|
last updated on
05/03/2016 06:37:35 AM
Weather Channel founder appears in new movie
Climate Hustle and calls Bill Nye The Science Guy a pretend scientist
The movie argues that the climate change catastrophe scenarios are part
of an “overheated environmental con job” aimed at creating hysteria to
drive public support for bigger government and ever-increasing regulation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/climate-hustle-anti-climate-change-film-to-air-in-/
Let's move mountains to save the planet
Literally, people are causing the land to shift because they are
"going green". Take the Tesla electric car for example, it all
seems so great, electric cars emit nothing out their tailpipe because
there is no tailpipe. No carbon dioxide, a greener planet. Not so fast,
the metals used in these cars are rare and require MORE MINING. Yes that
means more fossil fuels (fossil fuels is a misnomer, no fossils were
killed in the process) are used thus more pollution. There are other
factors such as most electric grids rely on the burning of natural gas to
create electricity. All major cities even those in California rely on this
carbon producing energy source, so basically the claims that electric cars
are saving this planet are hype, unless you consider saving the planet
from something that is not a threat saving the planet.
"All electric vehicles rely on parts with similar
environmental issues. Even solar panels depend on rare metals that have to
be dug out of the earth and processed in less-than-green ways"
So all actuality we need to stop moving mountains and find ways to
simply drive less, walk and bicycle more, and find other ways of cutting
energy use such as washing dishes by hand and buying fewer processed foods
which all require massive amounts of energy to produce and
distribute.
http://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/
2017 Prius Electric concept shows square
headlights are cool
For years square headlights have been snubbed, but
I have always liked them on my Wrangler and they are certainly going to
make a return to design in cars, the Prius concept car has 8 of them!
http://www.slashgear.com/gv/2017-toyota-prius-prime-gallery/
Glaciers are the result of global cooling!
As stated in an article written about a trip
to Pategonia in Subarus: "One of only three growing Patagonian
glaciers dams Argentino Lake until pressure from the rising water forces the glacier to rupture in spectacular fashion every four or five years."
Worrying about glaciers melting in spring is like worrying about that
lake your kids skate on every winter will melt in the spring.
There were 1300 "Starsky & Hutch"
cars made
The 1970's TV series featuring a red Ford Tourino with a bold white
stripe was a popular show. No one ever seemed to question that undercover
detectives don't normally go around in bold striped cars which attract
attention, though many of the cars that are "undercover" seem to
stand out, maybe more so, than a car that seems more likely to be driven
by teenagers rather than police, so maybe they were on to something.
http://starskytorino.com
Submersing server farms to cool them by ocen water
will not save the planet
But that's what we are led to believe by
this article which states that companies like Google and Microsoft are
going to submerse their server farms for internet. These will warm ocean
water, thus creating global warming. In fact why isn't any of these
environmental groups up in arms, they are going to place them closer to
icebergs than ever!
On community forums, some users questioned whether an undersea data
center could have an environmental impact,
including the
heating up of the water around the data center. But Microsoft
claimed on its website that the project envisages the use of data centers
that would be totally recycled and would also have zero emissions, when
located along with offshore renewable energy sources.
"No waste products, whether due to the power generation, computers,
or human maintainers are emitted into the environment," it said, pointing
out that the data center does not consume water for cooling or any other
purpose. "During our deployment of the Leona Philpot vessel, sea life in
the local vicinity quickly adapted to the presence of the vessel," it
added.
Notice how the quesition about warming was ignored only mentioning waste
products. That wasn't the question!
Microsoft said in an FAQ
that deployment in deepwater offers "ready access to cooling, renewable
power sources, and a controlled environment."
And how does
that part of the ocean stay so cool? Icebergs! Why would any
"environmentally friendly company" use icebergs to cool their computer
servers?
Of course when we look from the perspective of sanity, and
ask "how do icebergs keep their cool?" our logical answers is that
452 degree below zero space and 6 month winters where there is little to
no sun.really, keeps a constant cooling of the planet every 12 hour period
when there is no heat source on it's dark side by 452 degree below zero is
sufficient to deal with man's warming activities. Companies know this
that's why they want to try this out as it could save them cooling costs.
But when we accept that the warming of arctic waters is ok as an
offset to warming another part of the planet, we have to conclude that
those who keep pushing the concept ignoring cooling by space is
overwhelmingly taking care of man's warming in order to balance cooling
with warming, we unerstand that the theory of warming without cooling
doesn't hold water or ice.
Wind now powering 19 million homes?
Maybe, but how much of the power these 19 milthese homes are powered by
wind? In other words, is this like saying that all 330 million people in
the US are powered by vegetables? It doesn't break down how much of the
total energy consumed by homes is coming from wind.
The article at NPR stated: The U.S. wind power industry is celebrating after reaching a new
milestone in November: 70 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity. "That's
enough to power about 19 million homes," says Michael Goggin, senior
director of research at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).
That is 70 billion watts. Sounds like a lot but there are problems with
this statement and is an exaggeration. This figure "generating capacity"
refers often to power plants in general, but with wind turbines, this
becomes more complex. The power generating capacity in all forms does not
take into account
losses in
the grid. The alternator in a wind turbine is matched to it's MAXIMUM
possible output, but that is rarely achieved! Many times the wind turbine
is not operating at all, thus not producing power, other times when it is
operating it's producing 1/10th it's maximum rated capacity. How much
power does that wind farm generate in watt hours though??
When a light bulb with a power rating of
100W is turned on for one
hour, the energy used is 100 watt
hours (W·h). In understanding how many homes can be powered by wind
energy we find these claims are exaggerated as they are not expressed in
watt/hours.
Let's break down that PEAK and unrealistic 70 billion
watts capacity into watt hours. First, let's use a realistig figure of 20%
of that, since we would never see peak capacity since wind is not constant
24/7 and it's speed varies. That leaves us with 14 billion watts, wich
then "would power 3.8 million homes". That's about the city of Los
Angeles.
So let's see how much electricity Los Angeles uses in a
year. Now it gets really confusing, power companies refer to terawatt
hours. One terawatt hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately
114 megawatts for a period of one year.
