April 18, 2008
Y2Kyoto: Bomb Kyoto!
Time managing editor Richard Stengel appeared on MSNBC April 17 and said the United States needed to make a major effort to fight climate change, and that the cover’s purpose was to liken global warming to World War II.He does realize the Manhattan Project culminated in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
(*post title amended, courtesy commentor Garth Wood.)
Posted by Kate at April 18, 2008 10:27 AMUrge to kill... rising...
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at April 18, 2008 11:03 AMIf I'm reading between the lines correctly here, I think he's suggesting we rebomb Hiroshima.
Posted by: Kate at April 18, 2008 11:10 AMOr just bomb Kyoto for the first time. ;-)
Posted by: Garth Wood at April 18, 2008 11:12 AMTypical liberal fascism, almost to a point where I don't know whether to laugh at the latest manifestation of the kind of behaviour exposed by Jonah Goldberg in his latest book, or cry at the fact that western civilisation is unable to rid itself of all the little dictators who want to control our lives.
Posted by: Anon at April 18, 2008 11:22 AMI think he means Kyoto has bombed :)
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 11:22 AMIn other news, Time/Warner/NYTimes/Toronto Red Star and every other damnable MSM outfit is laying off hundreds of "workers".
Too... Liberal... can't...connect... teh... dots
I have already made the ultimate sacrifice for global warming: I let my long-standing subscription to Time expire.
I suggest that everyone who loves the planet do the same.
Posted by: Richard Ball at April 18, 2008 11:27 AMI think the bigger issue is the worldwide food shortage CAUSED by all this global warming fanaticism. More land is used for enviro-fuels, taking away from food production. Less grain for food production equals higher prices.
What a bunch of idiots. Of course, most of them believe humankind is a blight on the earth anyway; so what if a few million starve to death because they can't afford to buy food?
Posted by: Soccermom at April 18, 2008 11:31 AMClearly these little boys and girls haven't figured out what happens to the boy who cried wolf? There was a reason why we used to teach the fables to children instead of reading "My two mommies."
You think it's hard to get the "environmental" message out now? Just wait till this Kyoto horses**t is exposed as a fraud.
The other aspect of this farce is the effect of a bunch of jack-booted bureaucrats forcing their agenda on the public.
A few decades ago, the Indian government tried to solve the overpopulation problem by rounding up poor people and sterilizing them without their consent. Bureaucrats were given quotas for rounding people up and sterilizing them. Needless to say that wasn't very popular with the locals. There were, of course, riots and the government backed down (long after much damage was done - both to individuals as well as to the very idea of population control.)
Now any politician who brings up birth control - no matter how benign - is in danger of severe violence. You can't even give out free condoms without fear of death. In the mean time, the population is increasing faster than ever…
The moral of the story is that the fasted way to discredit any idea is the shove it down people's throats without their consent. The next fasted is to try and trick people and lie to them. When they find out, your credibility is gone forever.
Fear, it seems, stills has an appeal to the fuzzy-wuzzy leftoid brains.
Meanwhile, the numbers don't work and truth will prevail - eventually.
http://tinyurl.com/3l4ulh
Posted by: Fred at April 18, 2008 11:34 AMworld hunger has a lot to do with the largest exporter of food having energy costs rise by 600 percent
Posted by: em butler at April 18, 2008 11:40 AMAt first glance, I thought it was the cover of a long-lost Dr. Suess, where the last tree was cut down to make a magazine that nobody reads. Destruction of a perfectly good carbon sequestering machine for a preachy "Out of Time" dead tree publication.
Think of the green effects of cancelling subscriptions to newspapers and magazines...
Oh well, back to work...
Posted by: shaken at April 18, 2008 11:42 AMSuch over-the-top nonsense. Consumers aren't willing to pay the very steep price for carbon cut backs and any serious measures would be political suicide.
All talk, but really no commitment to do anything substantive--Thank God.
"Just wait till this Kyoto horses**t is exposed as a fraud."
It has been exposed, it's just not yet well publicized.
Mr. Stengel has a very high opinion of himself.
He's telling us that a magazine with declining readership; staffed by journalist(I use the word loosely) who only listen to people who tell them what they want to hear; is going to save the world. Moonbat.
What the moronic "environmentalists" can't get thhrought their thick stupic heads is that we have burtally high oil prices NOW - higher than they ever envisaged reaching with their taxes. And yet they want - more TAXES, more TAXES, more TAXES; and more Third World people starving to death. That is the icing on their cake.
Leftists are evil.
Posted by: John Lewis at April 18, 2008 12:08 PMHow liberals think;
Terrorism? ... a mere nuisance, kind of like youths painting graffitis on your garage door. Certainly no reason to go to war.
Global warming? ... Any measure is justified!!! We will destroy our economy if necessary!!! The battle of all battle!!! The war of all wars!!!
and now the Marines are pissed
"Iwo Jima Veterans Blast Time's 'Special Environmental Issue' Cover
Time editor tells MSNBC 'there needs to be a real effort along the lines of World War II to combat global warming and climate change.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
4/18/2008 9:40:43 AM
Send this page to a friend! (click here)
For only the second time in 85 years, Time magazine abandoned the traditional red border it uses on its cover. The occasion – to push more global warming alarmism.
The cover of the April 21 issue of Time took the famous Iwo Jima photograph by Joe Rosenthal of the Marines raising the American flag and replaced the flag with a tree. The cover story by Bryan Walsh calls green “the new red, white and blue.”
Donald Mates, an Iwo Jima veteran, told the Business & Media Institute on April 17 that using that photograph for that cause was a “disgrace.”
“It’s an absolute disgrace,” Mates said. “Whoever did it is going to hell. That’s a mortal sin. God forbid he runs into a Marine that was an Iwo Jima survivor.”
Mates also said making the comparison of World War II to global warming was erroneous and disrespectful.
“The second world war we knew was there,” Mates said. “There’s a big discussion. Some say there is global warming, some say there isn’t. And to stick a tree in place of a flag on the Iwo Jima picture is just sacrilegious.”"
http://tinyurl.com/6dnjt6
This reminds me of the link Kate made to Steve Den Beste's site 'USS Clueless' a year ago:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006175.html
Are they planting the tree or pulling it out?
Either way, those are some tough hombres strong enough to lift a giant sequoia.
Posted by: Doug at April 18, 2008 12:28 PMThe reasonable Environmentalists are very disgusted with the way their profession has been hyjacked by the Fanatics.
My cousin, a late-fifties, life long environmental-field type, is fit to be tied over the Kyoto-Gore-Suzuki-UN thing. (Tens of thousands Jet around the world for nothing meetings at luxury resorts, ect)
He says the whole GW scam has caused his Profession to wear a lot of egg.
Perhaps the Biofuels fiasco will be the catalyst that brings the Kyoto house of cards down. Very telling, when orgs such as the UN, WTO, WFO, Greenpeace, are now calling for a Biofool halt.
The lights are coming on, regardless of what Time and others try to propagate.
Windmills ? Not functioning as advertized. Solar ? Horrendously expensive power. Earth is warming ? Actually, it's now cooling. WArm bad ? Actually, it is better - plants, crops(food) grow with more vigor. CO2 a polutant ? Actually it is an essential gas for life on Earth. High concentrations are harmful ? Actually, low concentrations are lethal to life on Earth because plants would stop growing.
No wonder the Media's fear-mongering no long works.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 12:35 PMJust takes your breath away doesn't it?
