Catalytic converters, government policy and CO2.

[DynamiteMcGhee]

That is total BS, I let most troll flames go without any remark.

 

[gsvol]

Shall I make a sticky thread just for you?

You can do as you wish.

How many of my posts have you deleteted today?

Have you kept count?

Instead of acting like the lord god almighty of the volnation political board, you could man up and refute the premise of my orginal post as you bragged that you could. (but which you are incapable of due to scientific fact.)

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock – Telegraph Blogs

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of "global warming". It's the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it's the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation.

The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton's brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made "Climate Change" industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…
-----------------------------

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, (no it wasn't al gaia gore)gs that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

So if it's so great, why aren't we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here's how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:

I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.

Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat.
He notes:

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.

and

The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.

BTW, the US started a collider that was partially built in Texas that was twice the size of the CERN facility but was killed by Clinton who later epressed regret at having done so, othewise it would probably have been us who isolated the higgs boson particle. (Clinton the consumate lair was lying about that as most everything else he ever said.)

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels

You make a very good Goebbels deciple sir.

He would be proud of you.

You should be on TV.

 

[TennTradition]

Sorry for the late response, GS. I don't buy the 3x0=0 argument, because the CERN study doesn't come anywhere close to saying that CO2 has no effect on climate. Thus, the truth is 3xy=3y...what is y? Well, it's not zero.

The CERN study was looking at the connection between cosmic rays and aerosols in the atmosphere - the aerosols that lead to cloud formation. Why do we care about cloud formation? Well, if the decrease in cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere caused by increased solar activity (and the corresponding increase in solar wind) causes a decrease in cloud formation, then one could postulate that this would lead to warming (because clouds do reflect solar radiation back out to space). However, one complication in this is that the true role of clouds is difficult to fully understand - as has often been an attack on climate models - and to say that more clouds definitely means more or less warming is tough - it really depends on the type of clouds and other environmental factors.

But, I don't want to get caught up in that, because in the context of this thread - what is most important is that the CERN study does not say that cosmic rays are the sole cause of the warming we have seen and it does not say that CO2 doesn't affect climate.

So, what did the CERN study find? The scientists did indeed find that an increase in cosmic rays increase aerosol formation. Very interesting. So, cosmic rays could play a role in climate. So, the CERN study is important in that in addition to sulfur and ammonia, they found that climate models should also consider cosmic rays in cloud formation (which before the study they did not). This will allow for more accurate climate predictions. However, there are a few key points:

1) The scientists did not find that the increase in aerosols from an increase in cosmic rays was enough to really account for all cloud formation:

"We've found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we've found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

So, while there is a positive correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation - it is not a 1 to 1 relationship and to say that high cosmic rays must lead to high cloud formation is not necessarily always true. What does this mean? Well, it means that there are other factors that need to be explored further.

But....even more important for the context of this discussion...

2) Just because there is a correlation between fewer cosmic rays and decreased cloud formation...and just because there CAN be a correlation between decreased cloud formation and increased warming...THSI DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHER FACTORS DO NOT INFLUENCE CLIMATE. The CERN study did not assert that cosmic rays alone drive climate, nor does any honest review of the paper suggest it.

The CERN study in no way says that CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas or impact global temperatures.

 

[Mr. Tri Star]

That won't make a damn bit of difference to GS. He'll be back with 3 (count'em ...3) gifs and call rt a liar and doubt his ancestry and his mental facilities. This will, of course, reverse and/or neutralize any of the heretofore reliable physics involved in Co or CO2. Well, it will in the GS universe.

Oh, it will be further documented that radical Mooselimbs invented catalytic converters.

Spot on dude.

 

[gsvol]

Sorry for the late response, GS. I don't buy the 3x0=0 argument, because the CERN study doesn't come anywhere close to saying that CO2 has no effect on climate. Thus, the truth is 3xy=3y...what is y? Well, it's not zero.

