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

H2o Man- Exactly. And the proof of that thesis is found in the fine book-\

"Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery

Parados is not just slightly excrementious. He is completely full of sh.t and cannot read.

Note: He wrote:

Vestas doesn't provide wind power genoves.. It manufactures wind turbines.
Perhaps you should reconsider who it is that didn't read or think about the facts.
But my link read----

Parados is not just slightly excrementitious, he is completely full of sh.t

He obviously cannot read: Note-_He wrote-

quote:

"Vestas doesn't provide wind power Genoves. It manufactures wind turbines. Perhaps you should consider who it is that didn't think or read about the facts"

Parodox thinks the link said that Vestas manufactures wind power?

He must read at a fourth grade level. The link clearly says that VESTAS is AN ENERGY MANUFACTURER.



QUOTE

When happens when the government isn’t there to provide the crutch?

One of the biggest renewable energy manufacturers in Britain announced yesterday it is to cut more than half its UK jobs " blaming the government for failing to support the sector.

In a grave blow to the government’s ambitions to create a “green” export industry, Vestas, the world’s biggest manufacturer of wind turbines, will axe about 600 of its 1,100 UK employees, closing its factory in the Isle of Wight and cutting jobs elsewhere in the UK.”

So far, it’s not passing the test.

THE LINK DID NOT SAY 'PROVIDE WIND POWER, IT SAID 'ONE OF THE BIGGEST ENERGY MANUFACTURES.

VESTAS IS THE WORLD'S BIGGEST MANUFACTURERS OF WIND TURBINES.
**************
END OF QUOTE

Parados thinks that Vestas does not provide wind power. It is a manufacturer of wind turbines, he says.

Sure and Lockheed does not provide airplanes. It is a manufacrturer of Airplanes.

Parados is terminally stupid!!

Yes, indeed, genovesagato, what happens when the government is not there to provide the crutch? Like the nine billion dollars in subsidies the Bush administration gave the coal industry?

So, you disagree with Foxfyre who claims it has been in a warming cycle since the last ice age?

Yes, the link clearly says that and you clearly said they provide wind power. Fourth grade level? I won't argue with you there. Everything you do seems to be at the fourth grade level.

Correct.

Well I hope I'm right and you're wrong then, because looking at the scientific theories, ice ages tend to come upon us rather quickly. So, if we are not still in a warming trend since the last ice age, we could be seeing a new ice age in a relatively short period of time.

I think history has shown overall that warmer is more prosperous for humans and many other living things more than is cooler.

Evidence? Links?

Is parados telling me that an energy manufacturer does not provide wind power?

Does GM provide automobile power? Of course, without automobile manufacturers there is no automobile power.

Without the now defunct Wind Power Manufacturers, there is no wind power, provided THROUGH the devices the Wind Power Manfacturers make.

Parados wrote:

Re: H2O MAN (Post 3657029)
The weather is getting cooler when we are experiencing record highs? I posted a link to show that record highs. I suppose you think the entire world is just where you live.

You do realize that just because it is cooler where you are does NOT make the globe cooler. It only means you are experiencing cooler than normal weather which in a week could well be replaced with warmer than normal weather. Weather is rarely the average temperature.


WRONG_

Note:

Watts Up With That?
Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts Home About Projects Policy Glossary Resources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2008 " 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
19

02

2008


January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.

January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.

Because Parados is a coward and does not go near material which does not conform to his far left wing ideology, he never tried to rebut the following:

Another problem which the left wing hysterics on Global Warming do not acknowledge is the problem of China and India--both consider themselves developing nations.

When the conference on climate convenes in December, the US will find that if they continue to cripple American Industry with Obama's Socialistic and "Green" absurdities, the US will soon fall behind China and will become the second ranking Industrial Power in the world. ANY initiatives that purport to attack Global Warming will do nothing except cripple our country SINCE China and India will emit so much pollution that, IF co2 really causes global warming, the Chinese and India will be the prime polluters.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Coal has given parts of China a Dickensian feel, with miners coated with black soot and air that is thick with pollution.

Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Coal-burning factories like the Gu Dian steel plant have given Shanxi Province in China a Dickensian feel.
In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.

Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

Filters near Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis.

Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.

The sulfur dioxide produced in coal combustion poses an immediate threat to the health of China's citizens, contributing to about 400,000 premature deaths a year. It also causes acid rain that poisons lakes, rivers, forests and crops.

The sulfur pollution is so pervasive as to have an extraordinary side effect that is helping the rest of the world, but only temporarily: It actually slows global warming. The tiny, airborne particles deflect the sun's hot rays back into space.

