Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

map wrote-

Quote:

Isn't the US taxpayer paying BILLION of dollars to secure the oil fields in Iraq....so that in a few years Exxon can sell it to us at the pump?

They don't sell it to you. They give it you. They only let you think you are paying for it so that you have something to moan about. Doesn't the government provide you with the money to get it if that's what you want. How could you have provided yourself with your money? You wouldn't know where to start.

Using fields to produce ethanol would soon quadruple the price of food which is shooting up anyway.

Gunga's solution is the only feasible alternative. Everything else is bullshit except for those in the business of GW scaremongering and they are soon at it once they do well out of it. Gunga is a bit extreme. I would run it in stages because I know what little babies we all are.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Foxfyre, that is why ethanol is not the future of our energy independence....and the exact reason that plug in hybrids and electric cars ARE. There are now cars that will go 400 miles on a single charge....add a small gasoline engine to recharge the batteries and there you go. The infrastructure is already in place (electricity everywhere, gas stations everywhere).

ethanol is what the car manufactures want because they can still sell engine parts (electric motors don't require near as much maintenance as ICE engines do).

What will be the source of the added electrical power demand the plug in hybrid vehicles will create? Coal? Natural Gas? Nuclear? Renewables?

So-called renewable solar & wind power cost about three times as much as conventional sources, thus wiping out any efficiency gains with hybrid vehicles. It would be far cheaper to use the natural gas directly in the vehicles than to burn it to produce electrical power (currently about 16% of our total production). That leaves only coal or nuclear. Extra energy from coal would ethe economic impact of imported petroleum, but leave the atmospheric effect unchanged. This leaves only nuclear.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Our Subaru Forrester is not a hybrid but does get 35 mpg highway

That's very good, 50% better than Subaruy officially says.

Nope, that's pretty much as Subaru advertised when we bought it, and pretty much as it is advertised by everybody.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/overviews/2007/subaru/forester.php

It is an amazing little SUV, however, with good acceleration, good highway stability, excellent fuel economy, and an excellent safety rating. That's probably why General Motors and other U.S. auto makers are looking to build their hybrids, etc. in China so they will be able to compete with the good Japanese cars. That won't help out the U.S. economy as much as if the Feds would leave the auto makers along and allow them to do what they need to do to build cars that will compete here.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Surprising Truth About Global Warming

Order it here... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0525950141&itm=2

foxfyre wrote: According to our recent discussion, your view would be that those insiders who are or have been among the "IPCC scientists" and who are now willing to speak out against the status quo pushed by the IPCC/UN should have more credibility than somebody trying to make big bucks with a book (along with commanding five or six figures to make speeches talking about AGW and its extreme perils), yes?

Your brief time away might have been properly utilized with a course in logic and an injection of honesty.

1) five or six figures for lectures earned by Mark Bowen? You found this information where? You made it up? If so, why not be honest and say so forthrightly? But perhaps you were thinking of Lomborg? Do you have figures for him?

2) all of which is irrelevant in any case. The credibility problem arises where scientists (or others) defending or speaking for wealthy corporate interests like tobacco or oil and energy are funded by those industries and/or by large PR firms hired by those industries.

3) that credibility comes even further into question where the defences offered follow established public relations precedents evident in earlier such campaigns...eg tobacco ("Claims that nicotine is addictive or that smoking causes cancer simply aren't matters of scientific consensus".

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Foxfyre, that is why ethanol is not the future of our energy independence....and the exact reason that plug in hybrids and electric cars ARE. There are now cars that will go 400 miles on a single charge....add a small gasoline engine to recharge the batteries and there you go. The infrastructure is already in place (electricity everywhere, gas stations everywhere).

ethanol is what the car manufactures want because they can still sell engine parts (electric motors don't require near as much maintenance as ICE engines do).

What will be the source of the added electrical power demand the plug in hybrid vehicles will create? Coal? Natural Gas? Nuclear? Renewables?

So-called renewable solar & wind power cost about three times as much as conventional sources, thus wiping out any efficiency gains with hybrid vehicles. It would be far cheaper to use the natural gas directly in the vehicles than to burn it to produce electrical power (currently about 16% of our total production). That leaves only coal or nuclear. Extra energy from coal would ethe economic impact of imported petroleum, but leave the atmospheric effect unchanged. This leaves only nuclear.