One of the comments
in the NPR article stated :
"Distributed generation
feeding into the grid is fine as long as you are careful about feed-in
rates. At this point, small scale distributed generation is considerably
more expensive than conventional options. Advocates of distributed
generation typically want Harry Homeowner to be able to sell to the grid
either at retail cost or, even better, at a premium designed to subsidize
the use of inherently less efficient technologies. The effect of this, of
course, is to inflate the costs of power to all other customers of the
system."
OMG so the more we convert to solar and wind the
higher our base electric rates are going to be??
Tiny bubbles - how much water is on the planet?
The oceans hold about 96.5% of all Earth's water. Climate alarmists want
me to believe that there will be a 1 to 3 meter rise in sea levels. ROFL.
That simply makes no sense based on math. I get this data not from con men
but from the USGS.gov website. Imagine a glass of water filled with ice
and cool soda, and your friend telling you it will spill over the edges
when the ice melts. Laughable! Tell your friend that global warming is
going to melt all that 3.5% ice into the water and thus cause a massive
flood like Noah's Ark. Then laugh again.
To return to sanity and
seriousness, take a
look at this image from the USGS showing the size of the earth and the
total amount of water on it relative to it's mass. It's amazing to look
at. It provides a perspective at how little water there is on the planet,
basically a droplet. It's amazing that we have had in history many
"chicken littles" pop up on various things, going around scaring everyone
that the sky is falling, but now in the new millenium, hucksters with an
agenda have convinced them that it's not the sky that's falling, oh no,
it's that the oceans are rising.
3.5% of water is
held underground, in lakes, streams, rivers, in people and your dog, in
food, in plants, in water vapor seen and unseen, and in ice. About 2%
is held in ice caps and glaciers.
GWA's (Global Warming Alarmists)
want us to believe that 2% of the world's
water is going to cause most coastlines to be submurged? LAUGHABLE. Yet
they believe. Network television shows and news anchors like Rachel Maddow
preach doom/gloom/warming gospel frequently. They preach the solutions are
"clean energy". It's a product they all sell, whether it be to get your
attention to sell ad space, or to sell carbon credit schemes, there's
profit at every turn of continuing the farce.
Let's also compare it
this way, there's about 7 million cubic miles of water stored in ice caps
and glaciers. The entire amount of water on Earth is 332.5 million cubic
miles. That's a ratio of 1/47.5 or again, 2%. Is 2% change in anything
going to cause catastrophe? If we are talking precision bearings used on
high speed rotation mechanical devices well yes that may be a problem, but
we are talking about not even all 2% of ice caps and glaciers melting, at
most .5%.
There is no way in science hell that a .5% rise in the
oceans is going to cause catastrophe ever.
The other thing that's
absurdly ignored is that if the planet was a little warmer, that would
increase the evaporative cycle that same percentage .5%, thus we would see
more clouds, rain, snow, and ice cap development. Why can't these
alarmists understand this most basic of concepts?
reference
What happens when the US no longer needs foreign
oil?
It's not eutopia. Remember the "drill baby drill" mantra of
conservatives like Palin? It was the promise of America's greatness to be
independent of foreigh oil. That concept evolved from the beliefe that our
purchase of oil from Iraq spurred the ability for 9 hijackers to
commandeer planes and destroy the towers in NY. It's a pretty lame
argument yet it subsisted on it's own energy to this day. So looking back
now that there's a glut of oil, there are some warning signs alredy
emerging as to why independence is not always cracked up to be what it is,
need evidence? Just think of falling into an old mine shaft independently
and trying to get out on your own. Dependence is not evil. We need each
other.
Paris climate conference caused global warming
There are a few things to point out.
1) The burning of fuels used
to get all the participants there to this one global location is
extrordinary. It's estimated
it will produce 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide the building blocks of
life. Why do all these global warming alarmists constantly keep creating
more ways to producing more carbon waste?
2) The
call to reforest as a solution doesn't address how much carbon based
fuel will be used to maintain those trees, that is, trimming them and
disposing of the waste. In the pre-oil pre-industrial revolution this was
all done by hand. We are not going to have windmills provide us the energy
to chop trees and haul them away, it can only be done by using fossil
fuels (fossils don't actually provide fuel they come from breakdown of
organic matter inculding carbon the building block of life). So it's
rather fantastic to think that reforestation will solve the "problem" (as
if space at 452 degrees BELOW ZERO can't handle it) as the more trees you
have the more fossil fuels you will need to use to maintain them. I guess
that takes us back to the drawing board, which these days is on a tablet
and causes global warming.
3) Why do people want to regulate the
building blocks of life? This takes Facism to a whole new level.
Published November 30, 2015 while typing with cold fingers sitting in 45
degrees in Palm Springs which is below normal temperatures that global
warming alarmists never consider. They always scream when there's a head
wave and not a peep when there's a cold wave all of which keeps billions
of years of temperatures in balance. Keep in mind you cannot produce heat
from something that is at room temperature (fossil fuels) without equal
cooling. Cooling comes from O and 452 degree below zero space.
Combustion is photosynthesis in reverse
ref so if we have too much forest (thus more photosynthesis) global
warming alarmists will not be able to see through the trees that
photosynthesis is combustion in reverse.
Heat is energy - it is not
Satan.
Russia says it might be nice to have global
temperatures increase 3 degrees
Some might say that is a very selfish stance, but then wouldn't it be
equally as selfish for other countries to not want change? All my life I
heard "change is good".
Since they are a northern cold climate they reasonably believe that it
might be beneficial to them. Maybe it would be beneficial to the entire
world! What really gets me though is all the sky is falling
countries seem to not understand, that if the world gets warmer,
there will be more water evaporated into the air, and remain there, thus it would be nice to
see those studies that quantify how much of the worlds ocean rise will
actually end up suspended in mid air. Another interesting fact is that
Russia has pushed repeatedly for these studies to include the forests, which absorb carbon dioxide (all
plant life does this) in carbon emissions calculations. That means that
all current climate science is basicaly bogus as it doesn't even calculate how much is
absorbed in greenhouses let alone the rest of the world's plant life,
ground, etc!
referenceNASA: Antarctica gaining ice
11/1/2015
Climate keeps changing! Now the world's largest desert
is gaining ice more than it's losing it.
referenceAnti-climate leaders
New term to my ears, the term "anti-climate leaders" is how political
leaders are now described if they don't fit into the round hole of climate
science. Just a reminder, climate is always changing yet these people
claim it's set in icebergs. When we look at the use of the term it, like
many terms used in climate science, doesn't make much sense. Who on earth
is "anti-climate" really? Everyone knows climate changes, sometimes you
have to wear a rain coat, other times you have to shovel snow, and yet
other times you walk in the balmy breezes of summer. They really should
say "anti-climate change" though that's not that accurate either, should
be "anti-climate extreme permanent change due to invisible gasses" which
one could acronymize to "ACEPCDTIG leaders".
reference
Lexus new cardboard car
When you are done with it "you just throw it into the recycle bin". This
is a
real car that drives!Day time running lights
I have been noticing a lot more cars with their headlights on or these
newer GLED (Glaring Light Emitting Diode) lights on during the day. On the
most part I have found them to be a distraction, annoying, glaring, and a
nuisance. In looking into this it seems the National Highway Safety and
Transportation Authority feels the same way.
