Reply With Quote
Fixed.
Catastrophism collapses
http://www.financialpost.com/Catastr...764/story.html
Last week's G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world's leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.
One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change--and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 -- which now carries more clout than the G8--went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20's draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to "a green economy and to sustainable global growth."
These leaders' collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.
Kevin Rudd, Australia's gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia's conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.'s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year's G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.
France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to "save the human race" from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.
Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country's renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country's 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.
The U. K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies -- previously immune to cuts -- must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs -- the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, "every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review. " Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea -- the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.
Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show -- as in Europe -- that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November's elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don't buy it.
In the lead-up to the Toronto meetings and throughout them, one country -- Canada -- and one leader -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- have stood out for avoiding the worst excesses associated with climate change. Dubbed the Colossal Fossil three years running by some 500 environmental groups around the world, Canada -- and especially Harper -- are reviled among climate-change campaigners for failing to fall into line.
Not coincidentally, Canada has also stood out for having best withstood the financial crisis that beset the world. Fittingly, Canada and its leader played host to the meetings.
Fixed.
By Crackers! It's time to get me some of that "Food Insurance" I hear about on the Glen Beck show!!!!At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.
http://www.foodinsurance.com/
Or maybe some of that "non-hybrid seed for my one acre crisis garden" that I heard about on the Hannity show!
http://www.survivalseedbank.com/?gcl...FU4M2godBXYKOg
I admit I'm buying rural land and putting in orchards, gardens, etc. but those commercials crack me up.
So the problem isn't that global warming isn't happening, even Darrin isn't that apt at stretching the truth...but that the global economic crisis is so precarious that we can't afford to save our planet..
meanwhile..
LinkHundreds of people have drowned in Russia trying to keep cool during a heatwave that has been sweeping across the country. As temperatures soared to record-breaking highs, hitting 37C in central regions, sweltering Russians have been throwing themselves into rivers and lakes to cope with the heat.
But many have ignored warning signs about hidden dangers at certain spots or drank alcohol before swimming, putting themselves in danger. Russia's emergency ministry confirmed that almost 300 people have drowned during the heatwave, with at least 63 people dying in one day alone.
A ministry spokesman said: "Last week, 285 people died in Russia's waterways. The main reason for people drowning is swimming in places that are not equipped and the use of alcohol."
Russian weather forecasters said the country had not experienced such a prolonged heatwave since 1981. Moscow's City Hall had to send out trucks to water the streets after reports that in some areas people's shoes were getting stuck in melting tarmac.
At least you guys don't use anecdotal evidence to support your theories.
At least you guys use peer reviewed, scientifically backed evidence to support your theories...
And back during the winter when everyone was freezing their asses off we skeptics were told we were just too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather.
I would propose that the same argument could be made now that it's summer. We have hot weather in summer. Duh.
Oh, did the receding glaciers worldwide expand during winter?
The polar ice caps certainly grew. Lake Superior, Erie, and Huron froze solid for the first time in a long time.
Try to keep up.
Yes try to keep up: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/
And that proves what?
It proves they are right, because they have accurate predictions to 2050!
And that proves what?
What I don't understand is if they can so accurately predict such complex systems, why don't they put their money on horse races?
Global Warming is back on the East Coast (at least by republican logic)!!!
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/new...-wave-co-1.asp
Yep, isn't it funny how places with the greatest black carbon and urban sprawl have warming still and rural areas are cooling?
You mean, this peer review process?
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
-Phil Jones
Actually, I always make fun of this kind of logic and you guys fail to pick up on the sarcasm.
It was always stupid to force-feed (I looooathe this phrase these days) "Green Technology".
Cap+Trade is the worst idea in this entire charade. ANYTHING that forces citizens into a certain funnel of no-choice is a really bad idea.
The best any government can do is incentivize the process....maybe even heavily, if needed. If wind farms can be profitable, so be it. Solar, tidal, geothermal, etc....great.
But just give ridiculous tax breaks, not guaranteed contracts and total governmental commitment wholesale.
The technology to produce renewable energy (on a grand scale) will be there. Really, if any of you tree-huggin hippies had one iota of conviction, youd already have converted your entire energy supply to a renewable source.
Alas, outside Ruff, I sincerely doubt you have. There is a price barrier for entry. One extremely cool and extremely efficent method is geothermal. All you need is a deep well drilled, lots of water (Texas have that in ample supply? Sea water works, too, but youll need a system to remove the salt), a turbine and a transformer.
All for about $50k, labor and all. You can actually take out a loan, get incredible tax breaks and tell your gas and electricity company to "Go off". Two bills gone, self-sufficent energy supply gained, planet saved. You win.
I don't question that geothermal works, but I question your dollar figures. I'm IN the steam/hot water business. I know a friend that recently drilled a water well in the deep part of the Carrizo that was about a mile and a half deep to good water. Water temps coming out are about 130 degrees F (obviously still not deep enough to get steam/turbine temp/pressures) The well alone cost $280,000 to drill.
Tree-hugging hippies? Not to much of a stereotype there...surprising from D.R....The technology to produce renewable energy (on a grand scale) will be there. Really, if any of you tree-huggin hippies had one iota of conviction, youd already have converted your entire energy supply to a renewable source.
Yeah, fair enough. But this "green" intiative is starting to piss me off, no offense.
I have no problem with being as green as we can, but not at the costs that mandates impose. It needs to still be personal choice. This is the USA isn't it?
I wonder how much energy could be harvested from Yellowstone national park area?
Well, "national park" -- I guess that's a non-starter.
True, when youre digging 7900ft deep, the costs become outrageous.
But there are alternative geothermal applications. Namely a binary system which uses the heat from deep wells to boil a solvent with a much lower boiling point than water.
Honestly, I am having an incredibly difficult time finding a cost for a personal geothermal power unit. All the costs I have found are associated with commercial plants...and theyre astronomical per mwh (but then youre selling the power, so...).
Youll have a residue that needs to be cleaned and maintained (and disposed), but the cost savings would be quantifiable to an exponential degree.
As an example...
East and southwest Texas is ripe with opportunity to publicly supply geothermal energy, its just that the startup costs are huge.
Moreover, a smaller, private unit isnt expected to produce a commercial supply of power...its expected to supply one house (or neighborhood). Inefficency isnt as important on such a small, non-profit scale.
Also, youre talking about a water well. What is that, a minimum 6" diameter pipe? If its commercial use, I would think its much larger.
Beyond that, say here in Michigan, water is plentiful. Whether by well, lake or pond, you really only have to drill a 1" pipe extremely deep and "slow drip" water down the supply side to boil (or use the binary method).
So, in conclusion, you were right. It would seem my numbers are off for a total system installation. Good read here on the subject.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/m/faqs.html
Last edited by DarkReign; 07-06-2010 at 06:06 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
