The problem with wind is that in areas that are actually good for wind, it only blows strong enough to turn the blades 25% of the time. That means those blades can be stationary for days on end. You still need a RELIABLE source.
In areas like Arizona, solar works well, but, to equal 1 nuclear reactor, you need 50,000 square miles of solar panel.
In areas like where I live, solar only works part of the year.
I also like to see the earth well used and not abused. But, for power, we have limited choices. In the absence of reliable power, places like Canada go back to the stone age.
Arn
(I own page 8 )
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-18-2010).]
IP: Logged
05:26 PM
Nov 19th, 2010
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Global warming is scam. Only need to ask a few things If 85% of the Carbon is caused by volcanos why blame people? Why is the Artic ice the thickest it has been in 30 years isn't it supposed to be melting? If cars produce carbon and carbon is plant food what is the problem? Plant more trees Why are we worried about lack of oxygen or the earth overheating when there is a plague of humans to deal with? Why we are all too busy loving one another nobody is doing any culling not enough deaths so be prepared for an overcrowded planet. If carbon dating is the process of finding an estimated date why is it harder to determine something of recent history when we are basing the whole global warming on what scientists cannot measure for a few thousand years.
IP: Logged
02:30 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Global warming is scam. Only need to ask a few things If 85% of the Carbon is caused by volcanos why blame people? Why is the Artic ice the thickest it has been in 30 years isn't it supposed to be melting? If cars produce carbon and carbon is plant food what is the problem?
Only need to get the correct answers to any of those questions and one might be in a better postition to form an opinion.
IP: Logged
11:11 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
One tid bit from your link, for those to lazy to click.
quote
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
I mean, it's not like they're the experts, right? They're only the world body driving the whole issue.
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I mean, it's not like they're the experts, right? They're only the world body driving the whole issue.
Yes. He's a significant person in the IPCC, and he's laying it right in front of us - it's not about the environment, it's about redistribution of wealth, a common theme in government the last 2 years.
When I was being trained in statement analysis, the instructor told us this basic truth. Everybody, all the time, wants to tell the truth. They just do it in different ways. If you listen to a person talk and observe them, no matter who it is, over a period of time, they will reveal the truth. This guy felt safe enough in the venue to speak frankly. Clearly, this is the telling point. The heart of the plot.
There are movers and shakers out there who want to hoodwink the weak minded and naive. They want to simply take their money. That is potentially us if we don't fight back. It is good to "out" this.
Arn
IP: Logged
02:27 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
What about it? Is it suddenly invalid if this interview is true? Do we have any other sources for this? Do we have the context? Is this his opinion or the position of the IPCC?
Does he mean that a transfer of wealth must happen if the world community is to curb developing nations from using the dirtiest form of energy available so that the actions by the developed nations aren't undermined by them? Or is this example of the conspiracy theorists grabbing at anything they can get?
Conspiracy theorists grabbing at something? This statement he's made is a prima facia statement of culpability.
It is confirming what I've been saying all along, and words right out of his own mouth. I'd say this is a little more than grabbing at something.
As for us giving the Third World our money based on a fraud, since when does giving the Third World money result in enlightened behaviour? Not hardly. Show me a Third World country that has received huge handouts and not squandered it on a dictator or on civil war. Show me a Third World country that is spending $3 billion on windmills, oops.... That's Ontario..........
Arn
IP: Logged
07:09 PM
PFF
System Bot
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
What about it? Is [the science] suddenly invalid if this interview is true?
Quite possibly, because it's "evidence" that the science is being driven by an agenda - not just the science. Modify the data and you can make it say anything you want. Any source you quote is only as accurate as the source.
IF the statement is true, it should rightly cast a serious shadow of doubt on the entire AGW issue. How can you trust the science from scientists who answer and report to political organizations that are looking for a specific result?
That's an interesting statement considering that the tenant of science is to offer a hypothesis and then offer evidence to support it. While we have seen evidence of rising CO2 levels and evidence of rising global temperatures, where's the evidence linking the two. Correlation is not causation.
