News flash!!!!!

It was Clinton who backed out of Kyoto.

The 95% is that it is nothing more than a hoax, and if there is any warming happening there is a 100% chance that mankind can do nothing about it, so why not use it to skin the rubes?

But the rubes still aint buying it!!

Hi jhowelb,
I'm back and I see you're back to your same o'l faulty logic tricks. Where should I start, Al and Bill left the country in great shape, we were running a surplus not a deficit. The economy was great everything was wonderful. Then along came the imbecile in chief. Running up massive deficits while giving huge tax breaks to billionaires. Arguably the most incompetent president in the history of the republic, certainly in my lifetime. Don't blame his failings on 911. This was botched by him as well. You really ought to see Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911. To look at that moron when he was told for the second time that another plane had hit the twin towers, when he looked furtively around for someone to tell him what to do, it was priceless. To me that told it all. He wasn't running the country Cheny was. He was just a Face to put on the platform, his function was to garner the votes of the right wing Christian conservatives. The apostles of ignorance.
Take care,
xyzdonna
Right Michael Moore, a glittering paragon of absolute ignorance!
Did you forget two wars, Wxyz?
Have you forgotten? I'll remind you!
New York, Twin Towers, the terrorists that cigar in chief couldn't handle.

Al and Bill ?
Waco
ruby ridge
authorized the bombing of a aspirin factory
authorized the missile attack on empty tents
Talk about your dog wagging'

And the greatest mystery ,Vince Foster
Dude broke every rule in a suicide

The worse president in history ? Well according to the left he really isn't a president because he stole it ,right.

You even played the Mikey Moore card in the same hand.
Come on you can do better than that.
George at least violated enemy combatants rights ( according to the left which isn't sure who team they are on )( which is a good thing actually on both accounts)
Unlike "definition of it is " and the Nobel winning egore .
And to top it off the liberals didn't shed a tear for that pairs victims.
The FBI agents that KILLED Weavers family didn't do any time and are still on the job.
Compare that "side show" to anything in the current admin.
ACLU LIBERALS = hypocrites
Sheeple translation , progressives
And the lefts party icon is a ?
Remember elephants never forget.
As I throw in the twin tower bombing in 93, oklahoma bombing(just because the pc crowd , goes on about not all terrorist are musslim and bring up McVieh , which happened on Bills watch,)the COLE, that embassy,there was quite afew wasnt there?

Yep I think they left US a TARGET.



Sorry must have been something you wrote that set off the voices

And remember I'm not voting for McCain
I'm voting against Obama/hillary
Woo back Zell Miller and I'll vote for him.

My 2 cents

I love it when a herd of 1,000 scientists are needed to prove something. Why stop there? Why not 10,000 or 100,000 scientists? Kind of like the toothpaste commercials from years ago "9 out of 10 dentists agree pure concentrated Sodium Hydroxide cures tooth decay and bad breath!".

I like the ideologs that parade 1,000 idiot scientists around by the nose as if it mattered. Not enough scientists to tip the scale in your favor? Get another shovel-full of the little white-coated buggers. Maybe that will do it!

Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

......Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

I think a better example is Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift; certainly back in the early 1900's hundreds of scientists thought he was nuts. He wasn't.

The buzz words are "a consensus of scientists".

What the hell does consensus have to do with science?

science (sns)
The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

Please note. The one word missing from all the hype and crap about GW/CC is the word PROOF!

When chicken little tells me that all the farm animals agree, the sky is indeed falling my response is "prove it!" Instead I get a lecture about MY flawed logic. It is flawed logic to say I don;t believe you...PROVE IT! Where are the repeatable experiments? With Antarctic ice getting thicker and wider and with the seasonal return if ice in the Arctic and with record low temps occurring daily...WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Enough of your innuendo and wild rantings and concern about how to extract co2....
BRING ME SOME INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!

The buzz words are "a consensus of scientists".

What the hell does consensus have to do with science?

From a non-scientific layman's perspective:

That is where the order of the brotherhood sticks to levels of agreement, confidence, certainty and likelihood as a cohesive entity. The same or similar elements that steer jihad without a conscience.

The least common denominator I fear, is that they are both willing to ignore acts of desperation to achieve the ultimate goal. Internal impediments become a percept of the rules.


DC

Please note. The one word missing from all the hype and crap about GW/CC is the word PROOF!

When chicken little tells me that all the farm animals agree, the sky is indeed falling my response is "prove it!" Instead I get a lecture about MY flawed logic. It is flawed logic to say I don;t believe you...PROVE IT! Where are the repeatable experiments? With Antarctic ice getting thicker and wider and with the seasonal return if ice in the Arctic and with record low temps occurring daily...WHERE IS THE BEEF?

Enough of your innuendo and wild rantings and concern about how to extract co2....
BRING ME SOME INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF!

Do you realize what you are asking for? We don't have time.......it may be too late......

I'd expect they would need to start with the invention of fire on through that of the wheel and its negative impact on earth's environment where it all started us breeding like rabbits that begat THEM to warn US of mans wrongs!

It must-a-been ordained!:)

DC

I've become familiar with the dance, they seem to operate on the mantra, "if you can't blind them with brilliance then baffle them with bull****!"

Damned censors, can't even express disgust!

I love it when a herd of 1,000 scientists are needed to prove something. Why stop there? Why not 10,000 or 100,000 scientists? Kind of like the toothpaste commercials from years ago "9 out of 10 dentists agree pure concentrated Sodium Hydroxide cures tooth decay and bad breath!".

I like the ideologs that parade 1,000 idiot scientists around by the nose as if it mattered. Not enough scientists to tip the scale in your favor? Get another shovel-full of the little white-coated buggers. Maybe that will do it!

Science is not like that. All it takes is one scientist that sees the truth. Think Einstein.

Mariss

Mariss,

Do you think there ought to be at least one Einstein in the bunch we could give the benefit of the doubt?

I don't mind the IPCC conclusion if it holds water, as much as I do the solution considering how globally unrealistic that may be. From what I have read pro or con, on both sides of the report, the conclusion has huge gaps that do not allow for redress of outsiders with any influence.

I doubt it can be made an open and shut case, without further scrutiny, but by the way it looks, the policy makers intend to have all the power wrapped up, decisions made and a plan in place halting discussions as Dictators normally do.

Removing the potential for monetary gain from it would be a good start. Tangible sellable assets in developed mitigating technology are one thing, but "lucky charm carbon credits" to pay for that development do not leave a lot to be desired. I'd prefer the governments take a hands off approach to taxing businesses that show promising progress on their own investments in themselves to that end. That is not a subsidy, that is letting them use their own capital and somehow audit the progress.


DC

DC,

There is enough doubt about this entire GW debacle to fill an ocean. Science is a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A novel idea is formulated by a theoretical scientist, it looks promising and early adapters champion it. Time passes, skeptics amass data and reason to counteract the new idea. A decades long battle between theoretical and experimental scientists ensues to test the idea. If the idea is good, it may absorb through synthesis valid objections and become better. If the idea is bad, the same science that tests it comes up with a fatal bullet that kills the idea. In all instances, win lose or draw, human knowledge advances because of what is learned as a consequence of this contest.

What happens when science passes on to policy makers is there is no room left for doubt and no room for new or contrary evidence. Policy makers are not scientists so they deal with what is concrete. They have to implement practical solutions for perceived threats.

What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science. This has denatured and adulterated a vital link in the chain of human understanding and informed reaction. The necessary thesis and antithesis has not been allowed to play out here to determine what the truth is. Rather, the idea was seized and proclaimed as true by the junk-science inventor of the internet. He got a much devalued accolade for his efforts from the pygmies that now dispense a once noble prize. What we get is flawed science in the hands of policy makers that very well may place untold pointless burdens on our way of life. I don't think politicizing science was worth it for any reason given the damage it will cause.

Mariss

What's this COMING climate change? I thought it was already happening & it will just get worse if we don't all do something. The biggest challange for engineers to overcome... to stop using fossil fuels. I mean dig all the carbon out from underground & burn it with all the air you can find!!! What can we expect! It's a formula with a final result that any dummy could forsee. It's like bashing the globe with a big stick! Cop this!!!

I have a 1908 Almanac that describs the 8 planets in our solar system. It has to be true because it's in print. I have a later Almanac however that disuputes this since Pluto was discovered in 1930, also indisputable because it is in print in a scientific document.....but wait...... what will the 2008 Almanac say ??... now that Pluto has been declassified officially, now just a dwarf planet.... so, what changed ? Reality ? ... or only some mens perception of reality ? Global warming enthusiasts are having a difficult time accepting the reality that global temperatures are actually declining. The missing polar ice has returned to nearly it's full ' pre-crisis' measurements. They obviously have not been shoveling the mid-west snow this year either. Maybe when Al Gore finally puts it in print they will accept it as fact. The only thing slowing the process down is that he hasn't figured out how to take credit for fixing the problem. Now thats going to be one damn powerful movie .....

I think I'll wait for the book...........

Al and Bill ?
Waco
ruby ridge
authorized the bombing of a aspirin factory
authorized the missile attack on empty tents
Talk about your dog wagging'

And the greatest mystery ,Vince Foster
Dude broke every rule in a suicide

The worse president in history ? Well according to the left he really isn't a president because he stole it ,right.

