacturers went to fuel injectors instead of carburetors? The fuel is injected as a LIQUID under high pressure -- instead of as a vapor under less than atmospreic pressure! That GUARANTEES that all the fuel CANNOT be burned in the engine, wasting probably 80-90% of it, because oxygen molecules cannot get to every molecule of the fuel, since it is NOT vaporized adequately! But don't worry, that 80-90% of your $4 per gallon fuel is NOT going to complete waste! It is WARMING UP OUR GLOBE -- I would call THAT Global Warming!

Time for the tin foil hats everyone.

Global warming is REAL! But the main source of it is being kept very quiet!
How many motor vehicles do you suppose are being used in the world today, on a daily basis? Do any of them have catalytic converters? Why do they need them? Think back to your physics classes, if you had any. For those of you who did have those classes, ask yourself, why is the catalytic converter getting HOT on your vehicle? Can that heat be achieved without any energy? Not according to laws of physics as they are taught in schools today! Way back in the 1930's, a Canadian by the name of Charles N. Pogue invented a carbureator (look it up!) that was claimed to get 200 MPG (miles per gallon). What do you suppose was the typical weight of those 1930 vintage cars? They were made of REAL STEEL, not plastic crap! Pogue carburetors worked on micro-vaporizaion principles -- using nearly ALL the energy in the gasoline! Why are catalytic converters HOT? Because of the UNburned gasoline that is burned in them, which does NOT contribute to moving your vehicle down the road! Why do you think all the vehicle manufacturers went to fuel injectors instead of carburetors? The fuel is injected as a LIQUID under high pressure -- instead of as a vapor under less than atmospreic pressure! That GUARANTEES that all the fuel CANNOT be burned in the engine, wasting probably 80-90% of it, because oxygen molecules cannot get to every molecule of the fuel, since it is NOT vaporized adequately! But don't worry, that 80-90% of your $4 per gallon fuel is NOT going to complete waste! It is WARMING UP OUR GLOBE -- I would call THAT Global Warming!



Hi Info,


In a way you are correct. What you have described is basically the second law of thermodynamics in operation. One of the reasons we are pumping so much CO2 into the air is because of this second law. There is no way around it at the moment.

If you have one of the old incandescent light bulbs you can see this principle in operation for yourself. The bulb needs to on for only about 30 seconds and it becomes impossible to touch without burning your hand. We didn't switch the light on to generate heat, yet this is what it is producing in large amounts. It takes a lot of energy to generate heat and generation usually requires fossil fuels. If we could get rid of the heat then we would uses less energy for lighting thus reducing our carbon footprint. Hence the new type of bulbs. They generate far less heat than the old type.

At the moment we cannot achieve 100% efficiency in any of the equipment we use in our day to day lives. So yes, when it comes to motorcars in terms of the heat, noise and friction produced they could be seen as being very inefficient.


Tut

Tut317, the main point I was trying to address is the thermal discharge from internal combustion engines in motor vehicles equipped with fuel injectors and catalytic converters. How you morphed that into a carbon dioxide issue is a mystery to me! All humans exhale, and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). That has always been the case. Personally, I don't buy into the CO2 bashing. Have you ever used a hair dryer? Does it pour out huge amounts of CO2, or just heat the air mixture that it draws in? We do ourselves a huge disservice by equating all warming with carbon dioxide! Besides, the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are in a mutually beneficial relationship. We need oxygen and they need carbon dioxide! But who needs catalytic converters? NOBODY, if we could get fuel efficiency above 90%.. . But the oil industry wants us to have fuel efficiency (fuel mileage) as low as possible! One way they have achieved that, was to reformulate the fuels so that the droplets had high surface tension, making it very difficult to completely vaporize the liquid fuel. Reformulation was exactly what intentionally killed Charles Pogue's super carburetor designs, because the principle no longer worked on the new fuels. The result is, only ten to twenty percent of the expensive fossel fuel you buy today is converted to mechanical energy, and the rest (eighty to ninety percent of your expensive fuel) is delivered into your catalytic converter, to FINISH burning at extermely high temperature! What mixtures and/or compounds of elements (from the periodic table of elements) is discharged from the tailpipes, I cannot say, but how much HEAT is being released into our atmospere from all those horrendously inefficient machines? There have been a scant few clever people who have come up with methods to circumvent the intentionally high INefficiency of internal combustion fuels, such as using catalytic cracking to reformulate the fuel "on the fly," making it possible to vaporize it much more completely. But it is nearly impossible to vaporize (or, more correctly stated, put air spaces between molecules of) fossel fuels that are being delivered into combustion chambers as a liquid, under high pressure.. . Which is exactly why the oil companies like fuel injectors so much more than carburetors! Oil companies are virtually assured that we will have terrible fuel mileage, as compared to the 200 MPG figure that was demonstrated with the Pogue carburetor, around 80 years ago, on huge, heavy cars with monstrous engines in them!