Using the same "scientific method" the global warming scientists use, I could also prove that global warming is caused by a decline in the number of pirates in the world. You can clearly see how as the number of pirates declines, the global temperatures rise.
Of course that is an absurd example, but it's the exact same question. WHERE is the link showing one is causing the other?
There have been warming and cooling periods in the earth's past and it will continue as long as the earth exists. There have been ice ages and warm periods so extreme that they could very well wipe out the human race if they happen again. The mechanisms that caused those climate changes are still at work, and thinking we can change them is like trying to stop a hurricane by farting into the wind.
The largest green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. this accounts for 95%. The remaining 5% is made up of various gases such as methane. CO2 only accounts for less then 1% at a whopping 0.333% total. Of this 0.333%, 80% is caused from natural sources i.e. volcano's. VERY LITTLE is from man, and of the CO2 that is from man, its inconsequential.
Looking at the factual numbers of our atmosphere make up, for anyone to argue that 20% of 0.333percent of the total volume of co2 in the world's atmosphere is the cause of the world warming is a naive ,a fool and gullible to junk science.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-19-2010).]
The largest green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. this accounts for 95%. The remaining 5% is made up of various gases such as methane. CO2 only accounts for less then 1% at a whopping 0.333% total. Of this 0.333%, 80% is caused from natural sources i.e. volcano's. VERY LITTLE is from man, and of the CO2 that is from man, its inconsequential.
Looking at the factual numbers of our atmosphere make up, for anyone to argue that 20% of 0.333percent of the total volume of co2 in the world's atmosphere is the cause of the world warming is a naive ,a fool and gullible to junk science.
Ahhhh yes we have another expert. You should submit your calculations and help out the researchers.
Quite possibly, because it's "evidence" that the science is being driven by an agenda - not just the science. Modify the data and you can make it say anything you want. Any source you quote is only as accurate as the source.
IF the statement is true, it should rightly cast a serious shadow of doubt on the entire AGW issue. How can you trust the science from scientists who answer and report to political organizations that are looking for a specific result?
That's a big "IF".
IP: Logged
08:52 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
(excerpt, "Discussion", basically, the conclusion)
The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive, and therefore produce too much global warming. If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
The IPCC has simply assumed that mechanisms of climate change like that addressed here do not exist. But that assumption is quite arbitrary and, as shown here, very likely wrong. My use of only PDO-forced variations in the Earth’s radiative energy budget to explain two-thirds of the global warming trend is no less biased than the IPCC’s use of carbon dioxide to explain global warming without accounting for natural climate variability. If any IPCC scientists would like to dispute that claim, please e-mail me at roy.spencer (at) nsstc.uah.edu.
If the PDO has recently entered into a new, negative phase, then we can expect that global average temperatures, which haven’t risen for at least seven years now, could actually start to fall in the coming years. The recovery of Arctic sea ice now underway might be an early sign that this is indeed happening.
I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the mainstream news media now refuse to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely.
We need to consider the very real possibility that carbon dioxide – which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little in the atmosphere – might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence.
IP: Logged
08:58 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
The largest green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. this accounts for 95%. The remaining 5% is made up of various gases such as methane. CO2 only accounts for less then 1% at a whopping 0.333% total. Of this 0.333%, 80% is caused from natural sources i.e. volcano's. VERY LITTLE is from man, and of the CO2 that is from man, its inconsequential.
Looking at the factual numbers of our atmosphere make up, for anyone to argue that 20% of 0.333percent of the total volume of co2 in the world's atmosphere is the cause of the world warming is a naive ,a fool and gullible to junk science.
Are those facts? I dunno.. here's what I just found:
"Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions."
And it still begs the question. If Anthropological Global Warming is real, then why would an IPCC official admit the findings were a cover for wealth distribution,and why would a scientist at East Anglia admit in writing that they added values to temperatures to support the theory? And to cap it all off, why are the oceans not rising and why are both North America and Europe experiencing colder than average winters, and why are glaciers growing?
