Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic
Boner head <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rofl.gif" alt="Rofl" title="rofl" />

Another global warming hypocrite nighted by the queenie.

http://www.atu2.com/news/u2-360-degrees ... -ever.html

-----------------snip---------------------------------

U2 360 Degrees, the most expensive rock spectacle ever, is here.

The tour, with a daily running cost of $850,000, arrived on six 747 jets to be assembled by a crew of 130.

"You compare a tour by the number of trucks they use," production manager Jake Berry said. "The Rolling Stones ran 46 trucks. We are running 55. This is the biggest."
To BELIEVE is to accept another's truth <br />To KNOW is your own CREATION. <br /><br />Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici<br /><br />Yep, I am so far left or right depending on how you look at it that I am a Anarchist.
Reply
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/sand-an ... -1.1000509
Sand and snow cause chaos in Middle East
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/muaha.gif" alt="Muaha" title="muaha" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... w-26C.html
Quote:# Up to eight more inches of snow to fall today
# Severe delays on London Underground during rush hour
# Man dies after falling through ice on fishing lake
# BA cancels 70 of 130 departures and 89 of 133 arrivals this morning
# Eurostar urging passengers not to travel unless absolutely necessary
# Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports open but expecting delays
# Furious AA said thousands of ungritted roads resemble ‘ski jumps’
# Key train services suspended as workers try to shift snow from tracks

Quote:Temperatures plunged again overnight, with a UK low of -19.6c, recorded in Chesham, Buckinghamshire.

A record low for Northern Ireland was seen in Castlederg, County Tyrone, where the mercury plunged to -17.6c.

Severe weather warnings have today been issued for south west England and Wales, with the Met Office forecasting between two and four inches (5-10cm) of snow to fall in many places.

Up to eight inches (20cm) will land on high ground, with the snow due to reach London later this afternoon.

Freezing fog is also expected to hit areas of northern England.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ofr28H4t-A
Solar Lunar Forecasting
HMers right again.
Smoke
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5f...re=related
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=11559
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/weather-pr...rctic-ice/
70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7ep...r_embedded
:kiss:
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
Cool report, if you'll pardon the pun, and groovy video. In UK we have just had two really cold spells, both before Christmas, and in Leeds, about half way up Britain, it was minus 5 during the day for days on end, and minus 12-14 at night. I recently made the acquaintance of a couple of guys who got frostbite in all their toes - one had only been out in the snow for 3 hours !
I went back to Cornwall for Christmas and it wasn't much better - when I was growing up there it snowed once, bamboo and eucalyptus grow wild and there is a naturalising population of stick insects, at least until now. It's getting colder FFS !
Reply
http://www.accuweather.com/video/7561310...l=vbbastaj
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJ...re=related
Minnesotans For Global Warming Song (If We Had Some Global Warming)
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Agenda 21 For Dummies
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/na...udget-axe/
NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe
Posted on February 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Dr. James Hansen, NASA GISS chief scientist, arrested in front of the White House 9-28-10. Image: via Wonk Room
NASA spent over a billion dollars last year on climate change studies…which would you rather have? Pronouncements about death trains, expert testimony for climate vandals, failed predictions, failed models, and a questionable GISTEMP dataset, or a continued manned spaceflight program?

From my perspective, NASA GISS is a duplication of climate services already covered by NOAA/NCDC, and all we seem to get from it is climate activism arrests of the chief scientist, a coffee table book by his assistant, and a snarky condescending blog called RealClimate that one private citizen and some volunteers are currently beating the pants off of in public outreach. Further, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Inside NASA, we have duplication of climate services not only at GISS in NYC, Goddard Spaceflight in Greenbelt, MD, but also at JPL Pasadena. There’s been all sorts of domestic military base closures in the recent years to save money, and NASA Goddard and GISS re-purposed itself after the Apollo program ended and their mission did too. It’s time to close this duplication of services dinosaur, it will be missed far less than a TV comedy series by the American public.  If you feel the same way, tell your representatives. – Anthony
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.globalmontreal.com/technology...story.html

Northern New Brunswick wind turbines frozen solid
Greg Weston, Telegraph-Journal: Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/...tastrophes

Quote:CO2 Report Debunks Climate Change Catastrophes
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 14:14

For decades, climate change alarmists have generated a host of doomsday scenarios, all based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming: human CO2 emissions will force Earth's climate to warm uncontrollably causing all manner of unpleasantness. A new study, published by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, addresses the major predicted effects of global warming head on. Making extensive use of peer reviewed research papers, the dire predictions of climate alarmists are demolished point by point. In fact, the authors conclude that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the development of the Industrial Revolution have actually been good for the planet.