And I've said a few dozen times in this thread that nuclear is the best option right now. The problem is that most of our oil goes to power or cars, not our homes. I doubt that a nuclear powerplant is an option for our vehicles....unless you consider the plug in hybrid technology.

Then you need to install carbon sequestering technology on our coal power plants.

But there is a lot of room with our current power grid and system to sustain millions of plug in hybrid vehicles. I can go back through this thread and find the United States government report that said that our current power system could support at least a 100 million vehicles to be plugged in overnight.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

So-called renewable solar & wind power cost about three times as much as conventional sources, thus wiping out any efficiency gains with hybrid vehicles.

And I have to disagree that COST is your measure of efficiency.

Renewable solar and wind power is more efficient than fossil fuels, regardless of the cost.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope, that's pretty much as Subaru advertised when we bought it, and pretty much as it is advertised by everybody.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/overviews/2007/subaru/forester.php

Oops, sorry, Foxfyre.

I didn't know that the US measure in imperial gallons. My bad.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nope, that's pretty much as Subaru advertised when we bought it, and pretty much as it is advertised by everybody.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/overviews/2007/subaru/forester.php

Oops, sorry, Foxfyre.

I didn't know that the US measure in imperial gallons. My bad.

Funny stuff.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

On page 791 Walter Hinteler wrote:
Carbon myths

Quote:
Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions

Quote:
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward

There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.

Walter, I agree that CURRENT hybrid cars are not much more efficient than smaller cars. However, with the plug in version cars can go over 100mpg, which is MUCH more efficient.

There are some new diesel engines that claim over 60mpg that are as clean as hybrid vehicles, but they're also a few thousand more than hybrids are.

0 Replies

Renewables are undoubtedly far more expensive than conventional sources (indeed nuclear is, except for hydroelectric, our cheapest source of electrical power.) As for "efficient" - it depends on what you mean by the word. In normal useage, renewables are far less efficient.

With respect to the plug in hybrid vehicles - this would quickly become a major source of new demand for electrical power, easily amounting to an increase of 20% or more, depending on the popularity of the new vehicles. This demand can be met only by the construction of new electrical power plants. (While some improvements in the electrical grid and diurnal power management are possible, the fact is we have lagged considerably in new power plant construction over the past three decades and the grid today is, at least in some regions, already seriously overtaxed.)

0 Replies

I agree that the most and best immediate action we should take is to eliminate current federal obstacles to private development of America's domestic oil reserves. If many in our government were to continue their insane invidious pursuit of the denial of significant profits to those who would reduce the net cost of our living, we will become a socialist tyranny that will cost us much more than money.

By the way, I think the phrase socialist tyranny is highly redundant. Socialism is the practice of the tyranny of organized theft of first our money and other property, and subsequently our other freedoms including right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That's probably why General Motors and other U.S. auto makers are looking to build their hybrids, etc. in China so they will be able to compete with the good Japanese cars.

Quote:

General Motor's new Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid concept car shows off the scalability of the hybrid system developed by the GM-DaimlerChrysler collaboration. The Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid concept is based on the production version of the gasoline-only Opel Astra GTC.

Developed in Russelsheim, Germany, the Astra Hybrid was built at the European International Technical Development Center. The diesel hybrid is a two-mode full hybrid and the 1.7-liter CDTI engine delivers up to 25 percent improved fuel economy (in the 60-70 mpg range).

I've the Diesel version (150 hp):

(That's from the UK-website, imperial gallons, like in the USA)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I agree that the most and best immediate action we should take is to eliminate current federal obstacles to private development of America's domestic oil reserves. If many in our government were to continue their insane invidious pursuit of the denial of significant profits to those who would reduce the net cost of our living, we will become a socialist tyranny that will cost us much more than money.

By the way, I think the phrase socialist tyranny is highly redundant. Socialism is the practice of the tyranny of organized theft of first our money and other property, and subsequently our other freedoms including right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The most and best immediate action we should take to reduce global warming is to allow more oil fields to go up?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
blatham wrote:
Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Surprising Truth About Global Warming

Order it here... http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0525950141&itm=2

foxfyre wrote: According to our recent discussion, your view would be that those insiders who are or have been among the "IPCC scientists" and who are now willing to speak out against the status quo pushed by the IPCC/UN should have more credibility than somebody trying to make big bucks with a book (along with commanding five or six figures to make speeches talking about AGW and its extreme perils), yes?