The argument for Global Warming just doesn't fly on so many levels.
Arn
IP: Logged
10:28 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Well, if sea levels do rise, it's expected the Maldives will show the impact first since they have the lowest average ground level of any country in the world.
Are those facts? I dunno.. here's what I just found:
"Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons,
These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions."
your missing the point. Volcanoes account for some of the CO2. Don't forget all the living organisms such as algae and various life as well. There are many producers to CO2 besides volcanoes.
Ahhhh yes we have another expert. You should submit your calculations and help out the researchers.
I know enough to realize that junk in equals junk out. These models are a joke that are based on arrogant speculations.
Speaking of junk science, I bet you also believe the sea level would rise too if all of the sea ice in the arctic melted. Amazing how many people think this is fact.
I know enough to realize that junk in equals junk out. These models are a joke that are based on arrogant speculations.
Speaking of junk science, I bet you also believe the sea level would rise too if all of the sea ice in the arctic melted. Amazing how many people think this is fact.
Cool.... another "expert" that feels the need to tell others what they believe.
Originally posted by newf: Cool.... another "expert" that feels the need to tell others what they believe.
What models are you referring to?
I am not an expert, but isn't the point of a forum to discuss your point of view? I guess no opinion is valid unless it matches with your own. Sounds like another "tolerant" liberal.
What models? geee.....hmm...the models that the global warming crowd have been basing their silly predictions off from. The ones that those e-mails were speaking on...you know, how to manipulate numbers to get back data that you want. How about the proven false hockey stick graph that was touted around for years?
those models.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-19-2010).]
I am not an expert, but isn't the point of a forum to discuss your point of view? I guess no opinion is valid unless it matches with your own. Sounds like another "tolerant" liberal.
What models? geee.....hmm...the models that the global warming crowd have been basing their silly predictions off from. The ones that those e-mails were speaking on...you know, how to manipulate numbers to get back data that you want. How about the proven false hockey stick graph that was touted around for years?
those models.
Certainly the point of the forum is to express your point of view but are you expressing your point of view that anyone with a differing opinion is "naive ,a fool and gullible to junk science" and "a joke that are based on arrogant speculations".
Why not try to prove your opinions with some facts and we can debate. I mean you seem to have a better handle on it all than the peer reviewed science does. Present your case rather than just spouting baseless accusations.
Your views on the "silly predictions" seem to be wrong, the IPCC and pretty much every other reputable scientific organization have shown that. Have you read the reports on what an impact these "manipulated" data sets had? Have you read anything about the "false" hockey stick graph? Let's see your facts.
IP: Logged
12:12 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: the IPCC and pretty much every other reputable scientific organization have shown that.
The same IPCC that has stated it's about wealth distribution, not the environment? The same IPCC that presents all the data for AGW and has a vested interest in making sure the data it reports supports their claims?
Do you not see a conflict of interest?
I can provide you data that says pure water freezes at 50°F and 1 Bar. Sure, I'm only one source, but if I have a global organization that has an agenda it can forward, if only there was some proof that water freezes at 50°F, just how hard do you think it would be to get peer reviewed data to support that claim? Keep in mind the "peers" in those peer reviews are only scientists who agree with AGW, because any scientists that question it have been ostracized and criticized - much like you've done in your posts here.
The same IPCC that has stated it's about wealth distribution, not the environment? The same IPCC that presents all the data for AGW and has a vested interest in making sure the data it reports supports their claims?
Do you not see a conflict of interest?
I can provide you data that says pure water freezes at 50°F and 1 Bar. Sure, I'm only one source, but if I have a global organization that has an agenda it can forward, if only there was some proof that water freezes at 50°F, just how hard do you think it would be to get peer reviewed data to support that claim? Keep in mind the "peers" in those peer reviews are only scientists who agree with AGW, because any scientists that question it have been ostracized and criticized - much like you've done in your posts here.