But the cooling effect from sulfur is short-lived. By contrast, the carbon dioxide emanating from Chinese coal plants will last for decades, with a cumulative warming effect that will eventually overwhelm the cooling from sulfur and deliver another large kick to global warming, climate scientists say. A warmer climate could lead to rising sea levels, the spread of tropical diseases in previously temperate climes, crop failures in some regions and the extinction of many plant and animal species, especially those in polar or alpine areas.

Coal is indeed China's double-edged sword " the new economy's black gold and the fragile environment's dark cloud.

Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined. And it has increased coal consumption 14 percent in each of the past two years in the broadest industrialization ever. Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego.

To make matters worse, India is right behind China in stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants " and has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030.

Aware of the country's growing reliance on coal and of the dangers from burning so much of it, China's leaders have vowed to improve the nation's energy efficiency. No one thinks that effort will be enough. To make a big improvement in emissions of global-warming gases and other pollutants, the country must install the most modern equipment " equipment that for the time being must come from other nations.

Industrialized countries could help by providing loans or grants, as the Japanese government and the World Bank have done, or by sharing technology. But Chinese utilities have in the past preferred to buy cheap but often-antiquated equipment from well connected domestic suppliers instead of importing costlier gear from the West.

The Chinese government has been reluctant to approve the extra spending. Asking customers to shoulder the bill would set back the government's efforts to protect consumers from inflation and to create jobs and social stability.

But each year China defers buying advanced technology, older equipment goes into scores of new coal-fired plants with a lifespan of up to 75 years.

"This is the great challenge they have to face," said David Moskovitz, an energy consultant who advises the Chinese government. "How can they continue their rapid growth without plunging the environment into the abyss.

Okie- Either the left wing is too stupid to provide Evidence or Links or they are unable to do so.

Your comment to Monterey Jack is spot on.

Okie wrote--asking Monterey Jack--

quote

Evidence? Links?

end of quote

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder if the reason why more industry isn't lobbying for more emphasis on nuclear is because cap and trade will be so lucrative for so many? I'm thinking that the whole AGW issue may be driven by and traced to corporate opportunism and this will be obvious if we just follow the money.

end of quote--

That is not the end of the problem----

Quote from the Wall Street Journal column--Page A 6- Friday May 22nd.

The Chinese proposal, which asks for much deeper cuts than the Waxman-Markey bill is proposing, highlights one of the challenges facing the Obama administration and other supporters of more aggressive U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gases. Many U.S. lawmakers worry that U.S. businesses could suffer if they are subject to carbon caps that add costs to their operations and their Chinese rivals aren't. In response, some have proposed imposing tariffs on goods imported from countries that don't have strong greenhouse-gas controls. China has resisted any mandatory quotas on carbon emissions, and has said that such tariffs would violate international trade law."

**************************************************************

When the December meeting on the alleged Global Warming takes place, Obama will find that the Chinese and perhaps India will press for a greater cut of emissions than the US is proposing BUT ONLY IF THE US AND OTHER COUNTRIES GIVE A HALF OR ONE PERCENT OF THEIR YEARLY GDP TO HELP 'DEVELOPING COUNTRIES" LIKE CHINA AND INDIA IMPLEMENT E X P E N S I V E ANTI POLLUTION MEASURES.>

If Barack Hussein Obama acceeds to this madness, he is completely detached from reality.

To add a half or one percent of GDP to our outlays along with the massive expenditures by the Obama administration along with a horrendous Unemplyment rate that is growing, would be madness!!

But Obama may have to try to assuage the left wing crazies!

Montery Jerk is talking about the nine million dollars in subsidies that the Bush Administration provided the coal industry? He obviously doesn't know that the US was trying to keep up with the economy ( the Chinese ) which will bury us soon and cause our unemployment rate to fall even more preciptiously( courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.

quote:

Morning Edition, May 2, 2007 · Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of all fuels to produce energy. Coal is literally powering China's seemingly unstoppable rise to superpower status, but not without costs to people and the environment.

Coal miner Wu Gui, who has been working the mines for 34 years, describes his role in China's economy as "a glorious job."

"I am making a contribution to the country," he says. "If we couldn't find coal, China couldn't get richer and more powerful, and we wouldn't be able to improve people's living standards."

Beijing is relying on men like Wu to power its future, says Yang Fuqiang of the global Energy Foundation. He notes that China is the world's leading consumer of coal.

China will build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week. This massive appetite for coal means equally huge greenhouse gas emissions.

But Xu Dingming, one of the men in charge of China's energy policy, says coal-fired power plants are the quickest solution to its urgent need for more power.

China has more than 10 million people who still don't have electricity. In rural areas, many children have never seen an electric light.

Coal-fired power plants are not just bringing light to rural villages. They're also powering the factories that make up China's exploding manufacturing base. In the past year, China has added generating capacity that is equal to the whole of France's electricity grid.

But this ravenous demand for electricity is putting pressure on the coal mines " and there's a terrible price to be paid.