NHTSA said that
DRLs do not improve highway safety and may, in
fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS. Quite simply, if most vehicles have DRLs,
it's harder to spot those who do not. NHTSA also said glare from the DRLs
of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers. -
source
So
why are these popping up everywhere more than just one year ago?
Apparently the NHSTA has not made them mandatory here in the US but I have
noticed like 1/3 of the cars around here with headlights on or those
stupid running lights on during the day and it's like suddenly there's so
many of them. They are so annoying, distracting.
Normally i drive
focusing mostly on what's in front of me as that's what's most important
to pay attention to, and now when one of these cars come from the other
direction it takes my eyes off what's in front of me and to it and they
are glaring.
I looked up some info and GM pushed the gov to allow
them to put them on all cars and other countries have mandatory
requirements. US government is smarter, doing it's job, hasn't made them
mandatory from what I can tell so far. I read that they said repeatedly
that research shows they are not any safer.
source
So I figured out why there are so many of them, we have
a lot of Canadians that drive down here to the Palm Springs area, some
move here and they bring down a Canadian car, some have 2nd homes here and
they bring down a Canadian car and leave it here and register it in
California, others sell their Canadian cars here and fly back, etc.
It's mandatory for Canadian cars to have running lights.
So we
keep getting Canadian cars that have these stupid lights on all the time.
They are wrecking my country.
Went to jail for not complying with city regulations regarding a smal
wind turbine on his property.
Engine oil analysis, a "blood test" for your
engine
http://blackstone-labs.com
Global warming blamed for "clipping bee's tongues"
Will the madness ever end. Why not just say "global warming causes
everything".
evolution of bees tongues shorter
So this has happened before
Statements that are under water
written September 13, 2015
As you know I don't buy the climate science opinions that deem that carbon
dioxide, the building block of life, is about to destroy the world as we
know it so when I read an article on Livemint.com on the subject, I found
it particularly amusing to read this quote:“If we don’t stop
dumping our waste carbon dioxide into the sky, land that is now home to
more than a billion people will one day be under water,” Ken Caldeira, a
co-author at the US Carnegie Institution, said in a statement.
Where is all that water going to come from??? Based on my science, there is not enough water
contained in ice and snow in both poles combined to cause such a calamity.
If someone could please provide these numbers in gallons it would be
refreshing to pour over all the numbers.
Caldeira is an inventor, a scientist, and has quite a few credentials, but
having proven successes does not quarantee that one can not
overlook pertinent details.
As per the
Stanford website:
Kenneth Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the
Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology. He
researches ocean acidification, climate effects of trees, intentional
climate modification, and interactions in the global carbon cycle/climate
system. He also acted as an inventor for Intellectual Ventures, a
Seattle-based invention and patent company headed up by Nathan Myhrvold.
As stated
in the article:
Caldeira has argued for a policy goal of zero carbon dioxide emissions. In
2005, he said, "If you're talking about mugging little old ladies, you
don't say, 'What's our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies?'
You say, 'Mugging little old ladies is bad, and we're going to try to
eliminate it.' You recognize you might not be a hundred per cent
successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old
ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon
dioxide emissions the same way."
But we are not talking about little old ladies, we
are talking about their beachfront property. I don't see his
comparison as being flawless. He is comparing building blocks of life to
muggings. The idea of not worrying about both examples being exact zero
is comparable, but the choice of comparisons is not because one of them is
discussing what to do about a building block of life, carbon, and how it
affects coastlines, and the
other is an action by an individual whereas throughout man's entire
existence, muggings have occured and are not the building block of
anything.
But let's say we
don't even get to zero since that is the point, let's say it's an 80% reduction, it's still
talking about a wacked out theory that carbon is an enemy of the state of
the world. It's illogical, unworkable, the human
race CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CARBON EMISSIONS in so many ways and science
shows that so called "clean energy" relies on our traditional sources.
Even geo-thermal, another so called savior, emits heat!
So
called "clean energy" cannot exist without carbon emissions. Even if the
entire world was powered by wind and nuclear, there is need for oil in
lubricating turbines, there is a need for the burning of oil and coal to fuel the steel
furnaces (they are not going to be turned on by wind power) and for
creating steel for Prius hybrids. Not only that, but as the world depends
on plastics more than ever, guess where plastics come from? Oil. The world will never be carbon free unless
it becomes Amish and goes back to living life like Native Americans and
Native Mexicans who had the same immigration problem Trump and others
describe we are having today.
Oh wait, back then they burned a lot
of wood, carbon emissions!
So even if we lived like Native Americans and Native Mexicans who all
lived and owned this land which you and I now call our land after it was
"stolen" from them our reliance on carbon emissions would be paramount to
our survival.
So how did
the atmosphere deal deal with carbon emissions from the burning of wood?
The same way it deals with it now, rain brings it back to earth. Now if
only that same principle could be applied to those who study climate
science and profit from it.
Why don't green energy advocates understand that
geo-thermal power contributes to climate change
Watching Huell Howser interview a geo-thermal power company based near the
Salton Sea area of California I caught the interviewee dancing around the
question of how the power is generated and what happens to the heat when
it's pulled up from the earth. His explanation made it sound like the heat
was contained, never escaping into the atmosphere but that's impossible.
Later as I looked up some things online I saw simple evidence of the
reality, that the heat is dissipated. So it contributes heat to the
atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Of course some of us know that
there is also global cooling which comes at a constant rate from space
which is some 457 degrees below zero and has no trouble cooling the planet
no matter how many blankets Al Gore wants to wrap around our minds.