But then a Manhattan type project would do the same.
Hmm, 10 million SPF skin lotion as we view the second sun anyone?
Truly, send in the clowns would be an understatement.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
This "'War' on Global Warming"....I take it we are going to bomb Al Gore?
Posted by: john at April 18, 2008 12:48 PMPosted by Fen;
"This reminds me of the link Kate made to Steve Den Beste's site 'USS Clueless' a year ago:"
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006175.html
Kate's post and comments, May 13 2007, almost a year ago - a worth while read. It reveals how far out front she is compared to our pathetic MSM !!
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 12:49 PMPerhaps, if a Manhattan type project is needed, it should be directed at developing nuclear fusion as a viable energy source.
Posted by: itlog95 at April 18, 2008 12:50 PM"He does realize the Manhattan Project culminated in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?"
Not that that was a bad thing....
Posted by: Margaret at April 18, 2008 12:50 PMLet's endorse some more secret government projects!
Let's stop the world from changing!
Let's ignore our own freedoms and fix other people's problems!
You don't need to eat rice, we need biofuels!
Oilsands are evil, the Saudis are our friends!
Posted by: Klondike Mike at April 18, 2008 1:09 PMManhattan Projects of the new milenium:
Amazing that some people think there is NO research going into energy alternatives or fundamental physics.
Real research as opposed to politically motivated propagandizing is going on at a pace that has NEVER been seen before.
The budgets and resources going into today's big science projects are orders of magnitude greater than anything that went on in the 1940's or 50's.
And that is dwarfed by the wide spread independent funded R&D that's happening at a record pace around the world.
Clueless twits like Stengel deserve a smack in the head for spouting this garbage as if they KNEW anything about what's going on. Pure propaganda.
Here is WA state, were about to break another cold record as we get ready for more Snow in the middle of April.
WARMING.......... please we need some!
Posted by: Dustoff at April 18, 2008 1:10 PMO/T; but, relevant to Soccermom:
"More land is used for enviro-fuels, taking away from food production. Less grain for food production equals higher prices."
...-
"“Food vs Fuel” Argument is False
Here is some interesting data that shows that the food vs fuel argument is false."
[chart]
"Note the bottom line. AFTER corn crop removal for ethanol production the US produced a net of 9.7 million bushels in 2002, 10.4 million bushels in 2006, and 12.2 million bushels in 2007.
Thus despite the growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it, as I’ll explain below) the net corn food product of the USA increased 17% between 2006 and 2007, and 26% since 2002. Overall, US farm exports are up 23%.
The reason why this is so is because agriculture is not a zero sum game."
"This puts more corn on the market, and actually acts as a factor to decrease the price that grain merchants can charge for the corn, since they need to sell it all. (Adam Smith discusses this very issue in The Wealth of Nations.)"
http://www.setamericafree.org/wordpress/?p=378
I think that this part is more revealing than the "global warming is going to kill us all" belief of Time and the MSM:
[Time Managing Editor] Stengel also appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on April 17 and had no difficulty admitting the magazine needed to have a “point of view.”
“I think since I’ve been back at the magazine, I have felt that one of the things that’s needed in journalism is that you have to have a point of view about things,” Stengel said. “You can’t always just say ‘on the one hand, on the other’ and you decide. People trust us to make decisions. We’re experts in what we do. So I thought, you know what, if we really feel strongly about something let's just say so.”
From a critique at Ace of Spades:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/260534.php
*
don't overlook the warfare in the make-believe trenches...
"Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen.
She (or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams
and reams of global warming pages. I started checking them. In
every instance I checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe
and deprecated those who believe the science is not settled."
*
Posted by: neo at April 18, 2008 1:29 PMWhat kind of statement are you trying to make Kate?
The first link was to PO'd Iwo Jima vets and the second link provided confirmation of the gross mismanagement of the Bush administration.
A picture does not a cause make, nor is playing with words or sympathies a reasonably rebuttal.
Hey, and if you don't like the cover, don't buy the book. Some people don't like Playboy either.
So all this angst is over Time magazine exercising it's right to Freedom of Speech. Right? Oh, and it's also about the U.S. We aren't part of that place.
How many actually read the Time article?
You will find it here;
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_1731363,00.html
And where is all this bio fuel being used anyway? I have only ever seen ONE gas station in eastern canada that sold a blend with 10% ethanol.
Did you know they can turn old restaurant grease into fuel for diesels? Now that's a McHappy!
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2008 1:29 PMThe US corn crop is a huge portion of the worlds food and feed grain basket. It is one of the largest factor in basic food trade.
Biofuels are claiming at least 25% of US corn production already.
Corn production has increased at the expense of other crops - wheat, soyabeans, canola.
Food shortages. This is the real Y2Kyoto Bomb.
But then, food shortages are just the latest Media hype. It will all come back to Earth once the 'Funds' have to liqidate their long positions. Bath time for some.
In the meantime, good for the Farmers.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 1:30 PMHe does realize the Manhattan Project culminated in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
====================
I doubt it. The AGW advocates don't seem to cognizant of recent human history, let alone long-term climate history.
And I'll ask again, why is it the Conservative Party of Canada publicly recognizes the validity of Global Warming?
Are they lying to you?
Hugger
In a lot of cases, the biofuel is going nowhere.
Checked out the Biofool Companies stock lately ?
Back to topic; Iwo Jima Veterans should sue Time.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 1:38 PMHuggy .... Why don't you ask the Conservative Party of Canada ??
Mmmmmmm Global Warming KoolAid.
Posted by: Brian Mallard at April 18, 2008 1:48 PMI want to know where he gets the idea that any of the Western democracies "prepared" for World War II. Churchill was screaming about it for years from the back benches of the House and was roundly derided for it. America was so "prepared" we had firm rules against lining up the entire Pacific Fleet in one place on an early Sunday morning.
What's more amusing is what the great Mark Steyn pointed out in a recent speech - Liberals will tell you that it's impossible to control our own borders and bring democracy to the Middle East, yet turn around and tell us that we can change the heavens themselves and control the weather. And they think GW Bush is delusional.
Posted by: EJHill at April 18, 2008 1:55 PMSanity from Lorne.
In five parts
http://tinyurl.com/3zysew
Posted by: Fred at April 18, 2008 1:57 PMGarbage like this article is the result of moronic leftards with FULL stomaches, thanks to a farmer, and the myopic view of the world from their apartment windows. These leftist idiots think that because their little corner of the "planet" is pissing them off that the whole "planet" must be in danger, what fools. It takes hours to fly over millions of square miles of nothing when you go to Europe, hours of nothing to fly over the 72% of this "planet" that is ocean, where there are no suv's driving around you liberal ndpeers. You clowns have watched to many James Bond films, yes lets clean up polution, start with stopping the great Suzuker from flushing his raw sewage into the Pacific from his many taxpayer funded mansions, then stop the great Gore from filling the sky with Gulfstream pollution. Then stop spending money on the Time magazine and all the other money losing tree destroying newspapers that try to perpetuate this greatest hoax of this century so far.
Posted by: bartinsky at April 18, 2008 2:01 PMStengel seems to be quite the "envirotool!"
Posted by: Orlin at April 18, 2008 2:08 PMPerhaps if children were allowed to play outside, in the 4 seasons their parents would realize we have weather changes every year. Perhaps if those working in highrises, then go to underground parking to go home to attached garages, and never set foot outside, would learn that weather changes 4 times a year. As the VP mentioned, the climate is warming and he calls it spring which will turn into more warming called summer.