I invented a perpetual motion machine yesterday . I won't show you how it works .But trust me it does. Good call smoothy .

Tut317, the main point I was trying to address is the thermal discharge from internal combustion engines in motor vehicles equipped with fuel injectors and catalytic convertors. How you morphed that into a carbon dioxide issue is a mystery to me!


Hi Info,

You obviously know a lot about motorcars but I think you are going to have problems if you claim that heat produced by machines contributes to global warming ( I think this is what you are claiming ). Heat dissipates into the atmosphere very quickly. I guess this is why car radiators work so well.

Tut

snopes.com: Miracle Carburetor (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp)

Fusion power is more promising .

I invented a perpetual motion machine yesterday . I won't show you how it works .But trust me it does. Good call smoothy .

+Tom you missed the market someone wanted me to invest in one ten years ago, he had good data but couldn't get it beyond miniture

snopes.com: Miracle Carburetor (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp)

Fusion power is more promising .
Good find. Well done.

The entabulator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIS5n9Oyzsc)

My favorite has always been: ‪Rockwell Retro Encabulator‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXJKdh1KZ0w)

Tut317, in response to your comment, "You obviously know a lot about motorcars but I think you are going to have problems if you claim that heat produced by machines contributes to global warming ( I think this is what you are claiming ). Heat dissipates into the atmosphere very quickly. I guess this is why car radiators work so well."

... may I suggest you take a look at what the United States Environmental Protection Agency said about that?
The title of the official information release is, "E.P.A. Says Catalytic Converter Is Growing Cause of Global Warming" A link you can copy and paste is below, if it does not work as a clickable hyperlink. So, would you like to reconsider your position on that now?


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922792/posts

Got to love the irony . Let's get rid of the converters to save the planet . Doesn't matter in the least that before the converters you could see the blue smog hovering over every decent sized city .


The EPA is in over it's head . I don't blame them .The politicians gave them a mandate and the unelected judiciary confirmed the idiotic decision that CO2 is a pollutant .

Tomder55, your posting, "gotta love the irony . Let's get rid of the converters to save the planet . Doesn't matter in the least that before the converters you could see the blue smog hovering over every decent sized city."

... is indeed, an accurate statement. And, yes, I do think getting rid of THE NEED FOR catalytic converters is a possible solution to reducing global warming! Fuel efficiency sucks today, as a general rule. It has been proven time and time again, that it can be drastically improved. Do a little research on GEET Technology. The inventor of that was thrown in jail! Who arranged that? People who have built on his research have had very good results, with almost NO measurable polutants... and with almost NO HEAT coming out of the exhaust!

Tomder55, your posting, "gotta love the irony . Let's get rid of the converters to save the planet . Doesn't matter in the least that before the converters you could see the blue smog hovering over every decent sized city."

... is indeed, an accurate statement. And, yes, I do think geetting rid of THE NEED FOR catalytic converters is a possible solution to reducing global warming! Fuel efficiency sucks today, as a general rule. It has been proven time and time again, that it can be drastically improved. Do a little research on GEET Technology. The inventor of that was thrown in jail! Who arranged that? People who have built on his research have had very good results, with almost NO measurable polutants ... and with almost NO HEAT coming out of the exhaust!
You mean this?
http://pesn.com/2009/06/9501546_Paul-Pantone_of_Geet_released/GEET-reactor.jpg

How can that power a vehicle?