Jeep Wrangler pickup
Jeep will finally offer a pickup version of it's iconic vehicle.
story here
Solar power is pretty noisy
https://youtu.be/Fko5Co5DyWgWhy doesn't Rachel Maddow understand erosion is not
DO2 climate change
I was watching her show this evening August 24, 2015 and she kept saying
in her report about Kivalina, Alaska, that the town was being relocated at
a cost of $100 million dollars due to rising ocean waters. She seemed to
be all for our government spending that kind of money on the project as if
it's an indication of the coming costs if we don't do something about
climate change as people like her are always touting. She's one of those
reporters who I find to be a bit cocky when the talk is about oil
companies, and climate change causes which is something I feel is
misplaced. So could she be wrong about this supposed cause?
My
studies indicate that it's not rising ocean waters, it's an erosion
problem is what's causing the land to disappear, something that has been
happeining there for billions of years. It's got a barrier reef. It's
comprised of sand and gravel ocean spit, yes that is what it's called,
gravel ocean spit. Now does that sound like a solid rock foundation? No
it's sand and it's always changing because IT'S A BARRIER REEF. It's not
because the oceans of the world are rising 100 feet, it's because the
worlds climate always shifts and changes barrier reefs over time.
I would like to see these people and reporters who keep keep claiming climate change is
causing ocean levels to rise, to start providing some calculations about how many
gallons of water are being ADDED TO THE OCEAN due to melting ice caps as
they claim, and how many gallons it takes to be added to the world's
entire ocean surface for us to see a perceptible and quantitative rise in
the ocean in a remote Alaskan penninsula subject to sever Arctic winters,
wind, and natural erosion problems from pounding ocean surf, it would sure
be appreciated. One really doesn't have to go any further than many places
on the California coast to see erosion in action and in many places, not
due to "rising ocean waters" and the need to add boulders for protection
with no guarantees that the ocean isn't still going to erode these areas
away over time.
But people like Rachel Maddow don't seem to get it or maybe they don't
care to admit they were wrong, or somehow they can't fathom that Al Gore
could have deceived them?.
I found this data here
http://www.nana.com/regional/about-us/overview-of-region/kivalina
$100 million for a village of 337 people (population data as per
Wikipedia.org) seems like a lot of money, that's about $330,000 per
person. No wonder the US Congress is skeptical.
some reading on this
Touch screens in cars are dangerous
"That is exactly why touchscreens are hard to use in a car. I want to
be able to reach down and hit a button to change stations, a button I can
feel. I don’t want to have to take my eyes off the road and search for the
right section of the screen to touch." -
read full story
China carbon emission levels lower than
previously thought
I thought that science was scientific? Oh, so we find out now that science
is riddled with variables, interpretations, and errors. For the last
decade we have heard the condescenting chants of those Al Gore
"Inconvenient Truth" followers saying that the science is in, it's
indisputable, and on and on, including how bad China is for it's alleged
horrific carbon emissions. I just don't understand how people can give
carbon, THE BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE, such an evil tag.
read article Solar panels in Palm Springs upsetting
residents
They say they are blocking their views and lowering property values
according to a story on
KMIR news. According to the report the city had no jurisdiction, it
was entirely up to the school district to decide what they wanted
regardless of residents desires. Who knew school districts had so much
power?
Tesla loses $4000 on every car they sell
Currently. This story could be the same with many new busines.
details at JalopnikSolar wind
As I was reading about Pluto and discoveries about it's "tail" the article
sated this:
"This giant tail is actually part of
Pluto's atmosphere. Except that the bits of atmosphere are being stripped
away by solar wind, a torrent of electrically charged particles that
constantly pours out of the sun in all directions." -
reference
If there are electrically charged particles emanating
from solar wind, just like with our weather on Earth when we see
electrical storms with lightning, these electric charges affect weather.
Are so called "climate scientists" also studying these effects when they
make their claims about global warming without cooling?
Bees fading away due to climate change?
That's what the headline read, but it ignores the chemical pesticide
problem. Cpoler climates have shorter growing periods for crops thus use
fewer pesticides thus bees can survive there better.
image as seen on Google news July 10, 2015
California $4000 rebate for electric car
For lower income buyers the state has upped the rebate from $2500 to $4000
for those who fit in a lower income bracket, even though a new car is out
of many a budget.
http://www.sfchronicle.com
Carbon positive is good?
I thought global warming alarmists wanted us to be carbon neutral or at
best carbon negative, but this article is touting how great this "carbon
positive" home is, which produces energy more than it consumes.
This represents how mixed up the definitions are of the whole concept
that the building block of life, carbon, is is considered to not allow
thermal dissipation in space.
The home represented above, in order to be consistent with most
definitions of carbon and it's alleged effect on the environment, should
be called a "carbon negative" home.
You gotta wonder when they can't even get that simple concept to be
used consistently though it fits with the change in definitions from
"global warming" to "climate change".
http://inhabitat.com
Cooling off warmalarmists
"From 1940 to 1975, coal-fired plants emitted fumes with great
abandon and without restraint by Greens. Yet the Earth cooled slightly in
that time. And if man-made global warming is real, atmospheric as well as
surface temperatures should have increased steadily. But they haven't.
There was merely that one-time increase, possibly caused by a solar
anomaly. In addition, an "urban heat island effect" has been
identified. Build a tarmac runway near a weather station, and the nearby
temperature readings will go up."
http://spectator.org/articles/55208/false-alert-global-warming
Deceptive headlines
The headline read "The first Superbowl lit with LED lights will
cut energy use by 75%. According to blogsite Reddit user arstin who says
it's a "Rather deceptive headline. 75% is how much the energy use
in lighting the field was cut by, not how much the energy use of the super
bowl was cut by."
And commenter named kfuzion stated:
310 kW = $50/hour of electricity, a bit on the high end. 1.2 MW =
$200/hour.
Congrats, they save $600 of energy! They could get as much energy
savings by requiring perhaps 5 additional people to commute locally
instead of fly in to the Super Bowl.
IOW... many orders of magnitude more energy is used for people to
travel to the Super Bowl, than to light it.
reference
Fireball in the sky
To get an idea of how absurd it is to think that man has more to do
with climate than the sun, here is a good representation of just how small
we are. It's an image showing 1 million earths fitting inside the sun.
http://i.imgur.com/v7EBMSP.png
Tesla 0-60 3.1 seconds
http://www.dragtimes.com/blog/tesla-model-s-p85d-insane-mode-launch-compilation-video
That engine purrrrrrr might be fake!