This kyoto scam, following the Y2K scam will be ridiculed in the history books our great grandchildren read.
I did my part, I refused the free twisty bulb the govt is giving out for free. Wonder how much ghg the guy bringing those bulbs to our town spewed.
He thought we would be impressed when he said, I drove from Calgary to be here. A 3 hr drive, big deal. Must have been from the city of TO to think we would be impressed.
This cover is appalling, infuriating and at the VERY least---ungrateful and disrespectful! I am having a tough time keeping my comments clean when faced with a travesty such as this!!!!!
Posted by: lynne at April 18, 2008 2:36 PMLast week, by mail, Time offered me a year's subscription for 48 cents and issue.
Time descended into editorial insanity years ago.
It's too bad, because I grew up reading it, back in the '70's, and I don't think I'm alone in that disappointment.
So I'm not sure if Time's endorsement of global warming is a benefit.
I'll hazard a guess that in the minds of millions, if Time says a thing's so, it probably isn't.
Posted by: Duncan at April 18, 2008 2:38 PMGreg whines: "And I'll ask again, why is it the Conservative Party of Canada publicly recognizes the validity of Global Warming? Are they lying to you?"
Yes, obviously.
I have all four major parties lying to me about AGW at the moment, kind of like gun control in the 1990's. Kim Campbell banned a few rifles at no particular cost to the tax payer, Jean Chretien spent two billion on a gun registry.
Harper seems set to do something about Kyoto which will be as stupid and bogus as Kim Campbell's gun ban, and will cost me about as much. Mr. Dion is promising to spend BILLIONS on a carbon tax and trading scheme.
So Greg, what was your point again?
Posted by: The Phantom at April 18, 2008 2:39 PMSome of you don't seem to get how seriously threatened our fragile earth is. A famous Canadian environmentalist named Paul Watson -- of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace fame -- explains it all here: http://tinyurl.com/2qkn4h.
He has an easier solution than Time magazine champions: Since human beings are the AIDS of the earth, we just have to reduce the earth's population to 1 billion from its current level around 6.5 billion -- oh, and make a few other minor adjustments proposed by Mr. Watson. All of his measures are straightforward -- the kinds of things any progressive could heartily endorse.
Clearly, fewer people means not just lower GHG levels but benefits all across the environment. So, Time should switch horses and back Mr. Watson's far more comprehensive plan.
Since Canadians abort about 110,000 - 120,000 fetuses every year -- ie 1 in every 4 pregnancies, perhaps we could retroactively claim a credit, towards our population target, for the millions of potential Canadians who we prevented from polluting the world.
Posted by: TSowell Fan at April 18, 2008 2:43 PMThe only bad thing about the demise of Kyoto's fanatical environmentalism ?
The huge spike in the number of unemployed :(
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 18, 2008 2:46 PMTS:
Perhaps I'm a bit dim today. I tried reading your post a second time and it's still incomprehensible.
Are you serious or are you attempting to confirm what we already know ... that Paul Watson is an anti-human buffoon?
Posted by: set you free at April 18, 2008 2:55 PMset you free: TSowell Fan's post at 2:43 is pretty clear. He is merely skilfully using irony to point out the extreemie-greenie agenda of reducing human population to a cap of 1 billion. That is actually a serious proposal in the environmental movement.
Which is why we won't hear too much about "death by biofuels" (starvation) as it ties neatly into the agenda. And why we don't hear any confessions about the 10s of millions who died from the bogus DDT scare. It's a death cult, as you must know.
Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at April 18, 2008 3:12 PMGreg: Both the article and your post contain a great deal of both misinformation and a lack of understanding of the issues. With respect to your post, Canada is a net importer of corn from the US. We are a price taker; hence perturbations in US prices directly affect us. As to restaurant grease, don't be silly. The quantity of that is utterly trivial compared to the requirement to provide 10 per cent of vehicle fuel as an additive. Convert all of Canada and the US crop of corn into ethanol and you get 10 days of fuel supply, making the whole exercise utterly pointless, aside from the disastrous effects of driving up food prices world wide and increasing 3rd World starvation as a consequence.
As to the article itself, leaving aside all of its foolishness on climate change, what are the remedies proposed to provide new energy? Oh, here we go:
"Wind power, the most mature renewable technology, is growing fast, but we need to find a way to store electricity when the breeze isn't blowing. Then there are more fringe alternatives like tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion—any of which could take off with enough luck and money."
Aside from dismal and unpredictable performance, we can dismiss wind power on simple environmental grounds. Nothing will contribute to the industrialization of the countryside the way wind power will threaten to do if its advocates have their way. For the rest, tidal power is even more sporadic than wind, and after all these years the Bay of Fundy tidal experiment has not come remotely close to demonstrating commercially viable technology. Geothermal? Fine if you're living on top of a volcano or Yellowstone. Funny, those usually tend to be national parks. Fusion? Don't make me laugh. Every 10 years its a further 10 years away.
There is one alternative which shows that neither Time magazine nor you are honest about the issue. The only technology which can entirely displace coal without significant increases in cost is nuclear, about which both you and the Time article are silent. Both James Lovelock and Patrick Moore have indicated at various times that, if you're not serious about nuclear you're not serious about climate change.
In short, the article, like your post, is mere drivel.
If you can't be honest about what you claim are the solutions to an issue, why should anyone listen to you?
Posted by: cgh at April 18, 2008 3:13 PMIt seems Kyoto was the number one target last time, too :
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
Posted by: rimcTX at April 18, 2008 3:13 PMI thought the world was cooling? Isn't this settled? Do we want the world cooling or warming? If the world is cooling should our government lower taxes on gas to ease inflation and help out working families and poor people while at the same time trying to stop our climate from cooling; or, is the world cooling because of the use fossil fuels and we need to cut back on gas the invoke global warming?
Could someone please set me straight, I just want to do the right thing. It's bad enough I found out last month that I'm a racist because of jokes I find funny and books I've read.
Posted by: Jon at April 18, 2008 3:14 PMIt looks like they are trying to get that tree up Gores Butt!
Please Obama bite that Apple! You know you need to do that before June. bite! bite! bite! that Califoria AGW Apple.
Posted by: Phillip G. Shaw at April 18, 2008 3:18 PMThis is the perfect example of why Magazines & papers are going out of business.
To take an iconic picture like this that even Canadians know by heart . To manufacture some resonance & legitimacy with their modern Global warming con game.
As usual this will backfire just because the people who put out these abominations have no shame nor dignity. To them there are no boundaries , no consequences, no sense of meaning, or honor, just hubris passing as genius.
Just my opinion
Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 18, 2008 3:28 PMTo take an iconic picture like this that even Canadians know by heart .
I think we might be surprised by the number of people who have no idea of the significance of this picture or where it was originally taken. As an example, a guy that I know, well into his 30's, up until just recently, believed that Hiroshima was bombed within days of the attack on Pearl Harbour. Kind of reminds me of John Belushi's reference to the German attack on Pearl Harbour in "Animal House".
The reaction to the hoisting of the flag on Iwo Jima by today's left-leaning cretins would be to denounce the event as the culmination of the imperialist domination of a small, defenceless island.
I, for one, am thankful that such thinking didn't exit in 1945 to the extent that it does today. Otherwise we may very well be posting in Japanese.
'Just in Time'
The true environmentalists would have a think on the implications of 'Just In Time' inventory management, which is driven by the avoidance of inventory financing. In other words, bean counters are the environmentalist's true foe.