The CERN study was looking at the connection between cosmic rays and aerosols in the atmosphere - the aerosols that lead to cloud formation. Why do we care about cloud formation? Well, if the decrease in cosmic ray penetration into the atmosphere caused by increased solar activity (and the corresponding increase in solar wind) causes a decrease in cloud formation, then one could postulate that this would lead to warming (because clouds do reflect solar radiation back out to space). However, one complication in this is that the true role of clouds is difficult to fully understand - as has often been an attack on climate models - and to say that more clouds definitely means more or less warming is tough - it really depends on the type of clouds and other environmental factors.

But, I don't want to get caught up in that, because in the context of this thread - what is most important is that the CERN study does not say that cosmic rays are the sole cause of the warming we have seen and it does not say that CO2 doesn't affect climate.

So, what did the CERN study find? The scientists did indeed find that an increase in cosmic rays increase aerosol formation. Very interesting. So, cosmic rays could play a role in climate. So, the CERN study is important in that in addition to sulfur and ammonia, they found that climate models should also consider cosmic rays in cloud formation (which before the study they did not). This will allow for more accurate climate predictions. However, there are a few key points:

1) The scientists did not find that the increase in aerosols from an increase in cosmic rays was enough to really account for all cloud formation:



So, while there is a positive correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation - it is not a 1 to 1 relationship and to say that high cosmic rays must lead to high cloud formation is not necessarily always true. What does this mean? Well, it means that there are other factors that need to be explored further.

But....even more important for the context of this discussion...

2) Just because there is a correlation between fewer cosmic rays and decreased cloud formation...and just because there CAN be a correlation between decreased cloud formation and increased warming...THSI DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHER FACTORS DO NOT INFLUENCE CLIMATE. The CERN study did not assert that cosmic rays alone drive climate, nor does any honest review of the paper suggest it.

The CERN study in no way says that CO2 does not behave as a greenhouse gas or impact global temperatures.

No apology necessary, I'm running behind a bit myself, milo gave me three days off for questioning his authority.


CERN stated that various levels of CO2 in their experiment had zero affect on the temperature, how can you deny that?

Cosmic rays play the overwhelming role in determining the temperature on Earth. There are many variables including human activity which has less than 1/2 of 1% to do with the answer.

Another point, a thousand years ago it was three to four degress warmer than now, that was not catastropic. As a matter of fact it was one of the best times on Earth for all life that we know of.

I know that NOAA disputes that but they base their claim on only two studies among many many others what indicate otherwise.

Both those studies have been proven wrong, one of them eliminated all data til they got down to the rings from only ONE freaking tree, that's laughable.

Maybe that tree grew up in the shape of a larger tree?

Another thing, what you are saying, (this is and has been my main point all along,) is that the science is all up in the air and no really firm conclusions can be made, however in the political realm we are charging ahead like a runaway locomotive (Methinks many politicians, particularly in the Obama regime, have loco motives that have not one whit to do with climate) destroying our energy infrastructure and pouring hundreds of billions if not trillions into alternatives that don't work.

Bottom line, the only science really involved is political science and it isn't or never has actually been about climate, it is 110% about $$$$$$$$. (sadly this is also quite true in many academic institutions as well.)

Since my original post concerned California, consider this.

Cap and trade, the next tool to separate you from your money - Orange Punch : The Orange County Register

Gov. Jerry Brown and the tax-and-spend crowd in Sacramento, and their apologists in academia, see this as money they can grab for sure, as opposed to not grabbing it and relying on the private sector to use it wisely, which ironically would increase tax revenue over the longer haul.

These cap and trade advocates don’t much care about the economy’s long-term financial well-being, or even long-term government fiscal health. They live in the short term. Think terms of office. And cap and trade presents cash in the hand. Period. End of debate.

That’s why they are unmoved when confronted with contradictory rational argument – like the economic harm cap and trade will do – and scientific refutation of the underlying theory for cap and trade and other global warming alarmism. Evidence such as this:

“Bad news, global warming enthusiasts. The world was actually warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now. In fact, the world has been on a cooling trend for the past 2,000 years, according to new research.

“The study says that tree-rings hold the secret to understanding the history of climate change, and that the rings of fossilized trees show that the earth actually used to be much warmer than it is today, and has even been slowly cooling down.

BTW, the basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.

 

[milohimself]

I gave you three days because you blatantly violated the rules that Freak (not I) set for this forum.