You even played the Mikey Moore card in the same hand.
Come on you can do better than that.
George at least violated enemy combatants rights ( according to the left which isn't sure who team they are on )( which is a good thing actually on both accounts)
Unlike "definition of it is " and the Nobel winning egore .
And to top it off the liberals didn't shed a tear for that pairs victims.
The FBI agents that KILLED Weavers family didn't do any time and are still on the job.
Compare that "side show" to anything in the current admin.
ACLU LIBERALS = hypocrites
Sheeple translation , progressives
And the lefts party icon is a ?
Remember elephants never forget.
As I throw in the twin tower bombing in 93, oklahoma bombing(just because the pc crowd , goes on about not all terrorist are musslim and bring up McVieh , which happened on Bills watch,)the COLE, that embassy,there was quite afew wasnt there?

Yep I think they left US a TARGET.



Sorry must have been something you wrote that set off the voices

And remember I'm not voting for McCain
I'm voting against Obama/hillary
Woo back Zell Miller and I'll vote for him.

My 2 cents

Hi debogus,
Ruby Ridge was a tragedy but I don't blame Clinton for that like I don't blame Bush for 911. Of course Bush's handling of the aftermath is fair game. I wasn't alluding to Moore's journalistic integrity, just to the scene of Bush when told of the second plane hitting the twin tower. Moore is funny and he uses hyperbole and comedy to reveal some very real truths about our society. But of course he does embellish things somewhat.
The ACLU has done a marvelous job of protecting our freedoms from the heavy handedness of government. This surprises me that you would oppose them given your views. Zell Miller? You must be from Georgia, one of the states I vote in.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You are still not reading things correctly: The IPCC pronouncement is that Global Warming is occurring and there is a 95% certainty that Human activity is contributing to, or causing it.

Hi Geof,
Opps, thanks for the correction! It seems like you've caught me seeing things as they aren't.
Take care,
xyzdonna

DC,

There is enough doubt about this entire GW debacle to fill an ocean. Science is a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A novel idea is formulated by a theoretical scientist, it looks promising and early adapters champion it. Time passes, skeptics amass data and reason to counteract the new idea. A decades long battle between theoretical and experimental scientists ensues to test the idea. If the idea is good, it may absorb through synthesis valid objections and become better. If the idea is bad, the same science that tests it comes up with a fatal bullet that kills the idea. In all instances, win lose or draw, human knowledge advances because of what is learned as a consequence of this contest.

What happens when science passes on to policy makers is there is no room left for doubt and no room for new or contrary evidence. Policy makers are not scientists so they deal with what is concrete. They have to implement practical solutions for perceived threats.

What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science. This has denatured and adulterated a vital link in the chain of human understanding and informed reaction. The necessary thesis and antithesis has not been allowed to play out here to determine what the truth is. Rather, the idea was seized and proclaimed as true by the junk-science inventor of the internet. He got a much devalued accolade for his efforts from the pygmies that now dispense a once noble prize. What we get is flawed science in the hands of policy makers that very well may place untold pointless burdens on our way of life. I don't think politicizing science was worth it for any reason given the damage it will cause.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
The evidence is there as stated in my nephew's email. Almost all (but not all) climatologists are in agreement. There really is no other rational explanation for for the current climate change other than it is anthropogenic. Your first statement is wrong, there is very little doubt. You go on to describe the scientific method and seem to think that lends credence to your hypothesis. Your statement: "What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science." This bothers me as well and is exactly what the current administration has done. They have completely ignored the science in everything from global warming to stem cell research much to our detriment. The whole problem with your arguments is that we don't have time to prove them to folks like you who don't believe because you don't want to believe. I find it instructive that virtually everyone who disagrees with GW is of a conservative mindset. You don't want to modify your lifestyle so you don't believe. It is an obvious bias. The GW debate is pretty much over. Time won't allow us to convince every skeptic. We have to move forward to save the planet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

What's this COMING climate change? I thought it was already happening & it will just get worse if we don't all do something. The biggest challange for engineers to overcome... to stop using fossil fuels. I mean dig all the carbon out from underground & burn it with all the air you can find!!! What can we expect! It's a formula with a final result that any dummy could forsee. It's like bashing the globe with a big stick! Cop this!!!

Hi VWSatOz,
I agree completely, but you'll find we are in the minority here so be forewarned.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi Mariss,
The evidence is there as stated in my nephew's email. Almost all (but not all) climatologists are in agreement. There really is no other rational explanation for for the current climate change other than it is anthropogenic....

You are introducing emotive terminology. It is more neutral to say that the change is possibly or probably anthropogenic. There is certainly an apparent correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature, but this does not constitute proof of a causal relationship.

You are introducing emotive terminology. It is more neutral to say that the change is possibly or probably anthropogenic. There is certainly an apparent correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and increasing global temperature, but this does not constitute proof of a causal relationship.

Thank you Geof,
Again I stand corrected and you are right. The old post hoc fallacy. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. After this therefore because of this, perhaps the greatest fallacy of logic and I fell victim to it myself. Time will reveal the answer. But the use of fossil fuel can't go on forever. We'll have to develop an alternative.
Take care,
xyzdonna

....Time will reveal the answer. But the use of fossil fuel can't go on forever. We'll have to develop an alternative.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Time reveals everything; don't be so trite. :D

You are correct; "fossil fuel can't go on forever."

You are incorrect; "We'll have to develop an alternative."

There is no alternative of the same abundance at the same convenience/cost/ease of extraction or creation. Humankind worldwide will have to adapt to a much less energy intensive way of life than is presently enjoyed. And this is an approaching crisis far, far greater than that posed by Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you call it. It is also approaching along a similar timeline; all the 'horrendous' changes predicted for Global Warming are a century or more in the future; all of them are potentially adaptable to with abundant low cost energy. When abundant low cost energy is no longer available the results will be truly horrendous.

Mariss,

Do you think there ought to be at least one Einstein in the bunch we could give the benefit of the doubt?

I don't mind the IPCC conclusion if it holds water, as much as I do the solution considering how globally unrealistic that may be. From what I have read pro or con, on both sides of the report, the conclusion has huge gaps that do not allow for redress of outsiders with any influence.

I doubt it can be made an open and shut case, without further scrutiny, but by the way it looks, the policy makers intend to have all the power wrapped up, decisions made and a plan in place halting discussions as Dictators normally do.

Removing the potential for monetary gain from it would be a good start. Tangible sellable assets in developed mitigating technology are one thing, but "lucky charm carbon credits" to pay for that development do not leave a lot to be desired. I'd prefer the governments take a hands off approach to taxing businesses that show promising progress on their own investments in themselves to that end. That is not a subsidy, that is letting them use their own capital and somehow audit the progress.
DC

Tax is a polite term meaning theft under color of authority. It can be used to crush people they decide to while rewarding others with the proceeds of the crime. Sorta Robin hood style!

Destruction of Americas economy would not be feasable even if they could fill those huge gaps in the conclusion! That only makes sense if power and money are the objectives and not as stated the welfare of "us all" or "the children"!

Dictators indeed, like Enviro-Nazi's!!!

...<snip>... When abundant low cost energy is no longer available the results will be truly horrendous.


And that is exactly the results, centuries premature and without the time to adapt, that the Enviro-nazi's want to enforce upon us.

It's like bashing the globe with a big stick!

Nothing wrong with that... a big thing hit the earth ages ago and a lump flew off and made the moon. It's pretty, we could do with a few more. Mind you, it does makes me gfriend go a bit doolally every month :)

Time reveals everything; don't be so trite. :D

You are correct; "fossil fuel can't go on forever."

You are incorrect; "We'll have to develop an alternative."

There is no alternative of the same abundance at the same convenience/cost/ease of extraction or creation. Humankind worldwide will have to adapt to a much less energy intensive way of life than is presently enjoyed. And this is an approaching crisis far, far greater than that posed by Global Warming, Climate Change, whatever you call it. It is also approaching along a similar timeline; all the 'horrendous' changes predicted for Global Warming are a century or more in the future; all of them are potentially adaptable to with abundant low cost energy. When abundant low cost energy is no longer available the results will be truly horrendous.

Hi Geof,
I think you are right, but I think science will provide a way. We could convert to natural gas to power our vehicles till hydrogen is perfected. Biodiesel will also be an interim solution. Nuclear will help as well. If vehicles ran on hydrogen it would solve every problem except overpopulation. I think that is what is unsustainable. It depends on lower cost solar cells (electric).
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi Geof,
I think you are right, but I think science will provide a way. We could convert to natural gas to power our vehicles till hydrogen is perfected. Biodiesel will also be an interim solution. Nuclear will help as well. If vehicles ran on hydrogen it would solve every problem except overpopulation. I think that is what is unsustainable. It depends on lower cost solar cells (electric).
Take care,
xyzdonna

Still looking for a solution to a problem that does NOT exist! One half of one degree over a hundred years is insignificant. The past five have dropped more than that. There IS NO problem!

Talk about faulty logic, how about no logic at all?

Science (god?) will provide....?

Hi Shotout,
I won't call you a cretin, a kinder, gentler xyzdonna you know. But don't tell Al to take a flyer either. Climate change is real with a 95% certainty. That's pretty strong odds. I've yet to meet a conservative who will allow this, oh, except for that idiot Pat Robertson, I think that moron is coming around. You can pretty much count on GW being for real.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Climate change has always been real. The world's overall climate has been in flux since it's atmosphere developed. It is a chaotic system with numerous outside influences that is constantly fighting for equilibrium only to be defeated daily. My problem is heaping all of it on the doorstep of mankind. Al buys carbon offsets that only exist on paper so he can justify his hard to believe electric bill, sport around in limos, private flights etc. Then presumes to dictate to us from some self conceived sense of moral superiority. To give a real world example, my sister in SF California told me about a carbon offset program her nanny is looking into to offset her commute to and from college. She even gets a niffty bumper sticker to show her greenieness. It is a reforestation program in the NW, keeping it close to home. I asked her who was planting the trees. She checked and found out these trees where being replanted to replace timber cut for the lumber and paper industry. Trees that have to be replanted anyway under federal law so their is no real offset except to her wallet if she buys into it. For some reason Al thinks this is a positive move forward though. Go figure.