Do you have some information that the IPCC is stating that? Do you know all the facts of that interview? What is it you are basing these assertions on?
I'll ask again: Is all the science suddenly invalid if this interview is true? Do we have the context? Is this his opinion or the position of the IPCC? Did he say anywhere that the science was incorrect?
Does he mean that a transfer of wealth must happen if the world community is to curb developing nations from using the dirtiest form of energy available so that the actions by the developed nations aren't undermined by them?
Actually if you read the Interview it makes a lot of sense and isn't nearly as damning as you might think. Why don't you read it and see what impression you get.
Just more quoting out of context and misunderstanding the point by some.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2010).]
IP: Logged
12:31 AM
USFiero Member
Posts: 4877 From: Everywhere and Middle of Nowhere Registered: Mar 2002
...how many pages is this? All I got from the first page is yes, the Co2 is increasing, but burning fossil fuels is not the real cause. Yay for science. we win.
quote
He told CBS News: "Nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century." But he added, "If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels, you are on thin ice."
[This message has been edited by USFiero (edited 11-20-2010).]
IP: Logged
03:18 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Certainly the point of the forum is to express your point of view but are you expressing your point of view that anyone with a differing opinion is "naive ,a fool and gullible to junk science" and "a joke that are based on arrogant speculations".
Why not try to prove your opinions with some facts and we can debate. I mean you seem to have a better handle on it all than the peer reviewed science does. Present your case rather than just spouting baseless accusations.
Your views on the "silly predictions" seem to be wrong, the IPCC and pretty much every other reputable scientific organization have shown that. Have you read the reports on what an impact these "manipulated" data sets had? Have you read anything about the "false" hockey stick graph? Let's see your facts.
Reputable? LOL! your talking about the IPCC that has been caught in various scandals and data fudging? The same group that runs with articles about the Tibetan glaciers melting that later were admitted to be fudged to promote political anxiety? The same IPCC that has published articles by activists over real scientists? LOL ok.......
Peer reviewed i only as good as the peers reviewing it. Did you forget that the IPCC was caught discussing amongst these "creditable scientists" how they could keep out any fellow peer reviewed scientist that oopses their view?
Yeah, your right, I did say that people who buy into their crap are naive, gullible, and a fool. Again, this is my opinion, I never stated this were a fact. I cant PROVE that, just my opinion of people who continue to beat the drum of a theory that has been opposed by many well respected minds in the field.
Despite all the corruption, the lies, the falsifying of data, the black balling of other scientists and their data because is doesn't match their own, your really going to sit here and tell me about how "credible" the IPCC is?
Give me a break! heres a UK write up on some of the issues. So far, it would appear the British press including the BBC have been much more objective and honest then that of our "news" here state side. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...-data-organised.html
"Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing There has been no global warming since 1995 Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes"
http://www.greenworldtrust....tific/CO2-ice-HS.htm "If the ice core CO2 records are consistently too low (even by a constant fraction) this completely upsets the notion that there have been "unprecedented" CO2 rises recently. This would collapse a key pillar upon which the whole warmist thesis depends". If you cared to really research the issue, there are masses of well respected scientist who show why this science is flawed. Some are well respected NASA scientists with accolades to boot.
Here is a BBC released documentary for you to watch, "Global Warming: Dooms Day Called Off". Its the full movie, and runs for 43 minutes. Perhaps you will learn a few things you didn't know before. http://video.google.com/vid...3309910462407994295#
Perhaps professor John Christy, a NASA atmospheric scientists who has won distinguished rewards for his work may mean something to you? he IS an expert. "John Christy is an atmospheric scientist and Professor of same at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and winner of achievement awards from NASA and the American Meteorological Society. He was a lead author of the IPCC's 2001 Assessment Report, but in 2007 was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying, "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.""
As they say, you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind is blowing. If you cannot see a connection between the dissent, lies, false data, and connected to federal grant money, I cant help you. It all goes back to the money.
[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 11-20-2010).]