The 168 page report, “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path,” authored by Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso, addresses the bewildering morass of climate change disinformation using solid science to refute predictions of future environmental disaster. As the authors' state “The villain of the story is industrial man, who has "altered the course of nature" by releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide into the air via the burning of coal, gas and oil.” The questions the report addresses are framed in the executive summary:

As presently constituted, earth’s atmosphere contains just slightly less than 400 ppm of the colorless and odorless gas we call carbon dioxide or CO2. That’s only four-hundredths of one percent. Consequently, even if the air's CO2 concentration was tripled, carbon dioxide would still comprise only a little over one tenth of one percent of the air we breathe, which is far less than what wafted through earth’s atmosphere eons ago, when the planet was a virtual garden place. Nevertheless, a small increase in this minuscule amount of CO2 is frequently predicted to produce a suite of dire environmental consequences, including dangerous global warming, catastrophic sea level rise, reduced agricultural output, and the destruction of many natural ecosystems, as well as dramatic increases in extreme weather phenomena, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes.

As strange as it may seem, these frightening future scenarios are derived from a single source of information: the ever-evolving computer-driven climate models that presume to reduce the important physical, chemical and biological processes that combine to determine the state of earth’s climate into a set of mathematical equations out of which their forecasts are produced. But do we really know what all of those complex and interacting processes are? And even if we did -- which we don't -- could we correctly reduce them into manageable computer code so as to produce reliable forecasts 50 or 100 years into the future?

Craig D. Idso, who is the founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, has a PhD in Geography from Arizona State University. He is the brother of Keith E. Idso and son of Sherwood B. Idso. In 2009 he coauthored the book “CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future” with his father.

Sherwood B. Idso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.livescience.com/12922-eating-...gases.html
Quote:There is a rational, even persuasive, argument for voluntarily eating insects: Bugs are high in protein, require less space to grow and offer a more environmentally friendly alternative to the vertebrates we Westerners prefer, advocates of the bug fare say.

However, this topic is not a hotbed of research, so while some data exist — in particular on the protein content of insects — there are some assumptions built into the latter part of this argument.

"The suggestion that insects would be more efficient has been around for quite some time," said Dennis Oonincx, an entomologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. He and other researchers decided to test it, by comparing the greenhouse gas emissions from five species of insects with those of cattle and pigs.
For much of the world, eating insects — officially called entomophagy — is neither strange nor disgusting nor exotic. In southern Africa,

Nonono
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514
10 mins to Expose Global Warming Scam
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...m-age.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paper_540.pdf
THE GREAT SEA-LEVEL HUMBUG
There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!
by Nils-Axel Mörner
Quote:While the IPCC and its boy
scouts present wilder and wilder
sea level predictions for the near
future, the real observational
facts demonstrate that sea level
has remained virtually stable for
the last 40-50 years.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=5325
Leading German Meteorologist Calls Fighting Climate Change ‘A Senseless Physical Endeavour’ – Calls for halt of all state-funded climate research
April 16, 2011 – 8:53 am

Source:  NoTricksZone

Dr Wolfgand Thüne
Quote:    “For decades billions of US dollars of taxpayer money have been pumped into climate research without getting any detectable progress. Climate experts still have not even succeeded in delivering the physical proof of the claimed “greenhouse effect”.

    The meteorological fact is that at no point on earth and at no time of the year do either the daily or yearly air temperature and CO2 concentrations causally correlate. There is no correlation! Also a radical reduction of ‘greenhouse gases’ in Europe, or ”achieving a ‘CO2-free Europe’, would have absolutely no impact on the weather over the course of the annual seasons.

    No state, already under a mountain of debt, can morally justify the burning of  billions, and yes trillions, on the ‘protection of the global climate’ without leaving proof of having any effect whatsoever.

    The correlation between the CO2-value in Hawaii and the annually calculated ‘global temperature’ is a fictitious correlation that imposters as causal effect, but is in reality only a make believe correlation.

    Humankind would be helped in practical ways if 20% of research resources were instead devoted to better weather forecasting and the remaining 80% devoted to combating hunger and poverty.”

    Read more: http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/14/germa...endeavour/

http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/19/dr-wo...pe-dreams/
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/fo...e-science/

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
Share644 posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain


David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
The politics:
The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.
The science:
But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
The disagreement comes about what happens next.
The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]
But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.
The modeling:
This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.
For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.
Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:
At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.
While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.
–
Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.  Follow him on Twitter: @McQandO
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941

From Their Own Mouths: Global Warming is a Fraud

"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing." - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_r...index.html

Tuesday, May 31, 2011 07:01 ET
Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong
The future of energy is not what you think it is
By Michael Lind  Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.

What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?

As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.

Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.

The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.

If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.

So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?

The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.

Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).

The U.S. may become a major exporter of natural gas to China -- at least until China borrows the technology to extract its own vast gas reserves.

Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security -- are no longer plausible. What about the claim that a rapid transition to wind and solar energy is necessary, to avert catastrophic global warming?