If you have suggestions or complaints, we have a contact us link at the bottom of the forum that goes directly to Freak. We tend to be more receptive to that than to people airing out their complaints in public and sounding like a five year old with a skinned knee in the process.

 

[gsvol]

I gave you three days because you blatantly violated the rules that Freak (not I) set for this forum.

If you have suggestions or complaints, we have a contact us link at the bottom of the forum that goes directly to Freak. We tend to be more receptive to that than to people airing out their complaints in public and sounding like a five year old with a skinned knee in the process.

Either I misunderstood freak or you aren't telling me the whole truth about that.

So, when are you going to refute my original post in this thread?

A couple of simple yes or no questions;

Was it you who recently hacked my CP and changed my sig line, or not?

Was it you who hacked my email account and used it to send spam, neccessitating me having to change my password or not?

I wish we had the PM option on this board again, I thought it helped to avoid a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.

Back to my original post.

Since the inception of the Education Department, the Federal Government has done a great job of dumbing-down our students and indoctrinating them into the Government -controlled mind-set. For the last 35 plus years, we and our children have literally been subjected to Government control of our thinking. Nearly two full generations of dumbing-down and brainwashing have occurred.

At that time (when the Carter administration was passing out the book; 'rules for radicals' by Alinsky by the thousands in the inner cities of America) the political scientific fringe was sounding the alarm that CO2 was going to bring on the next ice age.

That was far more believable than the AGW/Climate Change scare that seems to be so widely accepted as an actual factoid these days.

My generation did their research and rejected that theory.

Your Good Government doesn't want you to know that. They like to keep their subjects nice and stupid, so we are easily manipulated......... It seems to be working.

I offer you, Mr tri star and Danl as examples A, B and C!
:hi:

 

[gsvol]

That won't make a damn bit of difference to GS. He'll be back with 3 (count'em ...3) gifs and call rt a liar and doubt his ancestry and his mental facilities. This will, of course, reverse and/or neutralize any of the heretofore reliable physics involved in Co or CO2. Well, it will in the GS universe.

Oh, it will be further documented that radical Mooselimbs invented catalytic converters.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Spot on dude.

Seek and ye shall find.

 

[gsvol]

The Daily Bell - New Book: Solar Cells 23,000 Times Worse for Environment Than Carbon Dioxide

Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than According to New Book, Green Illusions ... Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions ...

Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.

Here's some more from the press release:

Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening. The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.

NOW WHAT??????

Increasingly this country is becoming the ignorant and indoctrinated run by ignorant and inept leaders.

The EPA is issueing so many inane, insane new restrictions it impossible to keep up, they just issued a new fuel requirement for fuel used by vessels in Alaskan waters. One wonders if it is even possible to obtain such fuel since in many cases EPA mandates are impossible to comply with and stay in business.

Expect your Alaskan seafood prices to rise exponentially.

The only bright spot on the current energy scene is low natural gas prices due to the use of fracking to recover domestic petroleum and natural gas.

What is EPA's response? They are doing studies on the theory that hydraulic fracturing could possibly cause polution fo ground waters. NEVER MIND THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE 1949 WITHOUT EVEN ONE DOCUMENTED CASE OF GROUND WATER EVER BEING POLUTED.

No doubt though the EPA will come up with lots of new regulations just in case, just as we are wrecking our energy infrastructure because of the more than remote possibliity that CO2 might kill us all even if it doesn't harm our ecosphere, on the contrary increases of CO2 enhances life on this planet.

AND SOME OF YOU PEOPLE TRY TO CALL ME CRAZY?

God has given you a freaking brain, try using it once in a while!

 

[gsvol]

Senator Harry Reid

When looking at the whole story, it’s important to note that Senator Reid “led passage of the $814 billion stimulus bill and worked to include the loan guarantee program to help finance clean-energy projects”—projects to which, as we will show, he is connected.
--------------

Last week, we exposed BrightSource Energy that received a $1.6 billion DOE loan. BrightSource’s executives donated almost $4000 to Reid’s 2010 campaign, including $2400 from the CEO John Woolard, who in September 2010, along with Peter Darbee, then Chairman of PG & E, hosted a fundraiser for the majority leader in his corporate offices.