Wasn't Kinder Gentler George H's line?

Climate change has always been real. The world's overall climate has been in flux since it's atmosphere developed. It is a chaotic system with numerous outside influences that is constantly fighting for equilibrium only to be defeated daily. My problem is heaping all of it on the doorstep of mankind. Al buys carbon offsets that only exist on paper so he can justify his hard to believe electric bill, sport around in limos, private flights etc. Then presumes to dictate to us from some self conceived sense of moral superiority. To give a real world example, my sister in SF California told me about a carbon offset program her nanny is looking into to offset her commute to and from college. She even gets a niffty bumper sticker to show her greenieness. It is a reforestation program in the NW, keeping it close to home. I asked her who was planting the trees. She checked and found out these trees where being replanted to replace timber cut for the lumber and paper industry. Trees that have to be replanted anyway under federal law so their is no real offset except to her wallet if she buys into it. For some reason Al thinks this is a positive move forward though. Go figure.

Wasn't Kinder Gentler George H's line?


Correct, absolutely nothing constant except change. It would be truly shocking to find that average temperatures didn't vary much more than quoted, especially given our inability to measure accurately enough different places or assimilate that data to KNOW anything about it for sure.

Secondly, witness the arrogance of a creature that assumes that even the collective effort of all mankind could even begin to control the natural chaos. Like the rooster who is convinced that HE ALONE is responsible for bringing up the sun each A.M.! Ahhh, chicken little again!

So did you go back to that report and see where you went wrong? That is where the science is.
Unlike both politics and religion who like to screw with it, if you do not like the current conclusions, just prove them wrong. Beauty of science. Put out a theory and test it. Majority of the research is around. Many climate theorys have been proven wrong. There were accepted predictons on glacier melting. All wrong. Melting many times faster.
Science is not a monolithic block of people with an agenda. It is thousands upon thousands around the world measuring and experimenting.
Developing theorys, testing and revising based on results. AND sharing ideas.




Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect.............................................

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

...... witness the arrogance..............

The arrogance doesn't even stop there, These loonytoons want control of every aspect of your lives.

How and where your house is built and how big it is. How it is heated and cooled, the kind of lights your allowed to have. How many people you are allowed to have in your family and who gives birth to the children and what they are taught in school and what kind of morality they and you must find acceptable.

The size of your car and even if you are allowed to have one and what it will consume as fuel in case you are allowed to have one!

Your carbon footprint must be limited so therefore one may extrapolate that even the amount of exercise you get and to what end it is applied must be controlled. My God in Heaven, how far can they go before they face a full scale rebellion? WHY is it taking so long? WHY sheeple?

So did you go back to that report and see where you went wrong? That is where the science is.
Unlike both politics and religion who like to screw with it, if you do not like the current conclusions, just prove them wrong. Beauty of science. Put out a theory and test it. Majority of the research is around. Many climate theorys have been proven wrong. There were accepted predictons on glacier melting. All wrong. Melting many times faster.
Science is not a monolithic block of people with an agenda. It is thousands upon thousands around the world measuring and experimenting.
Developing theorys, testing and revising based on results. AND sharing ideas.

But the scientists, being people, have have political and religious convictions as well as agendas and are therefore subject to corruption and can be expected to LIE! It's not so much the science I fear as the POLITICIANS who use JUNK science to achieve their devious ends!

Here you go again:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Reading for you and your nephew Donna.

Particularly note the bit about winds causing ocean currents; global warming cannot turn-off the Gulf Stream no matter how the AGW crowd pontificates. Actually I had made this point several times in different posts.

Oh, and I just figured I would add this little tidbit if we are now vying for credibility based on family members. I have one a tad closer than a nephew, a daughter actually, who just happens to be a Geophyicist with a specialty in Glaciology who just happened to do a thesis on modelling Arctic Ice Cap formation. She could make the ice do almost anything by varying the input parameters; melt, build up, what conclusions had to be supported by the model? It could be configured that way.

Incidentally tell your nephew to find the difference between an exponential increase and an arithmetic increase; he used the wrong one describing the CO2 increase.

Good one Geof, very illuminating article. (IF illumination is what one is seeking!)

Do tell, a daughter? See if you can coerce her in joining us long enough to illustrate the methods of manipulation. I, for one, would be absolutely enchanted!

this whole debate is pointless

Is the climate changing: of course, it always has and always will
Can humans change/stop this: no, it is foolish to try
Could humans impact climate change: we couldn't if we tried

One thing we must realize is how insignificant humans are on this planet. You couldn't fill the grand canyon with every man made object on this earth. Human carbon emissions account for only 1% of the carbon inputted into the atmosphere. Hardly enough to worry about.

On last thing, there is no scientific consensus on this subject, not even close. there are just as many climatologists who reject this man made climate change theory (and it is an unproven theory) as support it. Not even all of the scientists whose names appear on the IPCC's report agree with its findings. Some even resigned over the thing, yet their names remained on the report.

Hi everybody,
I did more research and got this from the Bozo-in-chief's own website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html
"Lowering the cost of hydrogen: Hydrogen is four times as expensive to produce as gasoline (when produced from its most affordable source, natural gas). The hydrogen fuel initiative seeks to lower that cost enough to make fuel cell cars cost-competitive with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles by 2010; and to advance the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and even coal."
"Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cells are now ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The FreedomCAR initiative is working to reduce that cost to affordable levels."
So even the president thinks it's possible and he's a conservative. Renewable energy is possible, you may not like the price but it can be done. I quoted him so jhowelb might believe it. Sounds like it's just an engineering problem to me.
Take care,
xyzdonna

this whole debate is pointless

Is the climate changing: of course, it always has and always will
Can humans change/stop this: no, it is foolish to try
Could humans impact climate change: we couldn't if we tried

One thing we must realize is how insignificant humans are on this planet. You couldn't fill the grand canyon with every man made object on this earth. Human carbon emissions account for only 1% of the carbon inputted into the atmosphere. Hardly enough to worry about.

On last thing, there is no scientific consensus on this subject, not even close. there are just as many climatologists who reject this man made climate change theory (and it is an unproven theory) as support it. Not even all of the scientists whose names appear on the IPCC's report agree with its findings. Some even resigned over the thing, yet their names remained on the report.

...... and to advance the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and even coal."....Take care,
xyzdonna

First time I have seen 'renewable resource' as an apellation assigned to coal.

Hi everybody,
I did more research and got this from the Bozo-in-chief's own website:


Every thing after this cheap shot is lost, you have once again defeated yourself before you got started.

Back to the real point, there is no proof! No warming crisis, it is a hoax!

First time I have seen 'renewable resource' as an apellation assigned to coal.


All in the perspective, given enough time.............

............methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and even coal."

I quoted him so jhowelb might believe it. Sounds like it's just an engineering problem to me.
Take care,
xyzdonna


"Renewable" being an unnecessary qualifier, IMO, at least coal is a resource plentiful enough to be taken seriously. At some point in the future, when oil finally runs short in reality, a clean way to use it would be practical.

Interesting side bar, Clinton put one of the worlds largest deposits of low sulfur coal off limits in southern Utah. (So his campaign contributors in China could sell theirs at a bigger profit!)

As an aside, Wxyz, there is no love lost for G. W. Bush on my part. He is too damned liberal and far too simpatico to suite me. It is your apparent disrespect for the office of the President that I find objectionable. That alone diminishes you and your opinion on any thing lower than a snakes belly. If you want respect, you gotta give it and it seems you have none for anything other than your own narrow point of view.

Nothing is as simple as you seem to think it is, not even the ones you consider your opponents.

Now, as to that little matter of PROOF!?

First time I have seen 'renewable resource' as an apellation assigned to coal.

Hi Geof,
I thought that too when I first read it, but if you look I think they distinguish between renewable resources, and coal.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Here you go again:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289

Reading for you and your nephew Donna.

Particularly note the bit about winds causing ocean currents; global warming cannot turn-off the Gulf Stream no matter how the AGW crowd pontificates. Actually I had made this point several times in different posts.

Oh, and I just figured I would add this little tidbit if we are now vying for credibility based on family members. I have one a tad closer than a nephew, a daughter actually, who just happens to be a Geophyicist with a specialty in Glaciology who just happened to do a thesis on modelling Arctic Ice Cap formation. She could make the ice do almost anything by varying the input parameters; melt, build up, what conclusions had to be supported by the model? It could be configured that way.

Incidentally tell your nephew to find the difference between an exponential increase and an arithmetic increase; he used the wrong one describing the CO2 increase.

Hi Geof,
Cold winter huh? That is a bit embarrassing, I thought I had you told and you hit me with that. Geophyicist, eh, trumped again. That's why I hate debating with a scientist, they are too damn logical. Yeah, I too thought the exponential thing was a bit off the mark. But it wouldn't have been right for me to edit it before posting, that would not be honest. You sure make it hard on a poor o'l liberal, I'll have to do more research and get back with you.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Verrrrrrry interesting indeed.


Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

Seems I remember some one else saying something similar, oh yeah but that was "FAULTY" logic!

...... Yeah, I too thought the exponential thing was a bit off the mark. But it wouldn't have been right for me to edit it before posting, that would not be honest...xyzdonna

What is honest, and necessary if you wish to retain credibility when you claim, after being pulled up on it, to have wondered about a point in a quote, is that you put (sic) in there after the questionable bit. Maybe not a pickily correct usage of (sic) which is normally reserved for spelling or grammatical errors, but I think acceptable.