Your brief time away might have been properly utilized with a course in logic and an injection of honesty.

1) five or six figures for lectures earned by Mark Bowen? You found this information where? You made it up? If so, why not be honest and say so forthrightly? But perhaps you were thinking of Lomborg? Do you have figures for him?

2) all of which is irrelevant in any case. The credibility problem arises where scientists (or others) defending or speaking for wealthy corporate interests like tobacco or oil and energy are funded by those industries and/or by large PR firms hired by those industries.

3) that credibility comes even further into question where the defences offered follow established public relations precedents evident in earlier such campaigns...eg tobacco ("Claims that nicotine is addictive or that smoking causes cancer simply aren't matters of scientific consensus".

Here's a couple of links putting Mark Bowen on the speaker's circuit. I don't know what his fees for speaking are, but I don't know anybody like him who gets less than five figures for a major speech. Do you? The Ecospeakers mentions fees from $500 up to $25,000 for their speakers, and as no figure is listed for Dr. Bowen, we can be pretty sure it is a hefty amount. And do you know whether he is donating the proceeds of his books to charity? I have found no indication that he does, so it is reasonable to assume that he is profiting from them. It is well publicized (and has been previously posted) that Al Gore is commanding six figures for some of his speeches. I haven't seen that he is donating any of that to any cause but his own either.

http://www.rit.edu/~670www/Bowen.php3

http://www.ecospeakers.com/speakers/bowenm.html

So.....about those 100 or so scientists, some with impressive credentials, who are protesting the policies coming out of Bali, are you willing to state for certain that they are all doing so with ulterior motives and/or to receive funding from the oil and/or coal companies? Or are you now saying that insiders aren't necessarily noble when they are willing to speak against their former employers/associations in which case you will need to reverse your recently stated position in other posts.

And my time away may not have improved my logic and/or honesty--that would be difficult to say--but I don't just manufacture my opinions out of thin air. And I generally need more than a sense of moral authority and self-righteousness to condemn somebody whether another member or a scientist expressing a view contrary to my own.

And yes, at least one of those guys on that list of 100+ has also written a book:

http://www.independent.org/images/books/hot_talk_fpanel.jpg

0 Replies

I think Blatham is excessively attracted to certain conspiracy theories - ones that leave him too inclined to conclude that others who speak out against the excesses in the cant of the AGW fanatics or who merely express some skepticism regarding exaggerated claims - , must necessarily be in the employ of evil corporations, bent on preserving their current lines of profit.

There is little doubt that some of this is really true. Corporations (and others) do indeed work hard to preserve acceptance in the public mind for the ideas and activities that are at the core of their operations. However, there is no rational basis on which to assert that all or even most of the current objections to AGW doctrine are so motivated.

In addition it is at least odd that Blatham appears to utterly overlook similarly self-protective motivations in others, including advocacy groups and academics. Does he suggest that the all-too-human inclinations to self-advancement, profit and power are confined only to businessmen, and that political movements, academics and bureaucrats are somehow immune to such temptations??

Bernie's attitudes here are a bit Medieval - al those who oppose him are necessarily motivated by the devil (or some devilish corporation). This is unreasonable, and unworthy of him.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think Blatham is excessively attracted to certain conspiracy theories - ones that leave him too inclined to conclude that others who speak out against the excesses in the cant of the AGW fanatics or who merely express some skepticism regarding exaggerated claims - , must necessarily be in the employ of evil corporations, bent on preserving their current lines of profit.

There is little doubt that some of this is really true. Corporations (and others) do indeed work hard to preserve acceptance in the public mind for the ideas and activities that are at the core of their operations. However, there is no rational basis on which to assert that all or even most of the current objections to AGW doctrine are so motivated.

In addition it is at least odd that Blatham appears to utterly overlook similarly self-protective motivations in others, including advocacy groups and academics. Does he suggest that the all-too-human inclinations to self-advancement, profit and power are confined only to businessmen, and that political movements, academics and bureaucrats are somehow immune to such temptations??

Bernie's attitudes here are a bit Medieval - al those who oppose him are necessarily motivated by the devil (or some devilish corporation). This is unreasonable, and unworthy of him.