The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes -- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it. But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.

(The majority of renewable energy consists of CO2-emitting biomass -- wood and dung used for fires by the world’s poor, plus crops used to make fuel; most of the remainder comes from hydropower dams denounced by Greens.)

The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy. While their initial costs are high, nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of cheap electricity -- and no greenhouse gases. If runaway global warming were a clear and present danger rather than a low probability, then the problems of nuclear waste disposal and occasional local disasters would be minor compared to the benefits to the climate of switching from coal to nuclear power.

The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries -- or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.

The mainstream environmental lobby has yet to acknowledge the challenge that the new energy realities pose to their assumptions about the future. Some environmentalists have welcomed natural gas because it is cleaner than coal and can supplement intermittent solar power and wind power, at times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But if natural gas is permanently cheaper than solar and wind, then there is no reason, other than ideology, to combine it with renewables, instead of simply using natural gas to replace coal in electricity generation.

Without massive, permanent government subsidies or equally massive penalty taxes imposed on inexpensive fossil fuels like shale gas, wind power and solar power may never be able to compete. For that reason, some Greens hope to shut down shale gas and gas hydrate production in advance. In their haste, however, many Greens have hyped studies that turned out to be erroneous.

In 2010 a Cornell University ecology professor and anti-fracking activist named Robert Howarth published a paper making the sensational claim that natural gas is a greater threat to the climate than coal. Howarth admitted, "A lot of the data we use are really low quality..."

Howarth’s error-ridden study was debunked by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations and criticized even by the Worldwatch Institute, a leading environmentalist organization, which wrote: "While we share Dr. Howarth’s urgency about the need to transition to a renewable-based economy, we believe based on our research that natural gas, not coal, affords the cleanest pathway to such a future."

A few years ago, many Green alarmists seized upon a theory that an ice age 600 million years ago came to an abrupt end because of massive global warming caused by methane bubbling up from the ocean floor. They warned that the melting of the ice caps or drilling for methane hydrates might suddenly release enough methane to cook the earth. But before it could be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, the methane apocalypse theory was debunked recently by a team of Caltech scientists in a report for the science journal Nature.

All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the Green lobby’s alarm about the environmental side-effects of energy sources is highly selective. The environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels -- and can be counted on to exaggerate or invent problems caused by alternatives. Many of the same Greens who oppose fracking because it might contaminate some underground aquifers favor wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that slaughter eagles and other birds and support blanketing huge desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation. Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, has been sacrificed to the giant metallic idols of the sun and the wind.

The renewable energy movement is not the only campaign that will be marginalized in the future by the global abundance of fossil fuels produced by advancing technology. Champions of small-scale organic farming can no longer claim that shortages of fossil fuel feedstocks will force a return to pre-industrial agriculture.

Another casualty of energy abundance is the new urbanism. Because cars and trucks and buses can run on natural gas as well as gasoline and diesel fuel, the proposition that peak oil will soon force people around the world to abandon automobile-centered suburbs and office parks for dense downtowns connected by light rail and inter-city trains can no longer be taken seriously. Deprived of the arguments from depletion, national security and global warming, the campaign to increase urban density and mass transit rests on nothing but a personal taste for expensive downtown living, a taste which the suburban working-class majorities in most developed nations manifestly do not share.

Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D.

In the meantime, it appears that the prophets of an age of renewable energy following Peak Oil got things backwards. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.

Michael Lind is Policy Director of the Economic Growth Program at the New America Foundation and is the author of "The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution." More: Michael Lind
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
Just got back from Colorado.  My brother-in-law lives in Denver so we go visit every year or 2 and take advantage of the free place to stay and good company.

We always head up to Estes Park and this year they had 30' of snow and the trail around Bear Lake and to Alberta Falls was impassable with regular hiking boots because of all the snow still on the ground.  They normally open Trail Ridge Road that goes over the Continental Divide on Memorial Day but they just got it open the day before we went up there.  And then we couldn't hike up to the sign where the Continental Divide is because of the WALL of snow there!

We headed over to Glenwood Canyon and hiked to Hanging Lake.  It is only 1.25 miles but a 1000' elevation change so kinda steep in some places.  The trail was clear of snow but the massive snowmelt had the stream covering parts of the trail so we had to climb over large rocks to get around it.

We drove up to Pike's Peak and there was so much haze from the fires in Arizona that you couldn't see very far - even at the top.

It is still flooding in the midwest and we can't buy a drop of rain on the Gulf Coast of SE Texas.  The last significant rainfall we had was back in January.  Everything not on a watering system is burnt to a crisp.  People with livestock to feed are hurting because the price of feed is going through the roof.

Crazy weather is all I can say...........