Incidentally it is going to be interesting to see how much Arctic sea ice melts in the coming summer. Makes one think back on the predictions for massive hurricanes in the summer of '06 based on the events of '05.

DC,

There is enough doubt about this entire GW debacle to fill an ocean. Science is a process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. A novel idea is formulated by a theoretical scientist, it looks promising and early adapters champion it. Time passes, skeptics amass data and reason to counteract the new idea. A decades long battle between theoretical and experimental scientists ensues to test the idea. If the idea is good, it may absorb through synthesis valid objections and become better. If the idea is bad, the same science that tests it comes up with a fatal bullet that kills the idea. In all instances, win lose or draw, human knowledge advances because of what is learned as a consequence of this contest.

What happens when science passes on to policy makers is there is no room left for doubt and no room for new or contrary evidence. Policy makers are not scientists so they deal with what is concrete. They have to implement practical solutions for perceived threats.

What bothers me is the short-circuiting of this process by the politicization of science. This has denatured and adulterated a vital link in the chain of human understanding and informed reaction. The necessary thesis and antithesis has not been allowed to play out here to determine what the truth is. Rather, the idea was seized and proclaimed as true by the junk-science inventor of the internet. He got a much devalued accolade for his efforts from the pygmies that now dispense a once noble prize. What we get is flawed science in the hands of policy makers that very well may place untold pointless burdens on our way of life. I don't think politicizing science was worth it for any reason given the damage it will cause.

Mariss

Mariss,

It seems no matter where I go on the web to get a bit of knowledge, most site admin, author or both stick to their bias party line. It keeps me on the fence with evidence and contradiction verses the policy of murky mandates that imply monetary compensation is the only/best answer to discourage further green house gases contributions via involuntary cash contributions to cover questionable conclusions and extrapolated solutions. With so many sides having their hands out to rake in income, who can be trusted?

I found this article interesting, but I'm still seeking unbiased views from qualified individuals. I have come to the realization, I won't find much useful here in the "coming climate change" zone. I'm getting tired of reading/responding to the hell bent left wingers bashing and biased remarks. Half the time playing the airhead, then about face to the narcissistic side of superiority over deemed idiots.

The angst of one Canadian Free Press Climatologist (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)

DC

Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

Full article in pdf below

..... With so many sides having their hands out to rake in income, who can be trusted?

I found this article interesting, but I'm still seeking unbiased views from qualified individuals. I have come to the realization, I won't find much useful here in the "coming climate change" zone. I'm getting tired of reading/responding to the hell bent left wingers bashing and biased remarks. Half the time playing the airhead, then about face to the narcissistic side of superiority over deemed idiots.

The angst of one Canadian Free Press Climatologist (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm)

DC

"Who can be trusted?" No body that you don't HAVE to trust! We've been stabbed in the back by such notables as "W" and "Ahhhnuld" among others. Make your best judgment call as to the truth and then demand that your political representatives represent your point of view or throw the bums out!

Sadly, you will have to deal with the likes of Wxyz and the attendant insanity and duplicity everyday of your life either here or elsewhere. Here, at least, you have like minded folks to lean on a compare notes with and you have the all important opportunity to speak your mind. If you get a rise out of the lunatic left for having said it then you know that your message has been heard by the ones you want to hear it!

Stick it out and fight the good fight, the alternative is surrender.

"Renewable" being an unnecessary qualifier, IMO, at least coal is a resource plentiful enough to be taken seriously. At some point in the future, when oil finally runs short in reality, a clean way to use it would be practical.

Interesting side bar, Clinton put one of the worlds largest deposits of low sulfur coal off limits in southern Utah. (So his campaign contributors in China could sell theirs at a bigger profit!)

As an aside, Wxyz, there is no love lost for G. W. Bush on my part. He is too damned liberal and far too simpatico to suite me. It is your apparent disrespect for the office of the President that I find objectionable. That alone diminishes you and your opinion on any thing lower than a snakes belly. If you want respect, you gotta give it and it seems you have none for anything other than your own narrow point of view.

Nothing is as simple as you seem to think it is, not even the ones you consider your opponents.

Now, as to that little matter of PROOF!?

Hi jhowelb,
Bush too liberal? Wow, you must be somewhere to the right of Joe McCarthy. Seriously, it is not I that have demeaned the office of the presidency, it is the current occupant. His incompetency and corruption will define the legacy of his administration. He is the worse president in my lifetime. It isn't unpatriotic to note the truth. I'm working on the proof. Geof put a ding in my bonnet but I'll return. I'm not beaten yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

What is honest, and necessary if you wish to retain credibility when you claim, after being pulled up on it, to have wondered about a point in a quote, is that you put (sic) in there after the questionable bit. Maybe not a pickily correct usage of (sic) which is normally reserved for spelling or grammatical errors, but I think acceptable.

Incidentally it is going to be interesting to see how much Arctic sea ice melts in the coming summer. Makes one think back on the predictions for massive hurricanes in the summer of '06 based on the events of '05.

Hi Geof,
I'm not great in higher math, but I did know an exponential was an order of magnitude higher. Maybe he was just using a little allusion. I did notice something else on that article you referenced. "Obama's America looks a lot like Canada", now that can't be all bad can it?
But they are saying that sunspot activity may play a role and mitigate the effects of global warming. That sounds good. A little ice age wouldn't be so bad, I could get lots of skiing in then.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi jhowelb,
Bush too liberal? Wow, you must be somewhere to the right of Joe McCarthy. Seriously, it is not I that have demeaned the office of the presidency, it is the current occupant. His incompetency and corruption will define the legacy of his administration. He is the worse president in my lifetime. It isn't unpatriotic to note the truth. I'm working on the proof. Geof put a ding in my bonnet but I'll return. I'm not beaten yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You don't have the ability nor the authority to demean the office, you simply have no RESPECT for it or anything else American. THAT is what is unpatriotic, no un-American in all your attitudes.

Geof body slams you senseless with every one of his posts ands you just aren't bright enough to see the truth.

Now, one more time about that PROOF that you can't produce!

Dang this post moves too fast and I check it a often (my funny page)

Been searching and learning about biomass and gasifiers.
OH MY GOD the links, the knowledge.Europe in WW2
Greenie nazi's crying because of the CO2 (nothing else ,cleanest way to burn anything)
Factory VWs that ran on WOOD.
Was going to make a new furnace nah F that ,same materials to make a gasifier.

Time to poke the bear, XYZ ,where do we get hydrogen ? Theres a lot in the sun but not so much here.

Dave

During the time the Japs occupied the Philippines, the locals couldn't get any gas so would burn straw (a smoldering fire) in the trunk and run a stove pipe to the carburetor. It work! Stinks like hell but beats walking.

Human ingenuity!

During the time the Japs occupied the Philippines, the locals couldn't get any gas so would burn straw (a smoldering fire) in the trunk and run a stove pipe to the carburetor. It work! Stinks like hell but beats walking.

Human ingenuity!

I am not old enough to remember seeing them in person, but I have seen pictures of buses in England during the Second World War run in a similar manner. A coke burner was mounted at the back or in a trailer and the gas was piped up to a huge bladder on the roof of the bus and from there to the engine. It was (is) called 'producer gas' and if you Google thyat you will find people who fool around with it today. This was another 'alternate energy source' looked at by Mother Earth News back in the 1970s during the first energy crisis. How many people used to get Mother Earth News? I think I still have copies stored somewhere in boxes above the offices. It was worth reading back then.

"Who can be trusted?" No body that you don't HAVE to trust! We've been stabbed in the back by such notables as "W" and "Ahhhnuld" among others. Make your best judgment call as to the truth and then demand that your political representatives represent your point of view or throw the bums out!

Sadly, you will have to deal with the likes of Wxyz and the attendant insanity and duplicity everyday of your life either here or elsewhere. Here, at least, you have like minded folks to lean on a compare notes with and you have the all important opportunity to speak your mind. If you get a rise out of the lunatic left for having said it then you know that your message has been heard by the ones you want to hear it!

Stick it out and fight the good fight, the alternative is surrender.

In the words of Gary Aldrich, "Your conscience is not yours to obey" or so the left would expect of the right.

Long but revealing look at the X-Z mentality and what spawned it (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391)

The only thing missing is (Y) waste my time!:)

DC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasifier

I did not know what the term "biomass" was used for .

OHHHH

Just think of all of the crap and yard waste we just put in land fills.

IF it burns it can be gased.

The worst part , this aint rocket science.
Makes me wonder about the whole ethanol thing.
How many btu's in the end if you just burnt it out right ?

Theres no such thng as a free lunch.
OK take our not so efficant corn ethanol
So if there is only so many fuel atoms in a base source and you go through all of the wasted energy to make ethanol( and yeast wont eat cellose)

Heck you could just Burn it ,all of it with much less processing and waste products.

And this is how you use COAL cleaner.

Fooey on the middle east and their middle men

In the words of Gary Aldrich, "Your conscience is not yours to obey" or so the left would expect of the right.

Long but revealing look at the X-Z mentality and what spawned it (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16391)

The only thing missing is (Y) waste my time!:)

DC

Oh no, you also neglected the W in Wxyz. (W stands for WRONG!)