Engine
sound being fabricated
1,700 private jets will fly to Davos to
discuss 'global warming'
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/1700-private-jets-will-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/
2014 declared the "hottest year on
record" by scientists at NOAA and NASA but other scientists say that
is bunk
they
are basically guessing at 50/50 odds
Automobility
http://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/featured/the-high-costs-of-driving-incalculable-and-unquestionable/
This biker's leather jacket has signal and
brake lights
http://i.imgur.com/k6n8B9R.jpg
Engine management
http://www.sdsefi.com/
Atomic energy could be warming the oceans
Not from energy plants that use ocean water to cool them, that's a drop
in the ocean, I'm talking about the energy that the earth's molten core
provides under these vast oceans. Has any science group studied this? Not
really, there's no way to study it, they can't measure the temperatures at
all these places at the bottom of the ocean. This concept seemed to be
especially noteworthy when the 10th anniversary of the horrific tidal wave
hit on December 26, 2004.
About 230,000 people were killed by the tsunami, with coastlines in 12 countries devastated, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Maldives, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Somalia, Tanzania, Seychelles, Bangladesh and
Kenya. The extensive rupture produced the equivalent of two million atomic blasts of energy being released over 10 minutes across 1200km of the tectonic plate
boundary, Mr Jaksa said. - source
It' might not have anything to do with carbon dioxide in our atmosphere
at all, but rather the millions of "atomic blasts" underwater!
And without these finite measuring indicators which are not available, all
so called proven science blaming carbon above is incomplete.
Peru gives free solar to 2 million of it's
poorest citizens
https://www.minds.com/blog/view
A comment from a PHD in climate
There was an unusual dumping of snow in Buffalo this week, reaching 7
feet or more in places. It's brought out the climate change pushers once
again, but refreshingly, I found this on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/5-things-know-knife-buffalo-snowstorm/
sebastiandunbar
I have a PhD in climatology and have been studying the effects of
wind temperatures throughout the northern hemisphere, particularly the jet
stream and the gulf stream in relation to those temps. None of the models
put out by these "global warming" scientists computes, it's
inherently flawed to show a bias toward man-made climate change, when in
fact the cycles of temperatures directly correlates to the solar cycle.
Two centuries worth of carbon deposits don't add much in the way of
increasing or decreasing that temperature to cause even the slightest of a
difference. The (fact) is, is that the global warming tax grab was just
that. Climate change is merely the fashionable new term coined by the
liberal/green elitists who took a note from seasoned researches who have
been studying climate for many decades. Point being: there will be certain
cycles in the century that will bring colder winters, hotter summers, mild
summers, mild winters, wetter springs...
Stop looking at models and listening to doomsayers, they are paid
well and have an agenda to further careers and book deals. Don't take my
word for it, look back four-hundred years of temperature and you'll see
that fluctuations do occur from time to time.
in response this commenter ThisNameInUse
said:
Scientists aren't worried about solid carbon, they're warning us
about carbon-containing GASES in the atmosphere. They don't get DEPOSITED.
If they did, our problems would be solved.
But the fact is that gasses do change into solids all the time. Problem
solved!!!!!
On the internet, nobody knows you're a
horse
Said the engine.
Guy in Ventura is trying to find his old
4x4 Toyota pickup
I guess he wants to buy it back. http://ventura.craigslist.org/pts/4687438394.html
Short and Long Blocks
A short block is the main engine core with the pistons and crankshaft.
A long block has the heads.
Top 10 HIGH Horsepower Coupes
http://www.autobytel.com/top-10-cars/high-horsepower-cars/coupes/
Coal compared to biomass
I thought this post from a "redditor"
was interesting:
[–]Stardustchaser 1 point an hour ago
Environmental regulations and perceptions are (blanked) up. Here in
California there is a "biomass" as in wood burning power plant
around the corner from the school I teach at that belches out dark smoke
nonstop. In fact, emissions on the plant are far more substantial and
higher polluting than most natural gas and coal (because the air scrubbers
on those plants are actually quite improved in the past couple of decades
to where emissions are incredibly low) BECAUSE it is seen as
"renewable energy" and gets a pass.
Runaway green house gasses
Where do they run to?
In Wikipedia.org there's information on Venus, the second planet from
the Sun, Mercury being closest. Venus has a mean temp of 863 degrees
Farenheit. Venus is hotter and it's
attributed to high CO2 levels.
Studies have suggested that billions of years ago the Venusian
atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there may
have been substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but after
a period of 600 million to several billion years,[44]
a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original
water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its
atmosphere.[45]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus
I f this is true, then all the water that's
melting into the oceans on Earth will evaporate into space, thus, no rising ocean
levels, correct?
So what does the
surface of Venus look like?
Whaaaaaaa?
I was looking at weather sites and came across weatherspark.com. On the
site regarding downloading data, I read this interesting statement "a
lot of stations do not report precipitation amount".
How in the world, if this is true, can we feel so confident in
"global warming without cooling" if the scientists are not even
using ALL THE DATA IN THE WORLD THAT'S AVAILABLE. Seems there's gaps here!
Wireless power
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tesla-theory-will-win-race-wireless-power/
Tesla blog
http://teslapittsburgh.blogspot.com/
Horse power
An individual horse has a peak power output of 14.9
horsepower
Atlantic Ocean is absorbing heat, delaying
global warming
Space does the same thing.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/atlantic-ocean-has-temporarily-slowed-global-warming-study-1.1904238
Now they're trying to figure out why
there's no warming anymore
This is just too funny.
"The hiatus in the rise in global temperatures could last for
another 10 years, according to new research. Scientists have struggled to
explain the so-called pause that began in 1999, despite ever increasing
levels of CO2 in the atmosphere." - BBC.com
Geeee maybe it has something to do with we are surrounded by cold space
which cools what ever extra warmth there is and that CO2 has NOTHING to do
with global temperatures? Or maybe none of those scientists figured in the
effects of air conditioning?
Scientist says we are (blanked)
Now isn't that the utmost of professionalism to use swear words to
describe climate change. Dr. Box made that statement according to an
article in the Daily Mail. So now these sci-fientists want us to believe
that methane bubbles are going to destroy the world.