Consider how much stuff is air freighted (express) these days. One glance at the growth curve of FedEx should provide a hint.
Are the environmentalists barking at the air freight industry and the dot coms that have built up around it? Nah, they're bobbing around the sea harassing some close-to-the-land seal hunters.
Do us all a favor, will you greenies, and declare War on Bean Counters. I could get behind that movement.
Posted by: shaken at April 18, 2008 4:04 PMI think it's a deeply insulting action to take that picture, an icon of the heroism and courage of the US military in WWII - and use it to publicize a UN scam.
Posted by: ET at April 18, 2008 4:27 PMIn a very patriotic country like the USA , denigrating the most famous photo of WW2 in which 6000+ Americans died on Iwo Jima , is utter insanity.
The MSM might get away with something disgraceful like this in Canada , but not in the USA.
I can only hope the backlash hits Time significantly.
Posted by: Brian at April 18, 2008 4:39 PMGreg: The Conservative Party of Canada has to play along with GW because of enviromental fascists. People and organizations are afraid to speak thier mind on Global warming ,as not to be labeled an earth killer. The whole GW fraud and hoax is crashing. The sad part is people will no longer trust enviromentalists.
Posted by: bob at April 18, 2008 4:46 PMRevnant Dream - How about the front cover of the April Reader's Digest? Two headlines caught my eye:
"Fearless Tina Fey" and "Barbaro the Brave."
First, just what does Tina have to fear (other than cancellation due to poor ratings?) Should she be fearful that making fun of the President is going to get her sent to a Re-Education Camp?
And when Marines are dodging sniper fire and IEDs, how is (was) Barbaro to be equated with bravery? Hello? He was a F***ING HORSE!
Posted by: EJHill at April 18, 2008 4:47 PMReposted, with minor edits, from the other thread --
Endorsement by politicians proves nothing.
To politicians, "global warming" means more -- more and bigger Government, more and nastier police, more and more expensive patronage, and more more MORE taxation to cover it. All of these are Good Things to the political class. It is not a surprise that politicians, even those who label themselves "conservative", would endorse them.
What puzzles us (to put it mildly) is the enthusiastic response. The very same people who shriek in agony if $1 is spent on military equipment, who scream like stuck pigs at the slightest hint of intrusion on "indigenous folkways", who gather by hundreds to march in the streets protesting "illegal wiretapping", are slathering for it. More cops! More taxes! More intrusions! More, better, and and more forceful intrusions into the lives of ordinary citizens! Let us have Government committees to decide whether or not people can have blenders -- certainly a waste of perfectly good energy! And are not merely willing, but anxious to the point of paranoia, to cherrypick data, misrepresent scientific results, and viciously attack, misrepresent, and flatly lie about anyone who questions the dogma.
"Climate" has always changed. A thousand years ago people were farming in Greenland, growing wine-grapes in Thuringia, and living in large numbers in Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat; a few centuries later the Thames froze, with people ice-skating under London Bridge. There are still polar bears, and there is no record of Acre being inundated by seawater, so even if global warming is real there is no reason to expect catastrophe. And accurate thermometers were invented, and accurate records began to be kept, during the Dalton Minimum, a time of low solar output that resulted in ten-meter snowbanks as far south as Kansas; the record is biased by that. The situation is not "unprecedented", and Mann is a damnable, palpable, bald-faced liar.
We get accused of not being "concerned". That, too, is a DPBFL. What we are not is sufficiently panicked to turn our entire lives and fortunes over to people not fit to manage a Queen Street bar-fight. Why are you?
Regards,
Ric
SCR@W KYOTO ... IT's Friday let's GET Bombed!
Or at least a little loose.............. ;)
I subscribed to Time in my teen years: Its cover photos of James Earl Ray Carter and his minions made wonderful rifle targets. I now regret even that miniscule contribution to keeping Time alive.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald at April 18, 2008 5:36 PMEJHill
lol lol lol
I will tell you one thing, I wouldent want the Marines having a grudge against me.
Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 18, 2008 5:37 PMUpon reading this news item online, I immediately made a token contribution to stop global warming by cancelling my Time subscription.
Posted by: Tony at April 18, 2008 6:26 PMSoccermum @ 11.31,
I think you have hit on a key point. It is widely believed (I don't know if it is true or not) that that the push for enviro-mental fuels has pushed up the price of food. I certainly emphasize the point.
Everyone is keenly aware of the price of food and notices it is going up (almost $3 for a loaf of white bread!! $2+ for a cauliflower??). No one is aware of the global temperature rising (which it isn't).
Slogans: Don't burn food in cars. No food for oil.
Firstly, I graciously accept your multiple acknowledgments that the open and transparent government that the majority of you voted for, lies to you.
More later, can't answer all the shit storm at once.
Hugger
Serious question.
Are you guys (the ones who think "global warming" is a hoax/scam/whatever) proposing that dumping 10 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year doesnt affect climate?
Or are you proposing that the climate has always changed so we shouldnt give a crap about the cause?
(Hint: option #2 is at least rational....)
Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 6:57 PMBomb? Bombing? Here it is: "carbon bomb".
This bomb is invisible to humans. Can you smell/taste CO2?
These socialist warmites are a menace. This moonbat Stengel and his cohorts are serious; their "Manhattan Project" would morph into another GULAG, another Kolyma*.
...-
"'Carbon bomb' triggered by logging: Greenpeace"
http://tinyurl.com/4qbrdf (canpress"
*Picture Gallery
Kolyma - "Siberian Auschwitz". KOLYMA: The Land of Gold and Death (link); Road from Magadan to Kolyma - 'one way trip' (16K) · Gravesite of dead prisoner ...
okay.com/dunc/pictures.htm
Posted by: cgh at April 18, 2008 3:13 PM
Ok, first you don't get the premise that every little bit adds up. Next you touch on, but evade the question I posed on where is all this bio fuel being used? Never mind the diversions about who grows the most corn.
Again, it all adds up. Wind power, build it and they will come. Where I live, there is rarely a day without some wind. Many areas are perfect for wind generation. Storage? Once upon a time, a man wondered if he could fly. Incentive my dear Watson, incentive. Have you heard about the new battery technology that a major US military manufacturer is investing in?
There are a number of wind power projects in our area, and those that are complete are working fine. The one closest to me is not that large and on completion will power 24,000 homes. So how is wind power dismissed on environmental grounds? Please explain.
Breaking for a moment. Don't you people understand that you have bought into the propaganda of the oil companies and those who they pay off. Those who will defend their investment with your life, your son's life and anybody else's life except theirs. Do you think that oil is the only possibly source to satisfy large scale energy needs? Is that what you believe?
Tidal and hydro generation is sporadic. How so? Explain please. We have one of those too.
Then I come to your ramblings about my dishonesty regarding nuclear power and my obvious position.
To you Sir, I say I'm sorry I wasted my time thinking you were worth answering. Seeing as where I've written all this, I won't waste it. Enjoy
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2008 7:12 PMGreg, the key point that I am going to make is - you are a fool.
You are 1/1000th as informed as you think you are.
Your grade is "F"
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 7:31 PMi was just thinking.....you know the old expression "everyone complains about the weather but nobody ever does anything about it" ?
well....i'm thinkin' now mebbe we should be pleased someone wants to try to do something about it ?
Posted by: john begley at April 18, 2008 7:36 PMSamuel,
When it comes to human effects on the climate, I tend to support Roger Pielke's Sr. viewpoint.