I am not old enough to remember seeing them in person, but I have seen pictures of buses in England during the Second World War run in a similar manner. A coke burner was mounted at the back or in a trailer and the gas was piped up to a huge bladder on the roof of the bus and from there to the engine. It was (is) called 'producer gas' and if you Google thyat you will find people who fool around with it today. This was another 'alternate energy source' looked at by Mother Earth News back in the 1970s during the first energy crisis. How many people used to get Mother Earth News? I think I still have copies stored somewhere in boxes above the offices. It was worth reading back then.

There was quite a lot in those books that was worth while. All of it was borrowed from the hill folks and back woods clans across the South and Appalachia. Folk Lore as it were!

One could provide for a family with that knowledge during a depression. What CAN"T be done is to run a world with present population. That takes fuel and IC engines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasifier

I did not know what the term "biomass" was used for .

OHHHH

Just think of all of the crap and yard waste we just put in land fills.

IF it burns it can be gased.

The worst part , this aint rocket science.
Makes me wonder about the whole ethanol thing.
How many btu's in the end if you just burnt it out right ?

Theres no such thng as a free lunch.
OK take our not so efficant corn ethanol
So if there is only so many fuel atoms in a base source and you go through all of the wasted energy to make ethanol( and yeast wont eat cellose)

Heck you could just Burn it ,all of it with much less processing and waste products.

And this is how you use COAL cleaner.

Fooey on the middle east and their middle men

Take a look into oil shale, there is NOT an energy crisis. Look up methane hydrates. Care to guess how much natural gas there is under the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas that the greenies are blocking?

Electrical energy can be produced with nothing more to start with but a temperature differential, so just bury that garbage with a pipe matrix to collect the heat as it rots. Then use a dozer to scoop it up and spread it on the fields as fertilizer.

The more you learn the more you realize that we are already being raped daily and now they want to multiply the frequency and eliminate Vaseline as a being too expensive to provide.

Dang this post moves too fast and I check it a often (my funny page)

Been searching and learning about biomass and gasifiers.
OH MY GOD the links, the knowledge.Europe in WW2
Greenie nazi's crying because of the CO2 (nothing else ,cleanest way to burn anything)
Factory VWs that ran on WOOD.
Was going to make a new furnace nah F that ,same materials to make a gasifier.

Time to poke the bear, XYZ ,where do we get hydrogen ? Theres a lot in the sun but not so much here.

Dave

Hi debogus,
There's plenty of hydrogen here, just electrolyze sea water or regular water. Do this with solar or with nuclear as an interim solution. Honda has a hydrogen powered car on the horizon: http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0705/gallery.honda_fcx/index.html They are also working on a home generation system for making hydrogen for your vehicle. So you see, work is being done, it's basically an engineering problem.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You don't have the ability nor the authority to demean the office, you simply have no RESPECT for it or anything else American. THAT is what is unpatriotic, no un-American in all your attitudes.

Geof body slams you senseless with every one of his posts ands you just aren't bright enough to see the truth.

Now, one more time about that PROOF that you can't produce!

Hi jhowelb,
That's funny, your defining unpatriotic as someone who doesn't support the conservative agenda. I'm very patriotic, I just don't like what your politics has done to my country. It has made us much weaker and poorer.
Proof of what, global warming? That CO2 levels have risen concurrently with rising temperatures is pretty well established, even Geof agrees with that. Correlation? That's the most logical conclusion, maybe sunspots have slowed the trend, it might be we got lucky for a while. But I agree with Geof, the population bomb is probably the big worry.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Climate change has always been real. The world's overall climate has been in flux since it's atmosphere developed. It is a chaotic system with numerous outside influences that is constantly fighting for equilibrium only to be defeated daily. My problem is heaping all of it on the doorstep of mankind. Al buys carbon offsets that only exist on paper so he can justify his hard to believe electric bill, sport around in limos, private flights etc. Then presumes to dictate to us from some self conceived sense of moral superiority. To give a real world example, my sister in SF California told me about a carbon offset program her nanny is looking into to offset her commute to and from college. She even gets a niffty bumper sticker to show her greenieness. It is a reforestation program in the NW, keeping it close to home. I asked her who was planting the trees. She checked and found out these trees where being replanted to replace timber cut for the lumber and paper industry. Trees that have to be replanted anyway under federal law so their is no real offset except to her wallet if she buys into it. For some reason Al thinks this is a positive move forward though. Go figure.

Wasn't Kinder Gentler George H's line?

Hi Shotout,
Yes, it was the line of the father of the current failed president. I used it because I'm mainly communicating with conservatives on this list. The carbon offsets are probably a waste of time for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not a proponent of them.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi Shotout,
Yes, it was the line of the father of the current failed president. I used it because I'm mainly communicating with conservatives on this list. The carbon offsets are probably a waste of time for the reasons you mentioned. I'm not a proponent of them.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Now if you can extend that a little farther...

electrolyze ?
You do realize hydrogen is storage medium akin to a form of battery .
Once in a while I post questions that I fully understand.( thought it was obvious)

Takes energy to MAKE it ,no such thing as a free lunch.

But as jhowelb pointed out, in methanes our lunch is pretty much just waiting for us.

So many different ways of getting it

But we could always take methane and turn it into hydrogen ,then put it into fuel cells instead of just using it the way it is.
That is liberal logic.

electrolyze ?
You do realize hydrogen is storage medium akin to a form of battery .
Once in a while I post questions that I fully understand.( thought it was obvious)

Takes energy to MAKE it ,no such thing as a free lunch......

But we are going to get some university researchers to train algae to fart hydrogen and get 5000 cubic feet per acre per year. I'm sure I read soemwhere that this is being worked on.

Hi jhowelb,
That's funny, your defining unpatriotic as someone who doesn't support the conservative agenda. I'm very patriotic, I just don't like what your politics has done to my country. It has made us much weaker and poorer.
Proof of what, global warming? That CO2 levels have risen concurrently with rising temperatures is pretty well established, even Geof agrees with that. Correlation? That's the most logical conclusion, maybe sunspots have slowed the trend, it might be we got lucky for a while. But I agree with Geof, the population bomb is probably the big worry.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hey Dubya (Wxyz),
Nobody wants your support, It's worthless just like your ideas.
Where is the love for the US in this statement?

Maybe he was just using a little allusion. I did notice something else on that article you referenced. "Obama's America looks a lot like Canada", now that can't be all bad can it?

Or this one?

The ACLU has done a marvelous job of protecting our freedoms from the heavy handedness of government. This surprises me that you would oppose them given your views. Zell Miller? You must be from Georgia, one of the states I vote in.

Oh, and then there is this jewel of respect for every thing except the recession caused by Klinton!

The economy was great everything was wonderful. Then along came the imbecile in chief. Running up massive deficits while giving huge tax breaks to billionaires. Arguably the most incompetent president in the history of the republic, certainly in my lifetime. Don't blame his failings on 911. This was botched by him as well. You really ought to see Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 911. To look at that moron when he was told for the second time that another plane had hit the twin towers, when he looked furtively around for someone to tell him what to do, it was priceless. To me that told it all. He wasn't running the country Cheny was. He was just a Face to put on the platform, his function was to garner the votes of the right wing Christian conservatives. The apostles of ignorance.

Anyone who could really believe the tripe I've quoted you on in just this post, never mind the tons that came before, has to be an enemy of the state. An admitted criminal on several levels who disparately needs to be locked away

But then, we here on the "Zone" have no assurance that you are NOT locked up. Some convicts have internet access.

electrolyze ?
You do realize hydrogen is storage medium akin to a form of battery .
Once in a while I post questions that I fully understand.( thought it was obvious)

Takes energy to MAKE it ,no such thing as a free lunch.

But as jhowelb pointed out, in methanes our lunch is pretty much just waiting for us.

So many different ways of getting it

But we could always take methane and turn it into hydrogen ,then put it into fuel cells instead of just using it the way it is.
That is liberal logic.


The law of diminishing returns! But then folks like "Dubya" (Wxyz) have no respect for laws as they were made for everyone ELSE!

electrolyze ?
You do realize hydrogen is storage medium akin to a form of battery .
Once in a while I post questions that I fully understand.( thought it was obvious)

Takes energy to MAKE it ,no such thing as a free lunch.

But as jhowelb pointed out, in methanes our lunch is pretty much just waiting for us.

So many different ways of getting it

But we could always take methane and turn it into hydrogen ,then put it into fuel cells instead of just using it the way it is.
That is liberal logic.

Hi debogus,
According to the white house website methane to hydrogen is 4 times more expensive than gasoline is. And this is currently the cheapest way to do it. I agree that burning the methane directly to propel the vehicle would probably be the more efficient way of doing things. I don't know about the carbon neutrality though. Geof would know more about this.
Take care,
xyzdonna

.... I agree that burning the methane directly to propel the vehicle would probably be the more efficient way of doing things. I don't know about the carbon neutrality though. Geof would know more about this.
Take care,
xyzdonna

I am glad you agree, I told you this hundreds of posts back. And I think then you blew me off with the opinion that this still produces CO2 which is quite correct.

Hydrogen as a fuel is a farce. All the energy sources that could be used to produce hydrogen can be used directly with much higher efficiency.

Shock horror! attached is a tracing from a neolithic cave drawing found in erm... my back garden.

I am glad you agree, I told you this hundreds of posts back. And I think then you blew me off with the opinion that this still produces CO2 which is quite correct.

Hydrogen as a fuel is a farce. All the energy sources that could be used to produce hydrogen can be used directly with much higher efficiency.

Hi Geof,
I'm amenable, I came here to learn more than to teach or preach. If cheaper photovoltaic cells could be developed then it might just be possible to make hydrogen from water. People have rooftops available that could be covered and used. It will take some research and engineering but they are saying it's possible.
Take care,
xyzdonna

....If cheaper photovoltaic cells could be developed then it might just be possible to make hydrogen from water. ....