I've read Mr. Pantone has scammed demos of this and has a few issues with mental stability.

If you get your information from freerepublic.com you may come out misinformed quite often.

Yeah every day I tell my wife... "if only they could invent a machine that heats up volitile fuels to plasma and vapors, that I could sit on top of to get to work every day, then all our problems would be solved ." I suspect in short time I'd be carbon neutral.
My Flux Capacitor is almost complete and ready for testing .

...My Flux Capacitor is almost complete and ready for testing .

Don't you think that statement is a little off topic? Plasma is a REAL PHYSICAL phenomenon, and CAN change characteristics of chemicals and compounds!

Plasma is a REAL PHYSICAL phenomenon, and CAN change characteristics of chemicals and compounds!Well that's true:
Plasma (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29)

Which type of plasma are you referring to and how does it change the characteristics of chemicals and compounds?

You mean this?
http://pesn.com/2009/06/9501546_Paul-Pantone_of_Geet_released/GEET-reactor.jpg

How can that power a vehicle?

I've read Mr. Pantone has scammed demos of this and has a few issues with mental stability.

If you get your information from freerepublic.com you may come out misinformed quite often.

Yes sir, you found it! United States Patent Number 5794601, issued to... you guessed it! Paul Pantone! By the way, the world-wide results can be easily found by using the following search terms on Google:

Geet "closed loop" patent

If Pantone was running a scam, how do you suppose he got it patented? I pesonally had three U.S. patents, and the proofs had to scientifically sound, or the patent attorneys would NOT allow any claims that had not been demonstrated! Now, about "closed loop" operation, how do you suppose any pollution would get out if there is no path to the outside, as demonstrated on numerous videos you can find with the same Google search, starting with lawnmowers? Do you suppose man will never fly? That was what many people and so-called scientists told the Wright brothers.. . Before the actually started flying!

The videos are filled with comments from people that Pantone scammed.

Wow! Paul and Molly Pantone must have been a really clever team, to scam the United States Patent Office, with patent # 5794601. Does that mean that all U.S. patents ever granted need to be labeled scams until proven otherwise... and If so, proven to whom?

I didn't say he didn't get a patent. The patent office is overflowing with unique patents for items that aren't commercially viable. Why are you equating someone having a patent with being immune from scamming others?

I didn't say he didn't get a patent. The patent office is overflowing with unique patents for items that aren't commercially viable. Why are you equating someone having a patent with being immune from scamming others?

"Commercially viable" is usually a time-sensitive term. How long was it, from the time the Wright brothers flew their flying machine at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, until people could pay for a ticket, and ride in an airplane from one city to another? Even after their first flight at Kitty Hawk, people who thought they were much smarter than the Wright brothers kept on insisting that flying was impractical for mankind. Who says the GEET processor will not be commercially viable, at any time in the future? It was demonstrated to work at the USPTO, with existing materials and existing fossel fuel components!

I refer you to the Segway.
If you want to invest your money with Pantone then please do it.