In the village of Xishui, 69-year-old Tou Deyue scrambles over the rubble outside his front gate.

"Look how it's all collapsed here," he says. "You can imagine how much worse it was underground."

Each day when he sees the rubble, he's reminded of his loss " his son died inside the coal mine, along with 71 others, in a gas explosion two years ago.

Tou says that the rising price of coal blinded the mine boss to everything. Three days before the explosion, someone had reported a gas leak in the mine. But the boss ignored it and ordered miners to keep working, Tou says. He says the boss only cared about production and profit " not the safety of workers.

China has 5 million coal miners and the search for coal kills thousands of them each year. But there's another price that the whole world will pay in terms of the effects on climate.

Beijing needs coal to fuel economic growth " and guarantee its very survival. Yet its coal habit means it will soon overtake the United States as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, some say as early as this year.

How much money and effort Beijing chooses to put into controlling the emissions will be a critical factor in global warming. If China doesn't act aggressively, its addiction to coal will have a profound effect, not just domestically but on the rest of the world as well.


End of quote

Parados, face it, Obama's plan is simply unrealistic. I agree with this editorial in the WSJ. Unless Obama manages to so destroy the economy of the country that energy use drops out of sight, but millions would starve in that scenario, not a very attractive way to go.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797838304214973.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

"On Monday, Mr. Obama said that the U.S. must "end the age of oil in our time," with "real results by the end of my first term in office." This, he said, will "take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy." Mark that one down as the understatement of the year. Maybe Mr. Obama really is the Green Hornet, or some other superhero of his current political myth.

....

For the foreseeable future, renewables simply cannot provide the scale and volume of energy needed to meet growing U.S. demand, which is expected to increase by 20% over the next two decades. Even with colossal taxpayer subsidies, renewables probably can't even slow the rate of growth of carbon-based fuel consumption, much less replace it."

http://members.cox.net/prtdesign/oil.html

"Oil and its geologic cousin natural gas provide 40% of the world's energy. Virtually all highway, air and sea transportation is powered by oil or its derivatives. In other words, everything you buy depends on oil to get it to you from wherever it was made or grown.
(If that didn't get your attention you might re-read it.)

But oil is more than just an energy source--it's also the source material for a vast array of other vital products, such as fertilizers. Among its many other benefits, oil makes it possible for just two percent of Americans to grow enough food not just for our own population but also to feed millions overseas.

If we Americans had to live on just our domestic oil output this would have been a huge problem. (Imagine the adjustments you'd have to make if your income were to fall 5% every year!) Fortunately oil is freely traded around the world, so we've always been able to buy enough from other countries to satisfy our consumption. Thus we've never had to come to terms with our plummeting domestic oil output.
As long as we could buy all the oil we wanted from other countries, few people outside the oil industry even noticed--let alone cared--that U.S. oil output was falling so fast, or that we were becoming so highly dependent on imported oil."





"So the EIA forecasts that by 2020 the world will be extracting 50 percent more oil per day than in 1999, as a result of 1) a doubling of OPEC's oil output; 2) resumption of full exports by Iraq; 3) new discoveries off Nigeria; and 4) "aggressive capacity expansion plans" by Venezuela."

And so, Parados, is anyone in their right mind going to believe the leading consumer of oil, the U.S., will be able to wean off of Middle East and Venezuelan oil (implied OPEC oil) in 10 years, meanwhile these same countries may be expanding oil exports? And does anyone in their right mind believe the first graph I posted can be materially altered by Obama's so-called excuse for an "energy plan?"

Of course---but, as usual, it is also clear that the fall out from Obama's fuzzy minded plan would be devastating. As Okie said, Oil will continue to be used and, if Obama's scheme is adopted, there are warnings of massive problems.

Who is warning us/

Right wingers?

No--Johm Dingell(a STALWART DEMOCRAT) and former chairman of the ENERGY and Commerce Committee said "Nobody realizes that cap and tradeis a tax and it's a great bug one"
(that's great--The economy is in shambles and Barack Hussein Obama wants to lay on another big tax).

Republican Mike Pence, chairman of the House Energy Working Group points out that anywhere between 1.7 Million and 7 Million jobs could be lost under the Democrats energy tax plan. Manufacturing plants and the jobs they create, will just relocate to foreign countries with less stringent environmental regulations and transport pollution to other parts of the world.


Global participation is critical to reducing the alleged global warming, yet Democrats have completely ignored this serious international concern.

Source-http://www.topix.com/forum/entertainment/TEM936NQJEVA71RU2

Obama's energy ideas are akin to the government mandating a sinking, drowning swimmer put on body armor to protect them from sharks. In waters that may not even have many sharks.

I guess the sharks won't get the swimmers, but the swimmers will only sink to the bottom faster, in other words, drown faster.

I would rather take my chances with sharks than try swimming with body armor.