Covering buildings with solar panels may be possible but your genius nucular scientist friend conjured up a few expletives about the lack of good sense in that.

Even if it was done why waste the electricity making hydrogen instead of using it directly. Electrolyzing water to get hydrogen then using the hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity wastes at least have the energy as heat. Burning the resultant hydrogen in an internal combustion engine wastes more.

Pie in the sky is not a source of nourishment.

Take a look into oil shale, there is NOT an energy crisis. Look up methane hydrates. Care to guess how much natural gas there is under the Rockies and Sierra Nevadas that the greenies are blocking?

Electrical energy can be produced with nothing more to start with but a temperature differential, so just bury that garbage with a pipe matrix to collect the heat as it rots. Then use a dozer to scoop it up and spread it on the fields as fertilizer.

The more you learn the more you realize that we are already being raped daily and now they want to multiply the frequency and eliminate Vaseline as a being too expensive to provide.

As far as there being no energy crisis, I agree. The only question is what are we going to have to pay for it.

I worked for to many years around the oil patch to think there is ever going to be (in the next several generations) a real energy crisis. If we are in a free market with willing buyers and willing sellers, every commodity, even energy, will be traded. We can have interruption of supplies if we don't have control over them. We have seen that a few times.

Personally I would like to see some 'alternative energy' sources researched, developed, and made freely available to whomever wants to produce them. But since communism does not seem to work on a large scale, doing it through our economic system to allocate resources seems to work better, long term, even though it almost guarantees some rough spots along the way.

The flexible polycrystalline photovoltaics, along with a bit of wind, both feeding back to 'the grid' and keeping a set of high efficiency batteries topped off would be great.

We also need to work on the consumption side of the equation. Reduce our use. Yes, it will cost more (because the market allows it) for more efficient appliances initially, but the market is efficient long term so the costs will come down.

We will also see some issue from our traditional providers. Assume we use less eventually, the prices will have to go up because the providers have a cost of doing business, infrastructure sinking costs and maintenance of current infrastructure to pay for, plus profit that 'must' increase every quarter according to investors. The providers will eventually change to more efficient methods, but it will take a while.

One aside about suppliers and costs... In a drought in California, the big push has been to save water. People did that so well, that there was not enough cash flow for some of the water utilities to pay their financial obligations, that the water rates had to go up. ... It boils down to the utilities require a given amount of money to provide service, no matter the quantity of service, just to keep any service available. The good thing from this is that the non-use of water from these utilities customers allows the utilities to be able to provide service when a drought is long and severe and to reduce the amount of additional infrastructure required to add new customers.

I expect to see this happen in some of our energy businesses too. To some extent we have. Prices on fuel has gone up because we have not built significant new domestic refining infrastructure for years. Also, we have decided to purchase rather than develop domestic oil fields (off California coast, on some public lands, etc) that has increased our dependency of foreign produced oil. We have even increased our demand for oil by requiring cleaner emissions from our vehicles. (We averaged about 30MPG when I started driving in the 1960's. Yes the muscle cars did not, but many normal domestic sedans did with much larger vehicles. Today we look to tiny hybrids to get anything more. That is almost 50 years of progress. -- yes we are burning the fuels more cleanly, but we are still getting the same MPG as we were then and having to do it with smaller vehicles. So to carry the same amount of cargo we need more vehicles, still burning more fuel. The good thing is we carry only about 1.1 person per passenger vehicle on the average, so smaller vehicles work out fairly well. So this tells me we would probably be able to get almost twice the mileage if we did not have the 'clean air' requirements. -- We have just chosen how to allocate our resources.

IMHO, the right way to 'cure' this problem is to get free enterprise to deal with it. Government can do basic research (typically has a 20 to 50+ year time horizon ... NASA has been especially good at this ... but that is another diatribe about the spin offs have been worth more than the direct results provided by NASA.) Determine policy, and support that policy with the carrot and cane policy (Carrot is tax incentives, to reduce tax burden on folks doing what the government wants, and stick is laws and punitive taxes/punishment for those that violate basic cannons desired by the government.) ... To support this we need more people paying taxes. And to do that they need to earn a living. And to earn a living the people will gain more self esteem, be able to do more, and require less 'hand holding' from any form of 'big brother' government.

If the government is going to do one task today past protecting the common good, it would be to fulfill the philosophy to 'give a man a fish, feeds them for a day, to teach them how to fish feeds them for a lifetime'. The next corollary to that is a little more ambiguous, we need to feed them 'some', but not enough to be comfortable until they do start fishing for themselves. And they each need to have the obligation to teach two others how to fish.

I guess it is time for someone else to get on a soap box. ... I hope this has been useful to someone, more than me blowing off steam!

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."


Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling

The fraud has been exposed! Go ahead and buy that SUV!

The fraud has been exposed! Go ahead and buy that SUV!

Hi jhowelb,
Obviously there is more to climate change than just CO2; sunspots, ocean currents, anomalous variations are all a factor. An atypical winter is no proof that GW isn't happening. It just means we may have gotten a temporary reprieve. Don't order the SUV just yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi jhowelb,
Obviously there is more to climate change than just CO2; sunspots, ocean currents, anomalous variations are all a factor. An atypical winter is no proof that GW isn't happening. It just means we may have gotten a temporary reprieve. Don't order the SUV just yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna


Invert your faulty logic, there is NOTHING to climate change. Get the hell outta the way and let us drill more oil wells!

I am glad you agree, I told you this hundreds of posts back. And I think then you blew me off with the opinion that this still produces CO2 which is quite correct.

Hydrogen as a fuel is a farce. All the energy sources that could be used to produce hydrogen can be used directly with much higher efficiency.

Hydrogen use is not just an engineering problem. It has many physical problems that make it unrealisitc. 5k-12KPSI Storage tanks, Mass transport, leakage and volatility do not sound like they mix well on a 70MPH freeway. Let alone what it takes to generate it on a massive scale. Salt water is not a viable option. It must be distilled or potable. Then there is very little green benefits when adding acids to good clean water in order to make it conductive, unless there are other ways to convert it.

It may just give a whole new meaning to CAR BOMBS! Terrorists may love it! Have detonator, will travel? :confused:

Just like AGW, another theory and a policy to address it without considering the overall impact on a broad scale use.

DC


http://www.geocities.com/midimagic@sbcglobal.net/hydrognk.htm

Hi everybody,
I find a photovoltaic cell is about 12% efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. "This condition approximately represents solar noon near the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with surface of the cell aimed directly at the sun." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Maximum-power_point
In other words average conditions. Suppose a vehicle were 20% efficient at converting the hydrogen to motion. Anyone know how to calculate the overall efficiency?
Thanks,
xyzdonna

Hi everybody,
I find a photovoltaic cell is about 12% efficient at converting sunlight to electricity. Suppose a vehicle were 20% efficient at converting the hydrogen to motion. Anyone know how to calculate the overall efficiency?


E =.12 X .2 = .024 or 2.4%


Now factor in the energy used in making and cleaning the photo cells....

Please see:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Quoting the first paragraph: "Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on."

In the past year temperatures worldwide have dropped by the greatest amount ever recorded. The drop in the last year cancels 100 years worth of "GW". Coincidentally, sunspot activity is the lowest recorded as well.

Where is all the CO2 warming we were supposed to be enjoying? Maybe the connection between CO2 and temperature is not cause and effect. Maybe the whole GW theory is wrong.

Mariss

E =.12 X .2 = .024 or 2.4%


Now factor in the energy used in making and cleaning the photo cells....

Never mind that, factor in the energy needed to compress the hydrogen for storage. This is the one that is glossed over in many of the optimistic evaluations for hydrogen as a fuel.

Also in the 12%, 20% above the efficiency of electrolysis was not included; this is in the ball park of 50%, maybe a bit better, so it takes the 2.4 down to 1.2 for the overall efficiency from solar energy to motive power.

....In the past year temperatures worldwide have dropped by the greatest amount ever recorded. The drop in the last year cancels 100 years worth of "GW". Coincidentally, sunspot activity is the lowest recorded as well.....

A coincidence which has held true through recorded history, and beyond.

E =.12 X .2 = .024 or 2.4%


Now factor in the energy used in making and cleaning the photo cells....

I thought efficiency was a ratio of the input verses the output. I'm no numtition, so uh.......

12/20=.6

Although I still think there is something missing in that. Converting sun to electricity, then converting electricity to hydrogen, then converting hydrogen to motion?

Wouldn't that indicate orders of magnitute a lot more efficient to just store the electricity in a battery and using it in an electric motor with much less loss in another conversion or consumption of water?

I have read direct solar hydrogen dissociation in the 1-2% range.

DC

People confuse coincidence with cause and effect all the time. That is why Lottery tickets sell.

Mariss

I thought efficiency was a ratio of the input verses the output. I'm no numtition, so uh.......

12/20=.6
DC

You are correct but this was a case of two ratios:

The conversion from solar energy to electrical energy where the efficiency was 12%, i.e. in input to output ratio of 12/100 or 1 : 0.12

Then the conversion of hydrogen energy to energy used for motive power in the car where the efficiency is 20% for a ratio of 20/100 or 1 : 0.2

To get the overall ration you multiply the two individual ratios to get the 1 : 0.024 which is 2.4%

But as I pointed out the electrolysis efficiency was not considered nor the energy required to compress the hydrogen for storage.

Your battery example is correct for advanced batteries but not lead acid I think.