Look to the local and regional level. Pay attention to land use.
For example, Calgary and area, going from 400,000 to well over a million people in under 40 years. There's an effect there.
The dam that was built to try and save the Northern Aral Sea. The residents noticed the return of the water led to improved weather.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. And not even the number one minor gas. Rise in CO2 -follows- temp increase.
The sun and -all- the other solar factors are the main driver of climate on this planet.
Manmade global warming is a political scam.
Almost no credible scientific evidence. Relying on computer models.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/04/08/why-multiple-climate-model-agreement-is-not-that-exciting/
"Right now, all GCMs are predicting warmer temperatures than are actually occurring. That means the GCMs are wrong, or biased, or both. The GCM forecasts should be shifted lower, and our certainty in their predictions should be decreased."
Posted by: Robert in Calgary at April 18, 2008 7:42 PMjohn begley: The problem now is that they're complaining that it's cold out, while asking the rest of us to do something to keep it that way.
Posted by: KS at April 18, 2008 7:56 PM: Robert in Calgary at April 18, 2008 7:25 PM
That's how you make a point is it? What a valuable addition to debate you are.
Have you always been intimidated by thoughts that challenge your opinions? Someone posted here recently stating that Nazi behaviour was exemplified by those who name call and degrade rather than debate.
Hugger
And by Godwin's law, Greg now automatically loses the argument. (Standard internet procedure, sorry.)
Posted by: KS at April 18, 2008 7:58 PM
Aren't those birkenstock bigcity greens, sooooo, braaaaave !
Aren't the greens the ones that throw paint on little old ladies in fur coats?
I sense their desperation is growing, look for suicidal greenie homocide bombers somewhere down the pipe.
The sun and -all- the other solar factors are the main driver of climate on this planet.
-- Robert in Calgary
Quite right.... and that's why "greenhouse gases" play such a huge (to us) role. Those "minor greenhouse gases" have the ability to apply a tiny, fractional increase in radiative forcing.
By the way, looking at historic CO2 levels changes lagging temperature changes is pretty foolish when you have no comparison to be made between those CO2 changes and the changes brought about by burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.
Put simply, historic CO2 lagging does not mean unprecedented CO2 levels can't cause temperature change. I mean, were the dinosaurs burning coal and pumping 10 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere?
If you can find an event similar to the level of atmospheric compositional change that we're causing, great! make that comparison.
Otherwise, Apples to oranges, and I'll trust basic chemistry over your terrible comparison.
http://i26.tinypic.com/2gw7u5z.jpg
Keep going, I've almost got a bingo!
Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 8:10 PMSamuel:
I see your basic chemistry and raise you a basic thermodynamics.
Posted by: KS at April 18, 2008 8:14 PMChemical Thermodynamics FTW!
Posted by: Samuel at April 18, 2008 8:21 PMOh. My. God.
The U.S. Marine Corps National War Memorial!? (2x)
Nothing. Is Sacred. Anymore.
Posted by: jwkozak91 at April 18, 2008 8:40 PMa few things you need before running the house on solar power.
solar water heater
bbq
woodstove(optional, somewhat)
small appliances like tvs, low power stereos, forget hairdryers
tornado bulbs are de rigeur for solar, but who wants that crap?!
Posted by: reg dunlop at April 18, 2008 8:40 PMAll I want to know is do we get our money and rights back, when it's time to warm up the planet again ?
I'd rather be free and "burn up", then have more rules endorsed by complete hypocrites who fuel their "passion" with the money from easily lead boneheads.
Whatever goodwin's law is, the truth is truth. If thats some kind of declaration of victory, I haven't even bothered to scan the "BLOG" entry that was offered in evidence.
Maybe you should read the next response to your pals posts to fill in time.
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2008 8:48 PMGodwin's law relates to discussion threads, and the inevitable fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum.
The truth being that the nazis were socialists, yes? I don't see your point.
Samuel, At any rate, I wanted to point you in the direction of an article claiming the greenhouse effect theory defies the second law of thermodynamics, but alas I carelessly posted the link to a greenie forum I was subsequently censored & banned from and can't seem to find it again.
Posted by: KS at April 18, 2008 9:14 PM* (Cont.) Mainly because that square is suspiciously absent from your skeptic bingo.
Posted by: KS at April 18, 2008 9:16 PMCO2 continues to go up. (but still quite, quite low compared to historic levels)
Temps are static for the last 10 years. Trend heading down.
There goes that theory! That was easy.
(as someone on another site asks - "Have the basic laws of chemistry and physics changed suddenly? Well, it seems they have in the minds of our computer climate modelers and IPCC propagandists.")
Here boys, try reading the September 1933 Monthly Weather Review while you get over your spanking.
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf
Posted by: Robert in Calgary at April 18, 2008 9:23 PMKS at April 18, 2008 9:14 PM
If you recall, I was relying on the wisdom of another poster on this fine blog. It so happens, I concur with that astute appraisal. Now, if one wishes to descend into the bowels of shit slinging, I can hold my own there too, but it never accomplishes an outcome representative of intellectual discussion.
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 18, 2008 9:25 PMAlways amused by the trolls who ask questions, but are uninterested in the answers.
"Next you touch on, but evade the question I posed on where is all this bio fuel being used?"
Ethanol...ethanol, where does it go. Ever purchase gasoline? Don't say you didn't know that it can contain up to 10% ethanol. Google ethanol oxygenate.
"Wind power, build it and they will come. Where I live, there is rarely a day without some wind. Many areas are perfect for wind generation."
Ah...the wind argument. This has been hashed over many times at SDA before. Wind power is not baseload power. If you do not know what baseload power is, do some homework first.
Countries like Germany are one of the largest users of wind (wiki wind power in germany), but they generate more than three times in that in Nuclear (wiki nuclear power in germany).
If wind is so great, why is Germany building 26 Brown coal burning plants? (google coal power in germany). Hint: Baseload power. Build it and they will come? Nope.
"Storage? Once upon a time, a man wondered if he could fly. Incentive my dear Watson, incentive. Have you heard about the new battery technology that a major US military manufacturer is investing in?"
Trust me, I have heard about "new battery technology" since the 1970's. And somehow, they always fall down in the cost. Will the problem get solved someday?...yes. Is there any near term technology that that will solve this in the next 10 years?...nope.
In a remote home off the grid, wind might make sense, but for large scale industrial power, after buying the wind turbine, and backup capacity (gas turbine) this remains expensive power.
Regards nuclear, even TJ Rogers the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor and Sunpower (maker of high efficiency solar cells) thinks nuclear is the best bet for large scale power generation.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/
Amazing thing this interweb thingy.
Posted by: Dave in AB at April 18, 2008 9:56 PMYesterday, there was a meeting of farmers and carbon trading scammers in central Alberta, south of Edmonton.
All in all of 15 farmers attended. Not much of anything happened, just an information sort of session to see how the scam would work.
The scammers? Later. Perhaps you may be surprised, though once you know, it all kind of fits together.
Just to add to the above,
The rest of the farmers, likely in the thousands were busy farming, those that attended just pretended to be farmers to get some of that free money scam. On the face of it you can’t blame them, human nature, like the electricity, will take the route of least resistance, show me the money.
Dave in AB at April 18, 2008 9:56 PM
If the troll comment was for me, apparently you here at SDA are more delicate than I had thought.
I said I had only seen one outlet in Eastern Canada selling ethanol mixed fuel. ONE. So where does the rest go?