Tut317, the main point I was trying to address is the thermal discharge from internal combustion engines in motor vehicles equipped with fuel injectors and catalytic convertors. How you morphed that into a carbon dioxide issue is a mystery to me! All humans exhale, and breathe out carbon dioxide (CO2). That has always been the case. Personally, I don't buy into the CO2 bashing. Have you ever used a hair dryer? Does it pour out huge amounts of CO2, or just heat the air mixture that it draws in? We do ourselves a huge disservice by equating all warming with carbon dioxide! Besides, the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are in a mutually beneficial relationship. We need oxygen and they need carbon dioxide! But who needs catalytic convertors? NOBODY, if we could get fuel efficiency above 90% . . . but the oil industry wants us to have fuel efficiency (fuel mileage) as low as possible! One way they have achieved that, was to reformulate the fuels so that the droplets had high surface tension, making it very difficult to completely vaporize the liquid fuel. Reformulation was exactly what intentionally killed Charles Pogue's super carburetor designs, because the principle no longer worked on the new fuels. The result is, only ten to twenty percent of the expensive fossel fuel you buy today is converted to mechanical energy, and the rest (eighty to ninety percent of your expensive fuel) is delivered into your catalytic converter, to FINISH burning at extermely high temperature! What mixtures and/or compounds of elements (from the periodic table of elements) is discharged from the tailpipes, I cannot say, but how much HEAT is being released into our atmospere from all those horrendously inefficient machines? There have been a scant few clever people who have come up with methods to circumvent the intentionally high INefficiency of internal combustion fuels, such as using catalytic cracking to reformulate the fuel "on the fly," making it possible to vaporize it much more completely. But it is nearly impossible to vaporize (or, more correctly stated, put air spaces between molecules of) fossel fuels that are being delivered into combustion chambers as a liquid, under high pressure . . . which is exactly why the oil companies like fuel injectors so much more than carburetors! Oil companies are virtually assured that we will have terrible fuel mileage, as compared to the 200 MPG figure that was demonstrated with the Pogue carburetor, around 80 years ago, on huge, heavy cars with monstrous engines in them!

I have to say this. You make a good argument for the disinformation your spewing in many of the posts to bolster your opinion. The problem is that even repeating a lie isn't going to change the fact that it is still a lie.

Do you actually believe that the carburator met its demise because of the oil companies? That's a falacy. The reason for it was because they became too expensive to put on cars due to EPA regulations.
Fuel injectors don't squirt fuel into the cumbustion cycle of an angine they spray it as a micro spray. The heat inside the cylinders vaporizes it instantly.
The EPA is the worst of the offenders with their false dreams and ability to push law without regard to the common good.
Catalytic converters used to be a problem because they allowed excessive amounts of CO2 and other green house gasses to escape unreguleted until they had warmed up to operating temprature. (15 - 20 minutes of driving). The new ones heat up in about 5 minutes. Also the systems that are in place like oxygen sensors have changes to preheated ones so they can start detection earlier.
If 80% of the fuel passing through an enfine went unburned you would foul spark plugs and ruin cylinder walls in a very short time.
When you do go on your rants make sure to include the EPA as they are stopping the technology that can overcome many of the current problems. Their standard (Stoichiometric) guidelines are what they push and its not about anything else. Any deviation outside those guidelines and your motor is not allowed to market.

You might wish to read this for some reference. Even they recommend fuel injection for running an engine lean.

Lean Burn Combustion, 101. (http://franzh.home.texas.net/lean.html)

Cal ;you're burdened by facts.

cal ;you're burdened by facts.

Im still waiting on my flux capacitor you promised me from last year.

French fry grease turned into fuel (http://www.the-signal.com/archives/2260/)

Lunch and a fill up anyone??

French fry grease turned into fuel (http://www.the-signal.com/archives/2260/)

Lunch and a fill up anyone???

Not unusual... I know several people personally that are doing that and have for years. I don't because I haven't found a clean source yet. The partially hydrogenated stuff makes a poor quality biodiesel that will cloud and clog up filters in temps as high as the low 60's F. And the locals use at least enough of that to screw it up for me, at least as far as my standards go.

Im still waiting on my flux capacitor you promised me from last year.

That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.

That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.

Pour hot grease on the garbage to ignite it, but you have to have the right garbage. I would try dilitium chrystals instead of plutonium, its cheaper.

Dilithium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium)


Dilithium - Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Dilithium)

That's because I'm trying to bypass the plutonium reactor 1.21 gigawatt requirement to ignite the plasma and go directly to the one that's fueled by extracting hydrogen atoms from garbage.

Ohhhhh, no wonder. Heck that's easy. Just look up freeenergyforlifeandforcars.com

Of course if I do that I'll be accused of 'throwing my garbage in the air '.

No way to win.

of course if I do that I'll be accused of 'throwing my garbage in the air '.

No way to win.

Hey Tom have you stopped beating your wife?