Oil companies are also bending over backwards to actually HAVE respectablility on the ecology front rather than just wanting the image. The new technologies on how to make efficient, stable fuel from bio products whether corn, sugar cane, sweet potatos, or whatever or from the chicken and beef fats currently going on line here and there were no doubt researched by some of those very scientists that are now being maligned for consulting with the oil and gas industries. And it is the oil companies that are doing most of the investment to produce the renewable fuels.

I don't find it hard to believe that distinguished academics who have not actually done the research will buy into the popular, more PC point of view, and we all know the problems with climate modeling which is what probably MOST climate scientists have done rather than physical research.

I find it difficult to believe that a lot of distinguished and well credentialed academics would intentionally falsify research data to favor oil and gas companies.

Maybe I'm just naive.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that a lot of distinguished and well credentialed academics would intentionally falsify research data to favor oil and gas companies.

Maybe I'm just naive.

Well, sometimes it's just ... reading to fast. For instance misreading an Imperial (UK) Gallon for an US (liquid) Gallon :wink:

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't find it hard to believe that distinguished academics who have not actually done the research will buy into the popular, more PC point of view, and we all know the problems with climate modeling which is what probably MOST climate scientists have done rather than physical research.

I find it difficult to believe that a lot of distinguished and well credentialed academics would intentionally falsify research data to favor oil and gas companies.

Maybe I'm just naive.

I have less trust than you in the dispassionate objectivity of "distinguished academics". It could be because I know them better. Just like the rest of us they tend to follow fashion and cast their favored pursuits and research in the cant of whatever political buzz words and ideas are the currently favored sources of funding. Moreover, they are no more immune to economic incentives than anyone else I know. Finally they have egos and are inclined to value their own ideas and points of view far above others - even to the extent of denying evidence before them. They are not all like Einstein who labored for years in the attempt to resist the growing evidence for the truth of the strange new, but increasingly popular, ideas of quantum physics.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
I agree that the most and best immediate action we should take is to eliminate current federal obstacles to private development of America's domestic oil reserves. If many in our government were to continue their insane invidious pursuit of the denial of significant profits to those who would reduce the net cost of our living, we will become a socialist tyranny that will cost us much more than money.

By the way, I think the phrase socialist tyranny is highly redundant. Socialism is the practice of the tyranny of organized theft of first our money and other property, and subsequently our other freedoms including right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The most and best immediate action we should take to reduce global warming is to allow more oil fields to go up?

Yes! Yes, since the combustion of petroleum products has very little or nothing to do with global warming. The belief that it does is a myth which people adopt out ignorance or in the pursuit of political power.

If and when some scientist or group of scientists figures out a practical way to control solar radiation on the earth, that would really be worth discussing.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't find it hard to believe that distinguished academics who have not actually done the research will buy into the popular, more PC point of view, and we all know the problems with climate modeling which is what probably MOST climate scientists have done rather than physical research.

I find it difficult to believe that a lot of distinguished and well credentialed academics would intentionally falsify research data to favor oil and gas companies.

Maybe I'm just naive.

I have less trust than you in the dispassionate objectivity of "distinguished academics". It could be because I know them better. Just like the rest of us they tend to follow fashion and cast their favored pursuits and research in the cant of whatever political buzz words and ideas are the currently favored sources of funding. Moreover, they are no more immune to economic incentives than anyone else I know. Finally they have egos and are inclined to value their own ideas and points of view far above others - even to the extent of denying evidence before them. They are not all like Einstein who labored for years in the attempt to resist the growing evidence for the truth of the strange new, but increasingly popular, ideas of quantum physics.

So you agree with Blatham that scientists receiving funding from the oil and coal companies will rig the science in favor of those companies? Or can we think that those who would excessively state a mistruth in deference to their client's needs are more the exception than the rule?

However, having dealt with 'expert witnesses' for a good portion of my life, I do know you hire the witness who will say what you want said, and, when I had occasion to be one of those 'expert witnesses', I answered only what was asked and did not report everything I knew. At no time, however, was I asked to lie about anything.

But if we go with the point of view that scientists do lie for the benefit of whomever is paying them, then wouldn't we have to throw out all science and start over with sundials or something?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know