What's been hashed out here before is of little consequence to me. As I said, the wind farm closest to me is going to provide power to 24,000 homes. So, let's say it went down half the time, which isn't going to happen but just say. Then that's half as much demand on conventional sources, isn't it?
If the Wright Brothers had the same attitude about innovations as you do about batteries, guess what? I'll post a link sometime soon re: the new technology. It's really quite simple, and thats what usually works best.
Your off the grid synopsis is relative to usage. Depends on how much electricity is required. You would be amazed at how little people have made do with in the past. New technology in home heating, insulating, lighting and energy efficient appliances make a difference too.
I had a quick gander at your link. Your references opinion on Ethanol being a total waste is questionable. Toyota's racing team doesn't think so. They get approx. 20% more power and 20% more fuel efficiency using 100% ethanol based racing fuel.
And I didn't mention nuclear power.
Hugger
Perhaps if those working in highrises, then go to underground parking to go home to attached garages, and never set foot outside, would learn that weather changes 4 times a year.
Hey, what's that white stuff flying outside? I didn't think my dandruff was *that* bad.
Paul
Calgary
07:00 thru 21:46 MT
Dave in AB - sense at last. Thanks.
Posted by: Tenebris at April 18, 2008 11:54 PMGreg/Hugger,
No doubt you consider yourself reasonable. From here you sound like a hysterical panicked Luddite.
So, let's say it went down half the time, which isn't going to happen but just say.If any wind turbine farm was "up" -- producing power -- half the time anywhere in the world, I can guarantee the owners would be holding news conferences. The availability fraction for a wind turbine is generally held to be thirty percent... in areas where the wind is particularly strong. When somebody in one of those 24,000 homes switches on a light, the control system at the power plant makes an infinitesimal adjustment to the fuel feed. The chance that a corresponding increase in wind will occur at just the right time is so tiny that you'd be far better off betting your whole salary on a single spin of a slot machine.
We have a lot of wind turbines here in Texas, and hardly a day goes by that a truck doesn't pass my store carrying another one. And you know what? -- those turbines turn all the time, making just enough power to stabilize them, and that power is thrown away (in heat!) in big resistors because it's never available when it's needed, only when the wind blows. You know why they're there? Because there's a subsidy, a big one. When money falls from the sky, Texans find their big hats useful. Power generation? It is to laugh. Add up the oil to make the fiberglass blades, the coal to make the steel for the tower and shafts, the natural gas to smelt the copper in the generators, the power to make the silicon in the electronics and the glass and carbon fibers, and and and, the chance that any wind turbine will produce enough net power to pay back the Diesel fuel to truck it to its site and erect it is zero.
As for batteries, your Wright Brothers analogy is crap. The Wright Brothers knew what their problems were: getting enough power from the primitive engines of the time, and control. They worked on those things, and solved them, at least partially -- but none of the solutions they arrived at are still in use in aviation! Now, Google "electromotive series". You will get a list. Pick two substances off it, and you have a battery. The farther apart the two substances are on the list, the better the battery as a power source. BUT (by a curious coincidence) the best candidates for battery electrodes are also highly reactive -- for which read, explosive, corrosive, poisonous, or otherwise highly dangerous. Every scientist in the world knows that list exists and how to get access to it. And that's all there is. Every possible battery in the world is on that list. "New elements" aren't even credible comic-book material any more. Do you really suppose things haven't been tried?
And even if you found the wonder battery, you've still got to make it, so what you need to do is go back to research: how much is available? The only battery material in the Universe that's available in quantities large enough to make enough batteries to make a difference is lead. For everything else, you're looking at anything from triple to a thousand times the current level of mining and refinement, mostly using chemicals that would make any sane EPA bureaucrat's ears curl. Do you know why there aren't any Tesla Roadsters on the road? Because the makers bought the entire production of the factory that made the batteries -- and didn't even get enough for all the prototypes!
Solar power is the next best thing to useless in Canada; your sun angle isn't high enough. Wind power is a toy anywhere; it isn't dependable, and it's even more diffuse than solar. Both of them are boondoggles designed to separate you from your tax money and give power to the bureaucrats who "manage" the projects. People who tell you otherwise are lying, and the only thing the numbers they give you establish is that liars can figure.
Regards,
Ric
KS
Read the thermodynamics article, commented on it in this 008517.html#comments thread.
It is, in my opinion, laughably flawed.
Posted by: Samuel at April 19, 2008 12:11 AMwe need to find a way to store electricity when the breeze isn't blowing.
Some tout (and get paid to promote) hydrogen as an option for energy storage. That's just silly, and my opinion comes from 8+ years working in detail engineering design for a manufacturer/supplier of liquid and gaseous H2.
Posted by: PiperPaul at April 19, 2008 12:14 AMThere seems to be a cognitive dissonance in the belief that humans are the cause of, and solution to (much like alcohol) "global environmental problems".
What hubris, eh. Then again, people whose desired goal is to control others must always cloak their real intents in a mask of furry, fact-free feel-goodness.
Anyway, enjoy the words and video below. It illustrates just how tiny and insignificant we puny humans are in the bigger scheme of things.
=====================
THE UNIVERSE SONG, from Monty Python's THE MEANING OF LIFE
=====================
Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown, and things seem hard
or tough.
and people are stupid, obnoxious or daft,
and you feel that you've had quite enouuuuuuuuugh...
Just
re-
member that your standing on a planet that's evolving,
and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour...
That's orbiting at ninety miles a second, so it's reckoned,
the sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
are moving at a million miles a day.
in an outer spiral-arm at forty thousand miles an hour
of the galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars,
it's a hundred thousand lightyears side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand lightyears thick,
but out by us it's just three thousand lightyears wide.
We're thirty thousand lightyears from galactic central point,
we go 'round every two hundred million years.
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions,
in this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
in all of the directions it can whiz.
As fast as it can go, that's the speed of light you know;
twelve million miles a minute, that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember when your feeling very small and insecure,
how amazingly unlikely is your birth,
and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
=====================
Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss
The editor of TIME has no sense of history because of pure ignorance. That cover has insulted the soldiers who died in WWII.
Global Warming is a hoax, WWII was not.
The libs at Time don't get it, are ignorant and just prove what a bunch morons are in the media at large.
Posted by: LEDA at April 19, 2008 12:53 AM...as for ethanol, Toyota Racing doesn't use ethanol because it's "green". Oh, the guys at the ad agency smile and include that in the commercials, knowing dullards like you will go "Oh wow! Toyota is a cool company! Think I'll buy a Prius!" and the bean-counters at Toyo Kogyo will smile real big, but ethanol has been used as a racing fuel for decades, long before anybody ever heard of "global warming".
Gasoline burns (in fact, explodes) as a vapor. Ethanol doesn't do that, and in a sport where violent crashes are expected that's a big deal. Ethanol also burns as a liquid, which makes the design of carburetors and injectors easier, and they can pump extra fuel through the engine to cool it, making the radiator smaller for less wind resistance. A road car built on the same principles would get about 10 MPG. And if the racers had a free choice they'd run their engines on naptha and nitromethane, which would either cut the fuel required by half or double the time between pit stops.