The direct solar to hydrogen was what I was referring to, not entirely seriously, in my 'farting algae' comment a few posts back; the algae do not fart very much. Although I think now some of the reearchers are experimenting with extracting enzymes from the algae and make synthetic hydrogen converters. The thing is that was being done back in the 1970s during the first 'energy crisis' so if it is going to be successful now why was it not successful then?

People confuse coincidence with cause and effect all the time. That is why Lottery tickets sell.

Mariss

Also probability and severity of effect.

A very, very low probability event that would have awesome consequences is viewed as a greater threat than a very likely event that has much less serious consequences.

Humans are rarely rational.

E =.12 X .2 = .024 or 2.4%


Now factor in the energy used in making and cleaning the photo cells....
Thanks dynosor & Geof,
Pretty louse efficiency alright, yep, maybe charging a battery with solar power is a better way to go, I see what you mean.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Please see:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Quoting the first paragraph: "Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on."

In the past year temperatures worldwide have dropped by the greatest amount ever recorded. The drop in the last year cancels 100 years worth of "GW". Coincidentally, sunspot activity is the lowest recorded as well.

Where is all the CO2 warming we were supposed to be enjoying? Maybe the connection between CO2 and temperature is not cause and effect. Maybe the whole GW theory is wrong.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
I suppose there is a possibility that it's wrong. But a more likely scenario is that sunspot activity has mitigated the effect temporarily. This is good, maybe we can recover some more polar ice. But I don't think I'd count GW out yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi Mariss,
I suppose there is a possibility that it's wrong. But a more likely scenario is that sunspot activity has mitigated the effect temporarily. This is good, maybe we can recover some more polar ice. But I don't think I'd count GW out yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

You seem extraordinarily resistant to comprehend that we, I think the we is correct for many of us, do not count GW out. What we do count out is that it is due entirely or predominantly to human activity and what we do count out is that humans can do anything to prevent or reverse it.

You seem extraordinarily resistant to comprehend that we, I think the we is correct for many of us, do not count GW out. What we do count out is that it is due entirely or predominantly to human activity and what we do count out is that humans can do anything to prevent or reverse it.

But you see, that would be tantamount to telling a Christian that the conception was not immaculate and the He did not ascend into Heaven.

This is, after all, the Church of Environmental Salvation from Global Warming. Can't break the faith, don't ya know!

You seem extraordinarily resistant to comprehend that we, I think the we is correct for many of us, do not count GW out. What we do count out is that it is due entirely or predominantly to human activity and what we do count out is that humans can do anything to prevent or reverse it.

Hi Geof,
I do comprehend that you, at least, realize that GW may be happening. I do as well. I don't think you can ignore or minimize the CO2 global warming correlation. That would be anthropogenic. Granted that to do anything about it would put the world economy in the toilet and cause untold human suffering. This may happen anyway due to rising energy costs. So in that sense it may correct itself automatically. As energy costs go up consumption will have to go down. We can do something about it though. Divert more of our efforts to alternative energy. We know that fossil fuels are going away and that they probably hurt the environment. We just went through the math and hydrogen doesn't look so good, solar to motor fuel about 1% efficient. I think more effort needs to be spent on researching alternatives. Something may work, surly it is not completely hopeless.
Take care,
xyzdonna

I stumbled on this forum... here is a sample on sea ice...

http://theweatheroutlook.com/twocommunity/forums/p/10736/454442.aspx

Depending on your "Faith" as regards GW, it seems that there is good ice and bad ice. There is also a rather excellent "hockey-stick" down-turn graph of global temperatures.

Pick the ice that suits you..

Best wishes.

Martin

Hi Geof,
I do comprehend that you, at least, realize that GW may be happening. I do as well. I don't think you can ignore or minimize the CO2 global warming correlation. That would be anthropogenic. Granted that to do anything about it would put the world economy in the toilet and cause untold human suffering. This may happen anyway due to rising energy costs. So in that sense it may correct itself automatically. As energy costs go up consumption will have to go down. We can do something about it though. Divert more of our efforts to alternative energy. We know that fossil fuels are going away and that they probably hurt the environment. We just went through the math and hydrogen doesn't look so good, solar to motor fuel about 1% efficient. I think more effort needs to be spent on researching alternatives. Something may work, surly it is not completely hopeless.
Take care,
xyzdonna

THERE ya go! Grab that thought and keep it in the front of yer mind!

THERE ya go! Grab that thought and keep it in the front of yer mind!

In the same vein;



<Snip>

it would put the world economy in the toilet and cause untold human suffering. This may happen anyway due to rising energy costs. So in that sense it may correct itself automatically. As energy costs go up consumption will have to go down. We can do something about it though. Divert more of our efforts to alternative energy. We know that fossil fuels are going away and that they probably hurt the environment.

If it MAY happen anyways, so the left MAY as well highjack the economy and energy resources with surcharges to make it artificially inflated. In effect making it unaffordable or penalize for rich consumption. There by tanking the economy worse than the depression ever could have. The power play is, who ends up with the lions share of control over the economy with energy and any emissions by DIVERTING the high jacked economic windfall to their "Friend's of Earth". As in the likes of Gore, the UN, or any other blood sucking dingbat hyping the agenda for profit or tax coffers while delivering NOTHING tangible to justify the totalitarian hysteria.

I think Geof summed it up the same as I have said all along. Something is up that correlates with many factors, of which man is a minor element, but the only CONTROLLABLE one with cash to cure all ills. Lets not let it turn into the perfect endless political excuse for State or Federal funding. So far the people jumping on the bandwagon are fully ready to perpetrate a con job of alchemy. The principles of these organizations get a return on their investment using carbon credits money to turning wood or wind (as in planting tree or wind farms) into RETIREMENT gold in the name of the environmental movement. With so little transparency and public responsibility, it is setting the stage to be the biggest swindle of the millennium! There is already plenty of corruption in Washington, this writes them a blank check and access to every wallet to fill it as they see fit.

DC

Hi Mariss,
I suppose there is a possibility that it's wrong. But a more likely scenario is that sunspot activity has mitigated the effect temporarily. This is good, maybe we can recover some more polar ice. But I don't think I'd count GW out yet.
Take care,
xyzdonna

XY,

Sunspot inactivity temporarily mitigated the climate from the 1200's AD to the late 1700's AD. This 500 year "mitigation" is called the Maunder Minimum; Europe became too cold to grow wheat and people took up potato eating, a fortuitous import from the Western Hemisphere. Settlements were abandoned in Greenland and the Thames froze solid every winter. George Washington was depicted crossing an ice-tumbled Delaware River. As an aside XY, had you lived then, I'm sure you would have called him an idiot-in-chief for prosecuting a senseless war. You would have said it in a patriotic way of course.

The telescope was invented by Galileo during this climatic episode. Once invented, nearly everything was looked at and written up. Curiously absent from these ancient texts is any reference to sunspots; they would have been visible with even the rudimentary telescopes of that time. It is this historical absence that helped give genesis to the idea there is a correlation between sun activity and climate.

XY, go ahead and flog the GW horsey pulling the leftist bandwagon for all you are worth. I know you have to; you have so much invested in it to even think that pony may be dying. That horse is the engine that pulls the liberal agenda of liberal utopianism; the collectivization of people through fear and the suppression of independent free-thinking individuals. Marx, Lenin and Stalin tried it; liberals still believe in it, why shouldn't you?

Mariss

XY,

Sunspot inactivity temporarily mitigated the climate from the 1200's AD to the late 1700's AD. This 500 year "mitigation" is called the Maunder Minimum; Europe became too cold to grow wheat and people took up potato eating, a fortuitous import from the Western Hemisphere. Settlements were abandoned in Greenland and the Thames froze solid every winter. George Washington was depicted crossing an ice-tumbled Delaware River. As an aside XY, had you lived then, I'm sure you would have called him an idiot-in-chief for prosecuting a senseless war. You would have said it in a patriotic way of course.

The telescope was invented by Galileo during this climatic episode. Once invented, nearly everything was looked at and written up. Curiously absent from these ancient texts is any reference to sunspots; they would have been visible with even the rudimentary telescopes of that time. It is this historical absence that helped give genesis to the idea there is a correlation between sun activity and climate.

XY, go ahead and flog the GW horsey pulling the leftist bandwagon for all you are worth. I know you have to; you have so much invested in it to even think that pony may be dying. That horse is the engine that pulls the liberal agenda of liberal utopianism; the collectivization of people through fear and the suppression of independent free-thinking individuals. Marx, Lenin and Stalin tried it; liberals still believe in it, why shouldn't you?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
It may be true that the left has taken up the cause (GW) and I think they should. It's also possible that sunspot activity has swamped the CO2 effect and forestalled it temporarily. We can't be sure of these things yet. Hopefully that's the case. I just don't see it as a conspiracy to try and develop renewable fuels that spew less CO2 into the air. I think virtually everyone on this thread agrees that our current energy usage is unsustainable.
Consider; I saw a thing on TV the other night about a 100 MPG vehicle. It's basically an enclosed motorcycle (a three wheeler) that's a hybrid. Certainly easy to implement with today's technology. Shouldn't be expensive and it looked fun to drive and a lot easier to park. If you're getting 100 MPG then synthetic fuels aren't that bad even if they cost a lot more. The math on this is simple enough even I can do it. Synfuel @ $10/gal = 100 mi. Reg gas @ $4/gal & 20 mpg = $20/100 mi. So even with the increased costs of synthetic fuels we can make compensations. This is what should be done and cost will be the driver. We know it's going to happen, fuel prices are going to rise. Why not let the government put a surcharge on petroleum fuels to finance alternative energy research. It's a given that if you have the science worked out ahead of time then the transition will be a lot less painless. We're already about 8 years behind thanks to the current moronic administration. You have to admit that we must come up with an alternative. Let's do the research and figure out a way to make it happen.
Take care,
xyzdonna
PS: I would have supported George Washington, I like him. But George Bush is no George Washington.