Take a look at the picture showing man's demise below:
What's really interesting is those "sustainable" people who
are going to city councils and getting plastic shopping bags banned, don't
realize that the bags trap methane, because they are made from methane!
No wind farm here!
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Monster-turbine-defeated-planners-protest/story-22012442-detail/story.html
The Sahara Desert was once an ocean
If that isn't enough proof that the earth's climate and geography has
always been changing, what is?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS_WlzdOc_A
This is why I like my Jeep
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cda_1178390243
Demonization of carbon
A comment from 2009 that compared climate change rhetoric to Nazi
Germany.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b0_1405449026
kw/h vs. kWh
A Reddit.com poster said in response to a discussion on solar:
"So, now I see what you're stating. You're stating that a home
uses 30 kWh of electrical energy per day. Not 30 kw/h, but 30 kWh. I'm
not trying to be a jerk here -- your (incorrect) use of label really was
confusing."
This is a very confusing but important distinction to understand if one
is to consider solar, are claims made in kWh or kw/h. One is kilowatt
hours, the other is kilowatts per hour.
Global warming is real, but so is global
cooling
It was so easy to see on this
world map of natural hazards. Take a look at the section called
"observed trend in mean temperature 1978 - 2007"
Tesla has a competitor raised from the dead
http://www.detroit-electric.com/
Misleading yet technically correct
June 19, 2014
TheLocal.de published an article stating "Solar energy production breaks record in Germany. More than
50 percent of country's electricity demand supplied by solar power at
start of June."
Reddit user 'keepthepace" summed up a great response:
The title is slightly misleading, though not technically false:
Analysis from the Fraunhofer ISE research institute showed solar
panels in Germany generated a record 24.24 GW of electricity between 1pm
and 2pm on Friday, June 6th.
The week was unusually hot with highs of 37C and Rothacher put the
record down to the warm weather and the fact it was a public holiday.
So during one hour of exceptional weather conditions, during a low
consumption day, solar power did provide half of Germany's needs.
We are still very far from providing half of a year's energy
(measured in Wh) through solar means.
Hydrogen power uses a lot of energy
It's hard for me to understand why people keep making these wild claims
about hydrogen power being able to save the planet. For one, the whole
basis is due to bastardizing carbon.
Notice the claim as seen on the Reddit.com blog:
"Fuel Made from Hydrogen extracted from the sea and CO2 from the
air used to power a 2 stroke internal combustion engine. Costs roughly $3
to $6 per gallon and it carbon neutral. (nrl.navy.mil) " by
CraicHunter
a comment by NOPD_SUCKS seems to put it all into proper sperpective:
What they don't bother to mention is that, yes, you can get Hydrogen
from water, but it takes a HUGE amount of energy to release the hydrogen.
So, it isn't like you can power a vehicle with sea water and CO2. That's
absurd. The amount of energy required to release the Hydrogen from the
water makes it less efficient and more expensive to operate than a gas
powered car. They have not invented anything new. We've known for a very
long time that Hydrogen can be extracted from water by running a current
through the water. It's how they filled up the barrage balloons at D-Day
so the technology is nothing new.
and then this comment by RagingRudolph is interesting:
"The combustion of hydrocarbons and O2 makes water and CO2. This
is an exergonic reaction. They're talking about putting CO2 and H2 from
H2O sea water together to make hydrocarbons. This is an endergonic
reaction. In other words, this requires energy input. This is only carbon
neutral if nuclear or renewable power is used for the energy input."
and this comment by semioriginality really makes one think:
"Sure it's 'Carbon neutral' but combusting hydrogen NOx emissions,
which are ------- horrible."
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/284qnc/fuel_made_from_hydrogen_extracted_from_the_sea/?sort=new
Tesla gives it's patents to the world
That's according to Reddit headlines. Many are saying that it's such a
noble great thing they are doing. One user 'submittedby' stated: This is
less self-less than it appears. Musk can't build out the electric car
infrastructure on his own. Tesla will never be more than a niche car
company without it. He needs other car companies to build the
infrastructure with him.
http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/27z8pa/tesla_opens_up_all_patents_maybe_they_were_good/?sort=new
Salt and freezing temperatures
One needs to understand the properties of how salt water freezes and
the temperature it does so based on the quantity of salt in the water
solution when considering climate change models. In the Antarctic it may
not be considered much but there may be an effect.
According to Wikipedia.org, 'Solutions of sodium chloride have very
different properties from those of pure water; the freezing point is −21.12 °C
(−6.02 °F) for 23.31 wt% of salt.'
But it's also said that ocean water tends to be about 8.0 ph which is
basic or alkaline, not acid.
Tackling climate change
To tackle climate change effectively, one would have to first tackle
solar storm change.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/10jun_solarminimax/
Autos made from tomatoes
Ford and Heinz anticipate making various parts for cars from tomato
fibers. The skins would be used in a composite material.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2014/06/10/Heinz-s-tomato/stories/201406100142
Dam Cancelled
Chile’s
new centre-left government cancelled the environmental permit for this
controversial $9 billion hydroelectric project in the Patagonian
wilderness.
Ford "Jeep" like vehicle not
available in the US
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/06/04/ford-troller-t-brazil-suv/9891621/
solar panels are a product of a complex
chemical and mechanical process (hardly green)
They produce a fair amount of toxic waste and provide diminishing
returns.
http://www.itbusinessedge.com/printarticle/blogs/infrastructure/energy-efficiency-gains-starting-to-wane.html
"11,000 mw powers 18 million
homes"
That's the claim made on a broadcast about a controversial dam being
built in the Amazon rainforest. Compare to the claim stated by BLM in a
solar installation that 8,000 megawatts was said to power 2.5 million
homes.
18,000,000/11,000 = 1636 homes per megawatt
2,500,000/8,000 = 312 homes per megawatt
This would seem to indicate that hydro-electric power is 5x more
efficient than solar. These numbers should be analyzed in detail. Often
they are over-estimations based on peak performance which seldom is
reached.
terroh8er posted on Reddit:
"The 97% figure {scientists that believe global warming has been
proven}distracts from the fact that the overwhelming majority of climate
change models have wildly overestimated the amount of warming over the
past several decades. You don't have to actually deny that humans are
causing some degree of climate change to be labeled a "science
denier," you merely have to question whether it's being exaggerated
or whether it's actually possible/worth it to do anything about it. Fossil
fuels save lives by giving the developing world access to cheap
energy."