Scream

~~~~~ ** ~~~~~&nbsp; <br />[Image: bee.gif]<br />We make decisions or we make excuses ~~ it's always our choice.
Reply
Quote:The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed.
Talk about a hit peice article, this one statement is BS. Using this natural gas mght extend fossil fuels, but it is also supposed to foul ground water.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
if Joplin, Mo. have been power by solar panels and wind mills
there would be a billion more itty bitty pieces to clean up> or they could be under water else where at the moment
Whistle
fracking does release methane a organic gas
in some cases
far from ALL cases
so vacuum the methane out of the ground and use methane for power
like NYC
covering 675,000 acres in thr 4 coners for your solar power
sucks
cover Your home in solar panel and wind mills
not mine..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/science/09sewage.html
City Is Looking at Sewage Treatment as a Source of Energy
Smoke
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
(06-15-2011, 12:17 AM)sarafina link Wrote:Just got back from Colorado.  My brother-in-law lives in Denver so we go visit every year or 2 and take advantage of the free place to stay and good company.

We always head up to Estes Park and this year they had 30' of snow and the trail around Bear Lake and to Alberta Falls was impassable with regular hiking boots because of all the snow still on the ground.  They normally open Trail Ridge Road that goes over the Continental Divide on Memorial Day but they just got it open the day before we went up there.  And then we couldn't hike up to the sign where the Continental Divide is because of the WALL of snow there!

We headed over to Glenwood Canyon and hiked to Hanging Lake.  It is only 1.25 miles but a 1000' elevation change so kinda steep in some places.  The trail was clear of snow but the massive snowmelt had the stream covering parts of the trail so we had to climb over large rocks to get around it.

We drove up to Pike's Peak and there was so much haze from the fires in Arizona that you couldn't see very far - even at the top.

It is still flooding in the midwest and we can't buy a drop of rain on the Gulf Coast of SE Texas.  The last significant rainfall we had was back in January.  Everything not on a watering system is burnt to a crisp.  People with livestock to feed are hurting because the price of feed is going through the roof.

Crazy weather is all I can say...........

Scream

if monsoons hit soon
we are going to have some serious river problems in Colorado.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
and all those solar panels are going to make the worlds largest convection oven
Devil
that would not be my first choice to fight global warming..

small scale systems do make sense for rural areas.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...132525.htm
Extensive Methane Leaks Discovered Under Streets of Boston
ScienceDaily (May 13, 2011) — Earlier this year, Boston University researchers and collaborators conducted a mobile greenhouse gas audit in Boston and found hundreds of natural gas leaks under the streets and sidewalks of Greater Boston. Nathan Phillips, associate professor of geography and environment and director of BU's Center for Environmental and Energy Studies (CEES), and his research partners will present these and related findings at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) Global Monitoring Annual Conference, May 17-18 in Boulder, Colorado.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...-metals-us
Rare earth metals mine is key to US control over hi-tech futureApproval secured to restart operations, which could be crucial in challenging China's stranglehold on the market
[Image: Rare-earth-minerals-007.jpg]
The site of the rare earth metals mine in the Mojave desert. Photograph: Barry Sweet/Polaris


yup
many more LARGE mines are going to open up to produce the materials for all those panels and towers
cool
mining Boom,,
Dance2
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply



One Volcano Exposes The
Massive Carbon Scheme Fraud
Where Does the Carbon Really Come From?
Source Unkonwn
6-19-11

Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
 
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
 
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption at Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano, since its first spewed volcanic ash, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you. And now with Iceland's Grimsvotn volcano erupting on May 21, 2011, it has been a losing battle.
 
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
 
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ... well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
 
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
 
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
 
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
 
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
 
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.
 
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
 
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure...

&
http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspo...cycle.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
Smoke
humans
some day
may get over this fear shit
and start living
Dance2
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
So what numbers are this person using? I really hope this person isnt equating carbon in ash to carbon in CO2.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Reply
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...085029.htm
Science News Share    Blog    Cite Print    Bookmark    Email
US Fires Release Large Amounts Of Carbon Dioxide
ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2007) — Large-scale fires in a western or southeastern state can pump as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few weeks as the state's entire motor vehicle traffic does in a year, according to newly published research by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The authors of a recent article*, Christine Wiedinmyer of NCAR and Jason Neff of the University of Colorado, used satellite observations of fires and a new computer model, developed by Wiedinmyer, that estimates carbon dioxide emissions based on the mass of vegetation burned. They caution that their estimates have a margin of error of about 50 percent, both because of inexact data about the extent of fires and varying estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by different types of blazes.
Overall, the study estimates that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. But fires contribute a higher proportion of the potent greenhouse gas in several western and southeastern states, especially Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Arizona. Particularly large fires can release enormous pulses of carbon dioxide rapidly into the atmosphere.

"A striking implication of very large wildfires is that a severe fire season lasting only one or two months can release as much carbon as the annual emissions from the entire transportation or energy sector of an individual state," the authors write
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)