The week before, we uncovered the fact that a couple of SolarReserve (with its $737 million loan) board members are big Democrat donors, including contributions to Obama’s 2008 campaign as well as Senator Reid.
-----------------------

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP) holds leasehold interests in six geothermal projects located in the Western United States. They hold a BB+ rating and received a $78.8 million loan, guaranteed by the DOE, in September of 2010. Executives from NGP contributed in 2008 to Harry Reid’s campaign.

Additionally, since 2009, NGP was the recipient of more than $69 million in federal grants, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
----------------------

Despite the flowery rhetoric, at the time the DOE approved the conditional loan guarantee in September 2010, they were well aware of NGP’s “well-documented” financial difficulties. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (HOGRC) called the loan a “bailout”—which “violated the spirit and, quite possibly, the letter of the law” and provided “an opportunity for private industry to exit an investment, deleverage and transfer the extraordinarily high default risk to taxpayers.”
---------------------

The audit report states: “NGP has incurred $98 million in net losses over the past several years, has substantial debts and does not generate enough cash from its current operations after debt-service costs.”
-------------------------

Instead of using the loan as Title XVI, Section 1602 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, requires: “Recipients shall use grant funds in a manner that maximizes job creation and economic benefit,” the loan was used to pay off a creditor. According to the Washington Times report, “At the time the Energy Department announced its conditional approval of the guarantee, Mr. Issa said NGP would have defaulted on a loan from TCW Asset Management Co., then its primary lender, ‘had DOE not swooped in to save the failing company with taxpayer money.’ A committee report said the loan did not finance any new construction and ‘did not help to create a single job.’”
-----------------------

But the story continues. As we reported in the introduction, Kai Anderson, a lobbyist for NGP’s partner corporation, Ormat Technologies, Inc., is a former Senate aide to Harry Reid. Ormat’s CEO Paul Thomsen is another former Reid aide. Additionally, according to the Washington Times, “Mr. Fairbank denied knowing or lobbying Mr. Reid, but the House Oversight Committee said Ormat Inc., which was paid $80 million to build NGP’s Blue Mountain plant, has ‘strong ties’ to the senator.”
----------------------------

Yoram Bronicki is the son of Ms. Yehudit Bronicki (also known as Dita). She is CEO and Director of Ormat Technologies. In addition to the $350 million loan guaranteed by the DOE with John Hancock in aggregate principal amount, Ormat Technologies’ projects received more than $200 million in various DOE grants.
-----------------------

All this, and it does nothing to “bring us closer to energy independence.” Geothermal—and wind and solar—power generates electricity. America is already electricity independent. We have enough coal, natural gas, and uranium to power us for centuries! We even export coal, we have so much.

So why are we killing good-paying jobs in the coal industry, preventing thousands of union jobs the Keystone pipeline would create, and potentially putting thousands out of work with a pending ban on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction, for the supposed jobs in green energy—when we are already electricity independent? These green-energy projects can only raise the cost of electricity and waste public money, while the energy sources the administration’s efforts are killing or blocking can actually reduce costs—without taxpayer investment.

The green-energy crony-corruption story is explains it all.

 

[gsvol]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/

Solar power is 35¢ per kilowatt compared to coal, gas and oil that costs 5¢ per kilowatt.

Here’s a list of the green companies that have gone belly-up since receiving Obama dollars.
Heritage reported:

For those who only hear about these failing companies one by one, the following is a list of all the clean energy companies supported by President Obama’s stimulus that are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy. The liberal media hopes you’ve forgotten about all of them except Solyndra, but we haven’t.

Evergreen Solar
SpectraWatt
Solyndra (received $535 million)
Beacon Power (received $43 million)
AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy
Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)
SunPower (received $1.5 billion)
First Solar (received $1.46 billion)
Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)
Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)
Amonix (received 5.9 million)
The National Renewable Energy Lab
Fisker Automotive
Abound Solar (received $400 million)
Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)
Solar Trust of America
A123 Systems (received $279 million)
Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)
Johnson Controls (received $299 million)
Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

That’s 19 (that we know of so far). We also know that loans went to foreign clean energy companies (Fisker sent money to their overseas plant to develop an electric car), and that 80% of these loans went to President Obama’s campaign donors.