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/27di3k/richard_tol_accidentally_confirms_the_97_global/?sort=new
Supercomputers predict the
polar ice cap will be nearly ice free from within 5 years
They did this in 2009. It's now been 5 years. Plenty of
ice. I post this because there's a flurry again of articles saying that
supercomputers are predicting doom for year 2100.
reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish_n_391632.html
Solar roadways are not
feasible
This 30 minute video explanation as to why an Indigogo
startup which has secured over $1.7 million for making solar roadway tiles
cannot work based primarily on the need for traction and durability. The
cost of the glass alone would cost $20 trillion dollars for all roads in
the US to be made of these. As per the producer of the expose, "Solar
FREAKIN roadways is a nice idea, but then again is a pogostick that can
hop to the moon as a cheap, reusable trans-orbital vehicle." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4
Godzilla movie: An anti
global warming alarmism smash
Great review! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/17/review-godzilla-anti-global-warming-alarmism-block/
Antarctic ice losses or
gains
It was stated in a report on indianexpress.com
that Antarctica loses 159 gigatonnes of ice each year. Sounds like an
awful lot. A commenter on Reddit
xFyreFury posted: "To put things in perspective, if it continues
losing ice at this rate, it will take around 135,000 years for all of it
to melt." Yet NOAA just reported that the Antarctic received the most
ice in April ever recorded.
Water wheel cleans up river
after rain storm
A
water wheel powers it's own collection of trash from river, and
ingenious device, but look how slow it turns the conveyor. It creates no
greenhouse gasses as it's a simple direct drive mechanism. Water wheels
are not exactly new, they have been around for thousands of years, but
this use for cleaning up rivers is. Notice there's NO "single use
bags" in the stream of debris, it's all styrofoam cups and plastic
bottles. This is in stark contrast to what those advocating for plastic bag bans keep saying about them
creating a large pollution problem.
Water expands when it
freezes, contracts when it melts
If there is one thing that blows away Antarctic rising
sea level scare tactics it's this, when icebergs melt the melting water
contracts.
I'll have an iceberg float
with my global warming theory meal thank you
Ever notice that icebergs are white, like snow. They
should really be called snowbergs. They are comprised of both dense packed
snow and ice. This means that they are made up of tiny air bubbles and
frozen water molecules. An ice cube in a drink will often float if it has
air bubbles in it. Another thing is that when ice is formed, it expands
from it's original water state. Thus, when an iceberg melts, it does not
melt into the same amount as what is seen, it melts into a smaller denser
amount. All the hype about icebergs melting with their doom and gloom
scenarios of ocean levels rising 10 feet excludes these basic observations
and facts about the properties of H20. These fearmongering techniques
always lead to claims that we must do something to stop what is happening
naturally, blaming man's use of fossil fuels (which are not made from
fossils) and calls for costly taxation schemes on carbon, which becomes a
windfall for those invested in managing those credits. When presented with
these facts, most all of those who have bought the error of global warming
myths, can't seem to wrap their minds around the fact that they have been
misled. The facts about ice, density, and melting ice and snow which is
basically what "icebergs" are made of are real science, and
displacement volumes of these are not presented properly, as if they were,
there would be no claim of rising sea levels of 10 feet, but rather, a
more accurate claim that sea levels could rise .00001 (1/10,000th) of a
foot.
here
is an image of an iceberg
Wikipedia states: "Because the
density of pure ice is about 920 kg/m³, and that of sea water
about 1025 kg/m³, typically only one-tenth of the volume of an iceberg
is above water."
So another dynamic we have going on
here is fresh water/ice and sea water which is salty.
I did a little experiment at home to show how this
works. Take a look at these images, the first is a tray of ice strewn on a
table, notice the ice cubes are not perfectly clear, but rather are
cloudy. They are filled with air that somehow happens as water freezes.
All of the ice cubes FLOATED in water. notice that the
cubes float ABOVE the water line a bit. They are about 95% below the water
line of their total size. An iceberg is known to be about 90% below water.
Here's a way to do this experiment for yourself using
some colored water http://www.abc.net.au/science/surfingscientist/iceberg.htm.
Note in this experiment the article mentions that when ice is on a land
mass and melts, it raises sea level. That seems to indicate that
global warming issues still exist, that sea levels could rise 10 feet as
some wildly claim, but it ignores what happens when water melts and goes
into the sea, it also soon thereafter evaporates and becomes water vapor,
clouds, rain, sleet, snow, ice, and if the earth mean temp raised 1
degree, that would create more evaporation than ever, thus when this
additional water vapor made it's way into the upper atmosphere (mind you
it doesn't have to go more than a mile or two up in the sky) this
additional water vapor becomes COOLED. That is because we are surrounded
by space air which has a temperature of MINUS 455 degrees Fahrenheit. This
cooled water vapor turns into snow, and deposits itself back down to
places like Antarctica, and places on Earth that are in their winter
seasons.
2015 Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC
Yukon Earn Top Crash-Test Ratings
They
remain the safest SUV's on the market
Kansas City receives
snowstorm on May 11, 2014
How's that global warming without global cooling theory
going again?
How does .004% of the
atmosphere trap heat?
Some big names in climate study & reporting came to
a blog discussion, the ones who "helped create" the Third
National Climate Assement Repot presented to Washington DC. This question
a blogger asked got my attention:
oaktreelounge : How does .004%
of the atmosphere hold warm air in?
Sustainabilist : It's not air that is being held in, it is radiation
- in this case, solar radiation (insolation, if you want a technical
term for it). Normally, Light comes in, bounces off the surface of the
Earth, and a certain amount of it escapes to space. CO2 and other
greenhouse gasses effectively "trap" that energy in the
atmosphere by bouncing it back toward the surface - kind of like a
mirror you can only partially see through. The more greenhouse gasses,
the more reflective the mirror (toward the Earth), the more warming.
reference blog http://www.reddit.com
So in all reality, we don't have a blanket, what we
have is mirrors. If we add pollution from coal fired plants, we also have
smoke, thus the cause of global warming is basically all smoke and
mirrors.
It's also interesting that in one sentence they say
it's radiation, and in another they say it's energy that is bouncing back.