We had an earthquake here in England last night- nothing compared to other countries- about 5 on the richter scale, but the strongest for 25 years here.

I swear that the following is true: About an hour go, I heard Jo Wiley on Radio 1 saying "well, we're getting a lot of texts about the earthquake last night- perhaps we'll talk about that later and if it's anything to do with global warming"

I swear on my life that's what she said!

THERE ya go! Grab that thought and keep it in the front of yer mind!

Hi jhowelb,
When you make bold and agree with anything I say it means I've misspoken. What I was trying to say was that rising energy costs were going to hurt the world economy. That it is going to be painful. That doing something about it is going to be painful, but we must. Sorry, I didn't express myself too well.
Take care,
xyzdonna

In the same vein;



If it MAY happen anyways, so the left MAY as well highjack the economy and energy resources with surcharges to make it artificially inflated. In effect making it unaffordable or penalize for rich consumption. There by tanking the economy worse than the depression ever could have. The power play is, who ends up with the lions share of control over the economy with energy and any emissions by DIVERTING the high jacked economic windfall to their "Friend's of Earth". As in the likes of Gore, the UN, or any other blood sucking dingbat hyping the agenda for profit or tax coffers while delivering NOTHING tangible to justify the totalitarian hysteria.

I think Geof summed it up the same as I have said all along. Something is up that correlates with many factors, of which man is a minor element, but the only CONTROLLABLE one with cash to cure all ills. Lets not let it turn into the perfect endless political excuse for State or Federal funding. So far the people jumping on the bandwagon are fully ready to perpetrate a con job of alchemy. The principles of these organizations get a return on their investment using carbon credits money to turning wood or wind (as in planting tree or wind farms) into RETIREMENT gold in the name of the environmental movement. With so little transparency and public responsibility, it is setting the stage to be the biggest swindle of the millennium! There is already plenty of corruption in Washington, this writes them a blank check and access to every wallet to fill it as they see fit.

DC

Hi One of Many,
Yes that's exactly what I think. Subsidize alternative energy with research funded by taxation on petroleum fuels. It's a simple expedient that will make the changeover (which is going to happen) less painful. We know it's coming, we're running out of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of the carbon credit thing, that seems kind of silly to me. Maybe it's just because I don't understand it. But synthetic fuels are possible, they can and have been done. Yes, you may not like the price but petroleum fuels are rising ever higher so at some point they will meet. Why not make the inevitable transition occur more smoothly and with less disruption? Instead of paranoically looking for bogymen and conspiracy at every turn, adapt and develop. It will take a multifaceted approach. More economical (better MPG) vehicles, alternative fuels, less CO2 emissions and lifestyle modifications.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi everybody,
Wouldn't it be ironic if GW due to CO2 emissions came along at just the right time to save the world from another ice age. Of course when the sunspot activity resumed it would be all over. Interesting thought.
Take care,
xyzdonna

we're running out of fossil fuels

Margaret Thatcher said in 1979 that we would run out of fossil fuels withing 10 years. Still aint happened. Mind you, her being a fossil now, perhaps we could recycle her as fuel... along with all the other politicians?

Margaret Thatcher said in 1979 that we would run out of fossil fuels withing 10 years. Still aint happened. Mind you, her being a fossil now, perhaps we could recycle her as fuel... along with all the other politicians?

Hi ImanCarrot,
There's still a lot of fossil fuel left in the ground but there are probably a lot better uses for it than motor vehicles. Also, it will become increasingly expensive to get to it. Makes renewable energy a must. How much is gas per gal over in the UK now? I'll bet it's at least $6/gal with the taxes and all. If ya'll can stand it we can as well. Put a much larger tax on it and the USA would soon end it's profligate ways. Conservation and alternative fuels is a nobrainer. Convincing conservatives is the hard part.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Hi jhowelb,
When you make bold and agree with anything I say it means I've misspoken. What I was trying to say was that rising energy costs were going to hurt the world economy. That it is going to be painful. That doing something about it is going to be painful, but we must. Sorry, I didn't express myself too well.
Take care,
xyzdonna


You never do express yourself well, you are expressing the party line. That is the reason you look at old Joe as if he were Satan himself. You are incapable of independent thought within that stricture thus you are always "going off to do more research" when the truth is being handed to you right here in this forum. See posts numbered 1596 and 1597 for example.

Will you never wise up? You are being used by the left!

Hi Mariss,
Consider; I saw a thing on TV the other night about a 100 MPG vehicle. It's basically an enclosed motorcycle (a three wheeler) that's a hybrid.


I've heard rumors about an astounding all-terrain vehicle that uses no fuel at all. It's also a 3-wheeler, but get this, it has foot-pedals attached to the front wheel. Safety features include something called "tassels" and a thumb operated annunciator called a "bell". Reportedly it is so simple even a 3-year old can operate it.

If we could get the car companies interested in this technology it would end our dependence on fossil fuels.

Mariss

Hi ImanCarrot,
There's still a lot of fossil fuel left in the ground but there are probably a lot better uses for it than motor vehicles. Also, it will become increasingly expensive to get to it. Makes renewable energy a must. How much is gas per gal over in the UK now? I'll bet it's at least $6/gal with the taxes and all. If ya'll can stand it we can as well. Put a much larger tax on it and the USA would soon end it's profligate ways. Conservation and alternative fuels is a nobrainer. Convincing conservatives is the hard part.
Take care,
xyzdonna

There ya go again, it slipped out didn't it. The left handed answer to everything, "TAX it!" no mater what that does to the economy. The problem you have is a very narrow field of vision.

Hi One of Many,
Yes that's exactly what I think. Subsidize alternative energy with research funded by taxation on petroleum fuels. It's a simple expedient that will make the changeover (which is going to happen) less painful. We know it's coming, we're running out of fossil fuels. I'm not a fan of the carbon credit thing, that seems kind of silly to me. Maybe it's just because I don't understand it. But synthetic fuels are possible, they can and have been done. Yes, you may not like the price but petroleum fuels are rising ever higher so at some point they will meet. Why not make the inevitable transition occur more smoothly and with less disruption? Instead of paranoically looking for bogymen and conspiracy at every turn, adapt and develop. It will take a multifaceted approach. More economical (better MPG) vehicles, alternative fuels, less CO2 emissions and lifestyle modifications.
Take care,
xyzdonna

That is the totalitarian perspective. Forced alignment by manipulating and inflating energy markets for diverting funds to subsidize never ending research. Since it is just research, they do not need to show a profit or produce anything substantial. Well, maybe emotional commercials to show there is work being done to create an illusion and justify the con game as legit.

That mentality is staring the bogyman right in the eyes. The conspiracy is that once the government gets hold of those funds, most will be wasted with a lucky pittance of 30% actually going toward anything worth while. The free market already makes a profit and is taxed heavily for it at both ends. So far there is nothing to show the governments stolen portion of that profit is actually doing much if anything productive with those funds. If/when the oil companies are expecting a drop in sources, they will be forced to do their own research to survive finding new resources. Several are already doing that on their own accord for the future needs. Instead, the lunatic left consider that leaving the profit with these companies to do their own research; a tax break. In your demeaning language, some other moron wants to commandeer that profit and blow 2/3 of it on administrative overhead and 1/3 of it on some pie in the sky idea.

If there ever is a viable clean fuel product and people are given a choice, the free market will work in that direction. There is no need to rip freedom out of the hands of the public, when they will eventually take ownership of the future out of necessity. Politicizing it really puts people on the defensive with no choice but to conform to the whims of an elite power structure demanding cooperation or penalty. They tend to profit more on the penalty, just like tobacco and alcohol and the least portion goes toward a cure of the sins.

DC

How can I go forward when I don't know which way I'm facing?
How can I go forward when I don't know which way to turn?
How can I go forward into something I'm not sure of?

Something to ponder in the words of a song.

Here you are Donna; I immodestly claim that this thread was the first one to mention the 'Maunder Minimum'. People eventually catch up with me but sometimes it is lonely leading the pack :D

http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31911

That mentality is staring the bogyman right in the eyes. The conspiracy is that once the government gets hold of those funds, most will be wasted with a lucky pittance of 30% actually going toward anything worth while. The free market already makes a profit and is taxed heavily for it at both ends. So far there is nothing to show the governments stolen portion of that profit is actually doing much if anything productive with those funds. If/when the oil companies are expecting a drop in sources, they will be forced to do their own research to survive finding new resources. Several are already doing that on their own accord for the future needs. Instead, the lunatic left consider that leaving the profit with these companies to do their own research; a tax break. In your demeaning language, some other moron wants to commandeer that profit and blow 2/3 of it on administrative overhead and 1/3 of it on some pie in the sky idea.


I just wonder when (if ever) the left and general public will realize that corporations pay no taxes! EVER! Any taxes assessed are passed on th their clients, after they add a margin for profit and handling. For every $ a corporation pays in taxes the public, in general, pays $1.35. That's why the "fair tax" is fair!

I just wonder when (if ever) the left and general public will realize that corporations pay no taxes! EVER! Any taxes assessed are passed on th their clients, after they add a margin for profit and handling. For every $ a corporation pays in taxes the public, in general, pays $1.35. That's why the "fair tax" is fair!

Heheh! I posted that several times against the socialist mentality of free health care put on businesses tax structure. If/when the gubment gets into the insurance