As a road fuel, ethanol absorbs moisture, which corrodes fuel system components. Fuel lines, valves, and the like thus have to be made of brass, stainless steel, or plastic instead of low-carbon steel as with gasoline, which means using up oil (for the plastic), digging the world's biggest mine a bit deeper, and/or killing off another couple of guys up at Sudbury to get the wherewithal -- not counting the emissions from refining and the energy needed to control them. You need considerably more of it, both by volume and by weight, for the same distance traveled, which isn't much for the individual owner but the extra weight and volume being carried around aggregates to even more reduced efficiency. And the very existence of the argument over whether it's a net energy gain means that any gain is minuscule. If you're burning oil in the tractor and at the distillery anyway, is there any gain over just burning it in the car? Not much, if any.
Ethanol isn't a fuel, except by accident. It's a farm subsidy, pure and simple, no different from paying the farmers not to grow the corn.
Regards,
Ric
Do you know why there aren't any Tesla Roadsters on the road? Because the makers bought the entire production of the factory that made the batteries -- and didn't even get enough for all the prototypes!
Isn't Elon Musk (internet PayPal gazillionaire, founder of Tesla Roadster) in a lawsuit now? I'll bet that might cause yet another delay in making the uber-expensive cars available for sale.
Posted by: PiperPaul at April 19, 2008 1:00 AM...as for ethanol, Toyota Racing doesn't use ethanol because it's "green".
But Ric, please explain the race car concept of injecting dihydrogen monoxide into the chamber to create a denser mass of air for combustion, making more horsepower.
Guess what? Dihydrogen monoxide is WATER! Yes, water!
The evil oil companies have been suppressing this fact for years, just like soon they will be assassinating the key designers of that Indian car that runs on air (as was mentioned here in another thread recently).
Fight the power!
Posted by: PiperPaul at April 19, 2008 1:10 AMDecades ago, there was a 'Super Carburator' that would increase gas milage dramatically. Every one knew the Oil Companies were keeping it off the market.
The media promoted it, just as Time Mag promotes AGW and claims big oil suppresses action on curbing GW - as it did with Super Carb.
One problem with the Super -- it did not exist.
Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 19, 2008 1:37 AMDid you watch the interview with Rockefellers son on global warming when Alex Jones called in and raised the fact the ice on mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn were also melting. His response, they are closer to the Sun. The next leader of the world economy has a Paris Hilton brain. Where is eugenics when you need it.
Posted by: BJ at April 19, 2008 2:20 AMDave in Ab and Ric Locke are dismissive of storage technology and I have to conclude that they are being far too conventional and limiting themselves by an over-familiarity with existing technology.
One ideal system for storing power from intermittent sources such as wind power is superconductive magnetic energy storage (SMES). SMES units are in use around the world for power-levelling applications and they are exactly what one needs for ones windmill. The one drawback that they have is the need for liquid helium to cool the superconductor as well as associated refrigeration equipment. Once room temperature superconductors are developed the cost will decrease significantly. I couldn't find any recent cost estimates, but a Sandia National Laboratories report from 1997 gave the cost as $1200-1500/Kwh. This is in line with the costs of solar power. I'm not sure whether there would be any decrease in costs should this technology become more widespread as Helium is in short supply and SMES units made with superconductors that operate at liquid N2 temperatures are significantly more expensive than low temperature superconductors.
Personally, I don't like wind power as it requires giving up large tracts of land to noisy windmills for rather miniscule amounts of power. If I was living in the country I might have a windmill but would prefer solar power for energy self-sufficiency. What the "environmentalists" who are pushing alternative energy sources can't seem to understand is that energy density is the primary reason that solar power, wind power, etc are not widely used. Nuclear power is the greenest option at this time and it represents mature technology with well defined construction costs.
We know the risks of nuclear power (rather small) and the biofuel program has likely already killed far more people than nuclear power has in the 60 or so years that it has been around.
I'm not sure whether there would be any decrease in costs should this technology become more widespread as Helium is in short supply and SMES units made with superconductors that operate at liquid N2 temperatures
Liquefying nitrogen (first you've got to distill air ("clean" feed) or find an N2-rich waste stream (scrubbing)) is VERY expensive in electricity.
Liquefying He I don't even want to think about - it pretty much only exists in usable quantities by mining.
But wait - there's lots of it in the sun! Maybe we could make some kind of space dump truck to go get it and bring it back? Or even better, a pipeline!
Posted by: PiperPaul at April 19, 2008 2:59 AMTo the poster whose expertise seems to lie in the realm of the drive by smear.
Your first para is classic example of a dullard. You can't even carry a logical thought to its conclusion.
Like I care why Toyota uses it. They use it don't they? It's a renewable energy resource isn't it? And Toyota doesn't seem to need to impress dullards to sell cars. That argument would be more appropriate for the big 3. That's GM, Ford and Chrysler for those of you with challenges.
To further your thoughts, (sic), using oil to manufacture fuel lines is less desirable than a vehicle that doesn't use any gas/hydro carbon based fuel. Good thinking Einstein. So reroute the fuel lines to make them easily accessible. No biggie.
Ethanol is not a fuel you say. Odd, I remember a farmer who distilled his own from cull potatoes and used it for his farm tractors. He also used it for the heat source to produce more. That was 20 years ago. Perhaps you could provide some links to support your more is less theory on fuel efficiency etc. Was that straight out of the Jr. Oil Company execs training manual?
Look down in the thread for more technical input. I don't advocate massive use of Ethanol fuels at this time, but in given applications, it like many other substitutes, can be part of the solution.
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2008 8:46 AMPosted by: Ric Locke at April 19, 2008 12:06 AM
And you sound like the typical denier. Quite frankly I don't see the relevance to arguing this with someone from Texas. I live in Canada. You do things your way, if you like. Apparently large segments of the biggest consumer of fossil fuels on earth would prefer to remain as such. Personally, I don't. I also worked within the controlling Oil industry and am fully aware of what vipers they are. Texas, isn't that where J.R.'s character was supposedly based? A little humour there.
All of your arguments seem based on the shortcomings of current technology and applications. It's an industry in its infancy. Given the amount of time, resources and investment that has been afforded to the Oil and gas industry, distribution and usage thereof, this industries potential will produce results. To deny that is to deny all technological innovations since the wheel.
I'm writing as I read your post.
Here we go with the oil it takes to make the blades etc. argument. I addressed that with the other denier and his fuel line argument.
The whole of your battery's r us theory I address with a posting that I tried to post about 45 minutes ago on the other thread re: GW. It hasn't been posted yet. It deals with new battery technology etc. I will post it here as well.
As for your assessment of solar power in Canada, I offer this. Over 20 years ago a young fellow that I went to public school with designed and built an energy efficient 3 bed, 2 story home, base largely on insulating and solar concepts. Many of them via his own ingenuity. The home required virtually no other source for heat. It did have a utility wood stove that was used to supplement heat, hot water and could be used as a cooking alternative. This is just one example. Based on this and many other examples I have have encountered, I reject your sun angle assessment.
Your comments on the Wright Bros. technology not being used today. Imagine that. How long ago was that?
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2008 9:22 AMFor Eeyore at April 18, 2008 8:46 PM, and all intereted parties, I offer this information. It encompasses areas from Electric vehicles, hybrids, wind power, water power, solar power, conventional grids, military applications and more.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/292614
http://pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=4628
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-09-2008/0004733614&EDATE
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batteries&id=18086&a=
Excerpts from the last link;
The implications are enormous and, for many, unbelievable. Such a breakthrough has the potential to radically transform a transportation sector already flirting with an electric renaissance, improve the performance of intermittent energy sources such as wind and sun, and increase the efficiency and stability of power grids--all while fulfilling an oil-addicted America's quest for energy security.