Are we really dealing with a problem with radiation energy reflecting back
to earth due to excessive CO2? Only .004% of the atmosphere is carbon
dioxide, is that much of the atmosphere becoming a reflective mirror? If
reflective properties of solar radiation are to blame as a causitive
agent, what happens when we install vast acreage of solar panels on these
farms? They have a reflective property. Does that reflection then bounce
back up into the atmosphere, to only be bounced back down again? And if
this is the case, what about this term "greenhouse gasses"? Are
we to believe that it's the gasses of carbon dioxide in greenhouses that
cause a greenhouse to warm? Or, are we to believe that the warming is
caused by something entirely different, like the GLASS that encloses them,
thus trapping heat which is generated by radiation? There is no glass
surrounding the Earth.
The other thing that I wonder about it that if the
Earth reflects radiation, what does a solar panel do? Traps it. Ohhhh not
good. That means that these BLACK panels absorb the radiation, and create
heat!
Offensive?
Treasurer Joe Hockey has attacked wind farms as
“utterly offensive and “a blight on the landscape” in the latest
sign that the Abbott government intends to cut back on renewable energy.
story
here
Do solar installations
cause global warming?
Before looking at this in more depth, let's first look
at an excerpt from the Bureau of Land Management website:
Solar Energy
Solar radiation levels in the Southwest are some of the best in the
world, and the BLM manages more than 19 million acres of public lands
with excellent solar energy potential in 6 states: California, Nevada,
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Utah. Since 2010, the BLM has approved
25 utility-scale solar energy projects, including connected-action
projects that include electric transmission support authorizations, with
a total approved capacity of over 8,000 megawatts of clean, renewable
energy — enough energy to power roughly 2.5 million homes. In
addition, the BLM currently has some 70 pending solar energy
applications.
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewable_energy.html
One has to consider all factors when studying climate
change, and one that I believe is routinely ignored, is the effect of
solar farming may have on climate change. Most everyone simply thinks that
solar is just peachy, but I suspect that as they put these solar panels on
the ground, covering what was there such as sagebrush, that it affects the
desert climate, and it could cause global warming to occur. It has to, any
change affects climate and here's why I believe it does negatively. Prior
to solar panels, when there was vast expanses of sagebrush, the brush
would absorb heat and partially transfer it down into the ground, where
the ground would also act as absorbing some of this heat, and as these
brush pull what little water there is up the roots and from the air, there
is a cooling effect. Also the sagebrush absorbs moisture from the air at
night, so that when the sun comes up in the morning, a drying effect
happens, and thus COOLING. Also, the earth itself will absorb some of the
heat as the sun beats down on the sand. But when these solar projects that
cover thousands of acres of brush, no longer is the sun beating down on
the ground and the brush, it's on the panels, completely changing the
ecosystem. The brush under these panels (if it's not bulldozed away) no
longer functions as it did in cooling the desertscape. Also, these panels
are DARK colored and get hotter than if the sun hit the earth. That's my
theory and I'm pretty sure I'm on target. This change could be 1/2 a
degree difference in the WRONG DIRECTION!
Are there any studies on this anywhere??? I couldn't
find anything on their website http://blmsolar.anl.gov/program/
And how much energy do the cleaning robots use? And how
much water in a drought do they use? The manufacturer claims they use
"demineralized water" - how much energy is used to demineralize
water? Are these numbers on energy use by solar power ever calculated into
these claims of "cars off the road"? I doubt it.
Their water use under the specifications is said by the
manufacturer to be between 2.5 litre per hour minute to
3.5 litre per minute, that's 150 to 201 litres per hour of demineralized
water being used. The power used is between 1.5 kW and 1.2kW running on
210-230 V.
image Serbot Swiss Innovations
http://www.serbot.ch/index.php/en/products/gekko-solar-farm
Their website states this "even a small layer of
dirt leads to large performance losses", so how often are these going
to be used? I have never heard that stated in any green discussion, that
there's a large performance loss on these solar panels with a little dirt.
And if there are losses, that means the numbers of "taking cars off
roads" that are often touted by solar panel manufacturers and those
claiming these will help solve climate change, that number will shrink as
soon as they are dirty, and if anyone lives in the desert around Palm
Springs or anywhere in southern California where these projects are going
up, they know that the winds kick up often and dirty everything real
quick!
Largest solar project in
world sits on 3.75 square miles of desert
cleanenergyactionproject.com
Here is the final report on wildlife and other issues:
http://www.azwild.org/resources/documents/FinalAguaCalienteDueDiligenceReportModified4.9_000.pdf
9,000 years ago Lake Huron
was 250 feet lower
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20140429/NEWS/304290003/Ancient-hunting-camp-found-beneath-Lake-Huron
Dirt bike parking trick
http://i.imgur.com/VN1Z97n.gif
Coal referred to as a
"dirty habit"
I would call coal a "life extender" and
"cheap efficient fuel to keep grandma warm where she can afford to
pay for it with her meager government checks". The reference to coal
being a "dirty habit" was in the following article. The small
German town was able to save the relocation of 1,300 residents but in
order to do that, the coal mine had to give up 1/5th of it's land ever
being mined, hailing that the coal will remain buried. If coal is so bad,
why is it so good for it to stay buried? Dirty things can always be
cleaned up, and buried. I don't get the logic of bastardizing coal and
replacing it with equally environment altering solar and wind, both of
which are not efficient. When my vehicle is inefficient it wastes gas. We
don't need inefficient energy. Coal is efficient.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/04/germany-battle-coal-energiewende
Corn biofuel is worse for
the planet than gasoline
Creates 7% more "greenhouse gasses" every
year.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/20/corn-biofuels-gasoline-global-warming
Is China's pollution
affecting climate?
From an article at theguardian.com, "China's air
pollution could be intensifying storms over the Pacific Ocean and
altering weather patterns in North America, according to scientists in
the US."
I think that is what we could rationally call climate
change, now if only we could remove the predictions of rising seas I think
we would be better off. Discussions about pollution and how it can affect
weather patterns seem valid and could lead to viable discussions. On the
other hand, China may say "well we manufactured and sold more winter
clothes we sold at Wal-Mart than ever, why change the climate of our
business?"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/china-air-pollution-pacific-climate-us-national-academy-sciences
other places to go
Today's Date
What's Playing!
|