 

[gsvol]

Energy Dept. 'Unable to Locate' $500,000 in Equipment Bought With Stimulus Money | CNSNews.com

An audit conducted by the Energy Department’s Office of Inspector General was "unable to locate" $500,000 worth of equipment purchased with stimulus money by a recipient of funds distributed through the deparment's “Advanced Batteries and Hybrid Components Program,” according to an audit report published by the OIG. The DOE said it would not be "appropriate" to release the name of stimulus-money recipient where the $500,000 worth of equipment could not be located.

More than one half of all federal inspector general positions are vacant because BHO hasn't appointed one.

I'll give you 12 guesses as to why he hasn't done so.

You know what my guess is.

Imagine what if we had elected Al Capone to be president back in the 1920s, what would be the big difference from what we have now?

 

[DynamiteMcGhee]

Are you talking to yourself?

 

[gsvol]

Are you talking to yourself?

What's in the pipe Sherlock?

EPA could thwart mineral mother lode and sets dangerous precedent

The Environmental Protection Agency is employing a
disturbing strategy to evaluate a major new mine
project by passing judgment on whether it will damage
the environment before the company even determines
how the venture will work.

The Pebble Limited Partnership wants to mine a deposit
in southwest Alaska that holds one of the largest
concentrations of copper, gold and molybdenum in the
world—at least 80 billion pounds of copper, 100 million
ounces of gold, and five billion pounds of molybdenum.
The mother lode of minerals is estimated to be worth
$200 billion to $500 billion.

If Obama's plan is to fundamentally transform America
into a third world country economically, it's working.

Do you have the first thing at all to say about Obama's
insane energy policies, NO? I thought not!

 

[gsvol]

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization | Watts Up With That?

.... recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting.

Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].
----------------------------------------------

Here’s the part I really like: of 67% of the weather stations examined, questionable adjustments were made to raw data that resulted in:

“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

And…

“homogenation practices used until today are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments, and are rarely supported by metadata. It can be argued that they often lead to false results: natural features of hydroclimatic times series are regarded as errors and are adjusted.”

So if the data doesn't fit your theory and political agenda, simply change the data to support your hypothesis and call it science.

Yet we are wrecking American energy infrastructure on the basis of an exceptionally flawed hypothesis from the UN IPCC?

In a couple of years from now when your household energy bills just about quadruple and everything from acacados to zuchinis does the same because every business in America will have to drastically increase prices or go out of business, perhaps then you will start listening to me.

There you go milo, rebuke that! :hi:

 

[milohimself]

I missed the part about catalytic converters in that article.

Or is this thread about something else now?

 

[DynamiteMcGhee]

 

[gsvol]

Call it the kiss off cam!

I missed the part about catalytic converters in that article.

Or is this thread about something else now?

You can go back and read the header of the thread for clue one!

I love it when you appear promptly when summoned.

Now if you can put your bellicoisty aside for a moment and actually have an adult dialog, how are you of the government policy of 'making energy prices skyrocket?'

For instance, how much does energy take out of your personal budget?

If your mom and dad are paying for all that, ask them for an intelligent reply.

So if you don't oppose government policies that make your energy costs skyrocket, do you think it is all worth it?

 

[FalcoVol]

I remember an engineer friend of mine was working on a device that virtually eliminated the need for catalytic convertors a few years ago. Never heard any more about it.

Just like a few years ago everyone would have a hydrogen-fueled generator to power their homes within two years.

Not saying everything's a conspiracy, but some things do get "suppressed".

 

[gsvol]

I remember an engineer friend of mine was working on a device that virtually eliminated the need for catalytic convertors a few years ago. Never heard any more about it.

Just like a few years ago everyone would have a hydrogen-fueled generator to power their homes within two years.

Not saying everything's a conspiracy, but some things do get "suppressed".

The truth is the main thing that is suppressed.

The proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) believe that CO2, generally accepted as a weak greenhouse gas, is responsible for the gradual rise of global temperatures, commencing with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, circa 1850. Ironically, this purported close correlation is in itself proof positive that the very basis of AGW theory is wrong.