I will give you home science project. Take a glass of water, fill it with ice. Mark the water level on the glass and leave it alone until ALL the ice has melted. Will the water level go past the line you marked? NO. Why? because the ice in the glass takes up weight and mass. This is represented in the water regardless of whether it is melted or not. The mass of the ice is always represented. The ocean is the Same way. melted or not, Sea ice is represented at all times, if all the ice were to melt, the ocean would not rise at all. The only ice that has an effect on the sea level is ice that is not represented, which would be land based ice and glaciers.
IP: Logged
12:56 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by newf: Do you have some information that the IPCC is stating that?
Are you not reading this thread or any of the links provided? If Ottmar Edenhofer's interview is accurate, it's more a case of whistle blowing (whether on purpose or not) rather than the IPCC's "official" position.
quote
Originally posted by newf: I'll ask again: Is all the science suddenly invalid if this interview is true? Do we have the context? Is this his opinion or the position of the IPCC? Did he say anywhere that the science was incorrect?
And I'll answer... AGAIN. The "science" is only as good as the data gathered. If the data is fudged - the science is useless. Good science doesn't correct bad data. Garbage in = garbage out.
Now I'll ask you AGAIN: Do you not see the conflict of interest?
And I'll answer... AGAIN. The "science" is only as good as the data gathered. If the data is fudged - the science is useless. Good science doesn't correct bad data. Garbage in = garbage out.
Now I'll ask you AGAIN: Do you not see the conflict of interest?
I think you should read the interview again and show where the conflict of interest is.
The "fudged" data has been dealt with and had minimal effect on the projections.
I think you should read the interview again and show where the conflict of interest is.
The "fudged" data has been dealt with and had minimal effect on the projections.
WOW. forget it formula 88, Newf is choosing remain ignorant on the matter. You cant reason with someone like that. Let him believe the world is going to end. In the mean time Newf, I'll think of you every time I fill up my SUV.
Newf is not interested in objectively understanding the truth. He is only interested in his own preconceived point of view, and arguing.
He is very immature and his stunts of pretending not to know what various posters are talking about is a sophomoric manipulation.
There have been enough accurate and well researched postings on this thread to persuade any objective observer that Human generated Global Warming is a complete hoax. Willful blindness is another issue entirely.
Newf is not interested in objectively understanding the truth. He is only interested in his own preconceived point of view, and arguing.
He is very immature and his stunts of pretending not to know what various posters are talking about is a sophomoric manipulation.
There have been enough accurate and well researched postings on this thread to persuade any objective observer that Human generated Global Warming is a complete hoax. Willful blindness is another issue entirely.
Arn
Immature huh? Please explain, I am basing my beliefs on the science that the majority of experts believe yet some others seem to say "the earth is not warming" and in the next breath say it is but for some other reasons. I have looked at you "well researched" posts but it doesn't have as much weight as almost EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed papers on the matter.
You guys claim to know the truth yet you can't prove anything and the science disagrees with you so it's your opinion just because I have a differing one and choose to believe the experts you have some kind of problem with it. You are believe you have the answwers? The real Truth? Put you arguement together and we'll submit it. Otherwise it's seems to be complete conjecture and ignorance.
I'm not saying you are wrong I'm asking why would I trust a lay person who claims to know more than the scientists. Almost every thing you guys claim that disproves the therory has been shown false or to be misinformation backed by other parties. It's really kind of sad that you think global warming is a conspiracy when you seem to be falling for the one that some others feed you.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 11-20-2010).]
WOW. forget it formula 88, Newf is choosing remain ignorant on the matter. You cant reason with someone like that. Let him believe the world is going to end. In the mean time Newf, I'll think of you every time I fill up my SUV.
You seem to be pretending to know what others think again. I've never claimed the earth is ending only that the science seems as clear as day and it is well accepted that Climate Change is happening. Let's see your proof that it is not happening? Let's see your proof that pollution has no effect on the environment. I could care less if you think of me everytime you fill up in fact it just goes to show where the real ignorance is.,
IP: Logged
03:12 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
)