Much like capacitors, ultracapacitors store energy in an electrical field between two closely spaced conductors, or plates. When voltage is applied, an electric charge builds up on each plate.
Ultracapacitors have many advantages over traditional electrochemical batteries. Unlike batteries, "ultracaps" can completely absorb and release a charge at high rates and in a virtually endless cycle with little degradation.
Hugger
Thanks, Greg.
You might also be interested in the back editions of Popular Mechanics from the 1950's. Weren't we supposed to be driving our own hovercars by now? And from the 1980's: weren't we supposed to have all of our power supplied by fusion reactors by now? Or the 1990's and our hydrogen-powered fuel cells?
All of the answers to man's energy needs always seems to be just 10 years away. I'm sure that someday, all of the preceding will become cost-effective. In the meantime, however, we have to make do with what we've got.
Posted by: Eeyore at April 19, 2008 11:08 AM"Look, we need a national and international Manhattan Project to solve this problem and my candidacy involves that."
Oh dear. Does hubris have no limits?
Evidently not.
Posted by: JJM at April 19, 2008 11:38 AMFurther to my last, the same political slant that believes the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake, also believes the world can be mobilized to fight climate change?
Give me a break.
Question: would Stengel be willing to go to war over climate change?
Posted by: JJM at April 19, 2008 11:48 AMEeyore at April 19, 2008 11:08 AM
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2008 3:08 PMY2Kyoto: Bomb Kyoto!. . ??
Todays rib splitter. Thanks!
OBTW, today at 10:15 am here in Courtenay it was snowing. Not sticking or anything, but clearly, there was light snowfall.
There is snow in all the mountain passes and no doubt points east of us are due for more chilliness. Brace yourself. = TG
Posted by: TG at April 19, 2008 3:24 PMQuestions about where the bio-fuels are going and why so few retail outlets, in this thread.
Bio/ethanols are widely used by military and emergency fleets as a hedge against sudden shortages of petroleum fuels. Hydro and municipal service fleets also use much ethanol production.
Safeway and Walmart fleets are converting to alternate fuels and saving thousands in the process.
autobloggreen.com/search/?q=Safeway&searchsubmit=
=================
. . . observed effects related to high ethanol exposures
from excessive beverage consumption in context with the low exposures
encountered with normal handling and use of ethanol in the occupational
setting.
Ethanol is a commonly used industrial solvent, reactant and intermediary
product, potential exposure to which in the occupational setting is by the
inhalation and dermal routes. It is unique amongst chemicals in that it is
present in many consumer goods and pharmaceutical preparations and it
has been consumed by humans for millennia as a beverage and as a
constituent of foods.
inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/64175.pdf
=================================
This is from a 341 page PDF. You can*t imagine all the uses for ethanol aside from a motor fuel.
More ehthanol is being used as E10 and E15 parts of gas and diesel fuels, but we, the public, come last after industry and transport. = TG
TG at April 19, 2008 5:44 PM
Thank you TG for a response and honest effort. The pdf. doc doesn't address how much of the usage is in addition to previous usage, and ventures into some obscure areas, i.e.Ethanol is readily absorbed by the oral and inhalation routes and subsequently, metabolized and excreted in humans.
The American reference is subject to the old adage of from whence it comes, but does add some weight and food for thought. I wonder though, how much volume of biofuel is represented by this.
Again, I thank you for presenting some items for consideration.
Hugger
Posted by: Greg at April 19, 2008 7:01 PMWhen I saw the cover, I was sure it was a joke. I described it to my husband: at first I thought it was a big carrot and then realized it was a tree. Ha, ha, we had a big laugh.
Then I realized the joke's on me. That's the real cover! I'm holding my head.
John Cleese of Monty Python mourns the loss of satire: the most outlandish realities have shoved satire right out of the frame.
I altogether agree with the Iwo Jima veteran who calls this juvenile set-up a "disgrace". Thank God my grandfathers and dad, who fought in WWs I and II, are not alive to see the extreme toddler behaviour of today's Peter Pans, of both sexes, who never grow up in our Never Neverland culture, and are running us into the ground.
Kyrie eleison.
Posted by: lookout at April 20, 2008 9:38 AMPOP QUIZ for samuel:
What's the largest source of greenhouse gases on the planet?
...
(waiting)...
HINT: Click here for details on this deadly substance. It may also educate you in the rationale of "buyer beware" regarding modern-day false prophets who demand fealty to AGW.
Soccermom is correct, above: check out the prices of bread or corn flakes since this time last year and explain how the scam of biofuels hasn't hit the Law of Unintended Consequences. For us, it's a financial hit; for 3rd Worlders, it's a bit more deadly than that.
Ethanol is a less efficient fuel than gasoline, and far more expensive to produce. If it were truly the "wonder alternative fuel" as the left-bots would have us believe, why... it wouldn't really need all those subsidies or government-mandated additive levels... would it?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
... and ET is correct; this picture is truly disrespectful to those who gave their lives for freedom against tyranny in War Two.
mhb
Posted by: mhb at April 20, 2008 10:13 PMhere is one solution to the silly custom of burning petro or biofuels.
TH!NK city is a fully environmental vehicle, emission free and 95 percent recyclable. It reaches a top speed of 100 km per hour and can drive up to 180 km on one single charge.
http://www.think.no./think/Our-Company
There are may other makes on roadways in the EU and the USA.
We Canadians seem unable to grasp the economy of *No gas to buy*. = TG
Posted by: TG at April 21, 2008 12:15 AMPiperPaul- FYI, the race car concept of injecting water vapor into the cylinders to make more power is a poor man's variant on an intake charge cooler. The water itself adds no power, it only prevents a loss of power and serious engine damage from runaway detonation. The water vapor, in small amounts, also acts to quench miniscule hot spots which may form on carbon deposits on top of the pistons. Done right, it allows high compression and big bore engines to run more timing and higher engine temperatures with less risk of engine damage. Water injection is also used in diesel engines, where the water is added to the hot cylinder after the point of ignition, where it flashes to steam, and adds to the expansion cycle. The steam also adds to the volume of exhaust gases which spool the turbine. Again, it is a poor man's power adder and the main benefit to adding water is to allow other aspects of the tune-up to be "over maximized" while mitigating the possibility of hard core engine damage. Water must also be used in very carefully metered amounts, or you can just as easily be making sacrifices to the metal gods by doing it wrong.
Posted by: Bill Greenwood at April 21, 2008 12:47 AMTIME is your avrage liberal fasicts rag its 99% lies and fabrication it once named ADOLPH HITLER as MAN OF THE YEAR in 1938 it once featured CHER in askimpy outfit and realy gave a shock to breakfast eaters with its sickly front cover of that iceman and named GORBECHEV as MAN OF THE DECADE i mean TIME is about the worse of the liberal left-wing rags printed
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at April 21, 2008 1:21 AMWow, so many comments! Does no one remember the old axiom that by the time anything appears on the cover of Time Magazine as the next big thing, it is already over?
Um folks?
Pull it together. I can say look at the facts but it will just get brushed off as being liberal claptrap.
Which it isn't. It is shocking though how many people enjoy this bandwagon just because they feel it is a partisian issue.
Hey if your kids school hold a paper recycling drive for earth day turn in all your copies of TIME and hope they are recycled into TOILET PAPER
Posted by: Spurwing Plover at April 21, 2008 5:30 PMBefore submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.