Here is the reasoning:

First, many climatologists and other scientists who subscribe to AGW also subscribe to the essentials of the scientific method; very briefly, this refers to identifying a problem, gathering relevant data, drawing a hypothesis, followed by subsequent empirical testing.

Here is an example how this venerable method, improperly applied, can lead us astray:

Let us say that we wish to determine what makes the sun rise. Observations from various sources have noted that the crowing of a rooster is invariably followed by sunrise. We painstakingly gather more data going back many years and formulate the hypothesis that the rooster crowing makes the sun rise.

To test the hypothesis empirically we go back to records all the way back to New Year’s Day, 1850. Lo and behold – there is indeed a record of a rooster crowing on that very day - followed by a sunrise. The correlation is perfect, ergo we conclude our hypothesis is correct and can now be ennobled as a theory. Obviously, this simplistic example leaves out what else has to be applied when pursuing the scientific method: all, relevant influencing phenomena and data have to also be included and considered before a hypothesis can be formulated. Correlation is no proof of causation.

Second, in recent decades computer modeling has increasingly been applied to the monumentally complex physics associated with the earth’s atmosphere. According to credentialed experts this modeling allows for tweaking of the many parameters involved so that a variety of predictive climatologically different conclusions can result. Such tweaking, back-dated, appears to back the AGW argument. But remember, correlation is no proof of causation.

Finally, here is some plain logic with a bit of physics thrown in. According to Newton’s Second Law of Motion, (F=ma), if the venerable Queen Mary were set to float freely, absent other forces, and a clothes line attached to the bow were pulled by just one person, the ship would start moving in response to that weak force - at first ever-so-slowly – and then faster and faster.

Note: although there would be no time delay between the application of force to the mass and the resultant acceleration - there would be a great time delay between the application of said force and an actual, resultant, measurable motion of the Queen Mary’s great mass.

It is the height of irony that the very “proof” of AGW, the in-phase, gradual increase of global temperatures starting in 1850, rips it asunder. The proponents of AGW are effectively saying that, shortly after the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when there were no automobiles, very few steam engines, only 1.2 billion people (versus today’s 7 billion), the introduction of initially tiny quantities of a weak greenhouse gas produced, without time-delay, an in-phase and measurable rise in global temperatures that continues to this day (effectively disregarding thermal inertia).

That is like saying the application of a weak force to an enormous mass sets that mass into immediate and measurable motion. That does not happen in the simple mechanical system (above) nor would it in an enormously complex and massive systems such as our atmosphere – with its myriad of climatological feedback mechanisms.

Though Newton’s Second Law may have little direct bearing on global climate – it has everything to do with illustrating the absolute necessity of applying common sense in attempting to evaluate the essence of the world’s most complex physical systems. In conclusion, in computer modeling, garbage in – garbage out. Sounds familiar.

We saw in the East Anglie EMails that when the data didn’t support the hypothesis, they altered the data. A real scientist would alter the hypothesis.

Water absorbes an enormous amount of energy from surrounding matter in the process of becoming water vapor, and releases a respectable amount of energy when it changes into ice. So to even remotely imagine that mankind could melt all the glaciers and polar ice on this planet is to imagine an omnipotence that not even God would tinker with.

The heat has to come from somewhere, and it is being radiated off the dark side of the planet at night at just about the same rate as it being absorbed from ALL sources (solar radiation, internal heat from the planet core, or whatever feeble little bit that mankind manages to emit over the course of a day’s activities).

Simple physics - the hotter a body gets, the faster it radiates energy. All matter is seeking equilibrium of energy distribution, and the earth is no different. And carbon dioxide is such a infinitesimally small player in this balance, it makes no difference either way. That compound neither absorbs nor re-emits energy in anything like the magnitude of water vapor, or the movement of water from solid (as ice) to liquid, to water vapor.

Carbon dioxide is less than .04% of the atmosphere. No, not 4%, but 4 one hundredth of a percent. That’s it. The atmosphere os 99.96% NOT carbon dioxide.

Water vapor is by far a more important greenhouse gas. What is the percentage of water vapor in the air? Well that is called humidity. That varies with where you are. In Buffalo, New York, the humidity, or water vapor content is 55%. 55% VS .04%. Trouble is, worldwidesocialist inc. haven’t figured out how to tax water vapor. So carbon dioxide it is.

Liberal socialist theory holds that if enough people can be convinced to sign on to a myth it will gain it’s own realism.

In a hundred years from now people will wonder how stupid we must have been to let a bunch of politicians destroy our standard of living to stop something that either doesn't exist or if it does we can do nothing to change it.

 

[gsvol]

Air Force Buys $59/Gal Biofuel from Company Connected to Big Democratic Donor

.... the United States Air Force spent $639,000 on 11,000 gallons of alcohol-to-jet fuel from Gevo Inc., a Colorado biofuels company, at $59 a gallon.
-----------------------

Similarly, in preparation for last week's "Green Fleet Demonstration,” the U.S. Navy purchased $12 million in biofuels to prove that a carrier strike group could be run on biofuels for the day. It’s all part of the Obama Administration’s decision last year to direct the Navy, Agriculture department, and the Energy department to spend $510 million in taxpayer monies on alternative jet and marine fuels.
-----------------------

But what may appear on the surface to be a green energy initiative may instead by yet another example of cronyism between the green energy industry and Democratic lawmakers.

As it turns out, one of the venture capital funders behind Gevo Inc. is Vinod Khosla. Since 1996, opensecrets.org reports that Mr. Khosla has made $474,534 in campaign donations, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.
-------------------------------

Khosla also has close ties to another venture capital firm whose team includes Al Gore, the former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate in 2000.

Mr. Khosla is no stranger to failed biofuel projects involving taxpayer monies. He was the chief backer of Range Fuels, a biofuels company that received a government-guaranteed $64 million loan only to later go bust and leave taxpayers holding the bag.

In his book, Throw Them All Out, Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer revealed that 80 percent of the Department of Energy’s $20.5 billion loan program went to companies owned by or connected to Mr. Obama’s campaign donors.

Guess where Obama is now, at a huge mega buck fundraiser event and guess who's there, a couple of the execs of solyndra, the company that defaulted of over $500 million in government loans for solar energy they never delivered.

Every year since Obama has been president we have run a trillion dollar deficit, could this be where much of the money is going?



Navy Takes Biofuels Campaign Into Uncharted Waters

The service paid Solazyme $8.5 million to provide just 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel - $425 per gallon.

In September 2009 the DLA’s defense energy support center paid Montana’s Sustainable Oils $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel. That comes to about $67.50 per gallon.

A question for you green energy experts.

Let's CO2 is actaully detrimental to the environment, it isn't but let's say it is for the sake of debate.

Does all this super expensive biofuels eliminate even one molecule of CO2 from the environment?

 

[gsvol]

How Green Was My Bankruptcy?

If all 285,000 acres were covered with solar PV arrays, the “Hot Spots” could have a generating capacity of about 40,000 MW at a cost of about $252 billion.If the same 285,000 acres were covered with natural gas-fired power stations, the “Hot Spots” could have a generating capacity of about 1.8 million MW (1.8 Terawatts) at a cost of about $1.5 trillion.

To put this in a little better perspective…

US electric utilities added an average of 22,734 MW of generating capacity per year from 2001-2010. If the “Hot Spots” acreage was devoted to that annual capacity growth…

Solar PV would consume all 285,000 acres in 21 months at a cost of $143 billion per year.

It would take 80 years for natural gas-fired plants to cover the 285,000 acres at a cost of $19 billion per year.

If every acre of the newly designated Federal land was developed for solar power, it would cover less than two years of the average annual incremental growth in US generating capacity.

It really is ironic that President Obama thinks that, “Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we’d still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil,” while his administration crows about setting aside 285,000 acres of public land for solar power development that can’t even match our average incremental generation capacity growth for two years.

I wonder if the people who oppose developing ANWR because, by itself, it might only cover a few years of our total oil consumption, are simply giddy about “Boot” Salazar’s latest boondoggle…

Meanwhile the EPA is hard at work trying to figure out how to stop any drilling for or harvest of natural gas in America. :loco: