Global cooling

[billvon 3,133]

>What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years
>on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature
>rise on Earth is due to man and CO2...

I think it's hilarious that some people claim that climate scientists, people who have been studying our planet's climate for decades, do not understand the earth's weather, but THEY understand the weather on Mars 100%!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years
>on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature
>rise on Earth is due to man and CO2...

I think it's hilarious that some people claim that climate scientists, people who have been studying our planet's climate for decades, do not understand the earth's weather, but THEY understand the weather on Mars 100%!

I think it's hilarious that the ONLY cause for the temperature rise could be CO2, given all the other evidence.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

>What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years
>on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature
>rise on Earth is due to man and CO2...

I think it's hilarious that some people claim that climate scientists, people who have been studying our planet's climate for decades, do not understand the earth's weather, but THEY understand the weather on Mars 100%!

I think it's hilarious that the ONLY cause for the temperature rise could be CO2, given all the other evidence.

So you didn't actually bother to read the scientific articles then.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So you didn't actually bother to read the scientific articles then.

I get the feeling that if it is not on FAUX NEWS.. or Lush Rimjob... they think its all a hoax

[speedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict.

Do you actually understand the concept of equilibrium? How about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation?

Oh yes.
Do you have any concept of percentages?
I think you are reading more into my comments than what I am actually saying.
That's the difference between an alarmist and a climate scientist. The climate scientist would just agree with me and say my comment is not in dispute. The alarmist has to scream, "don't you understand? we are all going to die"

OK, so I guess it's the concept of feedback that you don't understand, since you are thoroughly familiar with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.

What the hell does feedback have to do with the composition of the atmosphere?

You can keep changing the subject all you want, but the fact remains that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,133]

>I think it's hilarious that the ONLY cause for the temperature rise could
>be CO2, given all the other evidence.

?? It's not. It's just one of the many causes. (Also currently the major cause for the increase in average temperatures worldwide.)

For example, you may notice that over the next few months it gets warmer. That is not caused by CO2, but by a phenomenon called "summer." Happens every year. The increase in CO2 just means that, on average, the summer will be a bit warmer.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even the IPCC needs increases of water vapour to cause the amount of warming they predict.

Do you actually understand the concept of equilibrium? How about the Clausius-Clapeyron equation?

Oh yes.
Do you have any concept of percentages?
I think you are reading more into my comments than what I am actually saying.
That's the difference between an alarmist and a climate scientist. The climate scientist would just agree with me and say my comment is not in dispute. The alarmist has to scream, "don't you understand? we are all going to die"

OK, so I guess it's the concept of feedback that you don't understand, since you are thoroughly familiar with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.

What the hell does feedback have to do with the composition of the atmosphere?

You can keep changing the subject all you want, but the fact remains that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Did someone say it wasn't?

We are discussing CHANGES here - pay attention.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

Quote

>Do you mean, "sell the rest to the grid"?
>Or do you really give the excess away for free?

I give it away for free. I could work on a cogeneration contract (they're not that hard to get) but I'm happy getting my bill to zero and just donating the rest.

If you don't sell your excess, how do you cope at night when the panels are not generating power?
Do you have batteries to store the power from during the day?
Or does the grid offset your overnight use against the extra you give back during the day?

Here in Germany you would sell all the power from solar at 46 cents (euro) per Kwh. Your usage from the grid would be metered and I currently pay 17 cents (euro) per Kwh. So, if I install a 6 Kwp setup, I can nearly double my investment in 20 years and also generate twice as much electricity as I currently use. Not great investment, but certainly OK. The only problem is if the grid goes down it does not matter how much sun I have, I have no power.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[speedy 0]

[reply
We are discussing CHANGES here - pay attention.

Why should you have the monoply on changing the subject?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,133]

>Or does the grid offset your overnight use against the extra you give back
>during the day?

Sort of, but it's even simpler than that. When the panels are producing power, the meter spins backwards. When they're not, and I use power, it spins forward. At the end of the year, if the number is higher, I get charged for power. If the number is zero, I don't get charged anything. If the number is lower, I don't get charged anything, and the remainder is "donated" to the grid.

>The only problem is if the grid goes down it does not matter how much
>sun I have, I have no power.

Some inverters (like the Outback series) allow you to run independently if you lose power _and_ sell back the excess.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Some inverters (like the Outback series) allow you to run independently if you lose power _and_ sell back the excess.

You still need the batteries to store the power thought. I guess they don't come cheap. Mind you warm beer and a defrosted freezer is painful and expensive.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,133]

>You still need the batteries to store the power though.

True. But for backup power you don't need many, since you can cycle them hard, and since you only need them for nighttime loads.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

[reply
We are discussing CHANGES here - pay attention.

Why should you have the monoply on changing the subject?

READ THE THREAD TITLE. Cooling is a CHANGE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

For example, you may notice that over the next few months it gets warmer. That is not caused by CO2, but by a phenomenon called "summer." Happens every year. The increase in CO2 just means that, on average, the summer will be a bit warmer.

Here in Colorado, winter has been so long and miserable, I have doubts (but great hope!) that what you say is true.

. . =(_8^(1)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years
>on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature
>rise on Earth is due to man and CO2...

I think it's hilarious that some people claim that climate scientists, people who have been studying our planet's climate for decades, do not understand the earth's weather, but THEY understand the weather on Mars 100%!

I think it's hilarious that the ONLY cause for the temperature rise could be CO2, given all the other evidence.

So you didn't actually bother to read the scientific articles then.

Why would I need to - the 'consensus' gets all the air time they want, all I have to do watch the MSM "news" shows.

I don't happend to worship at the Sepulchre of the Enviro-Cultists, so I look to other sources to find out what OTHER research is being done, since anything that doesn't fit the 'true-believer' mold gets virtually no mention outside of the internet.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So you didn't actually bother to read the scientific articles then.

I get the feeling that if it is not on FAUX NEWS.. or Lush Rimjob... they think its all a hoax

Sounds like the typical responce from the Kos kids or huff'n'puff post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Where is the lable?

You know, one like "denier"?

"Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax".

To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that?

by Alan Caruba
Ultra-Rich Cash In on Warming Hoax
March 31, 2008 02:00 PM EST



Recently I emailed a gentleman who is highly regarded, nationally and internationally, as one of the top strategic, military and economic long-range thinkers of our times. He is the author of several bestselling books about the way globalization is impacting the lives of the Earth’s population.

In addition to having read his books and magazine articles, I occasionally visit his blog to read what he is thinking about currently. I noticed that he was casually referencing “global warming” in a post, so I emailed to let him know that there is no scientific proof or basis for the endless global warming claims. I cited all the usual data that disputes it and I provided the URLs of several websites that could provide him with even more.

His response was quite revealing. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You’re arguing the past.” He would later post that, so far as the data debunking global warming, he was “beyond caring.”
As I interpret this, no matter how utterly false the justifications are for the global warming hoax given by Al Gore, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others, leading to efforts to replace, slow or deter the use of energy sources such as coal, natural gas and oil, this particular influential intellectual was beyond caring because the world’s population was responsible for pollution and consuming too much of everything.

At this point global warming has made Al Gore a famous and wealthy man. He and the IPCC received a Nobel Peace Prize and Hollywood conferred an Oscar on the “documentary” that advances global warming lies. He now enjoys the lifestyle of the ultra-rich.

The “solutions” offered to stop a non-existent global warming include a Gore suggestion that “pollution” be taxed; that there must be a mandated reduction of all carbon dioxide emissions; the instituting of a bogus cap-and-trade credit system for all utilities, manufacturing, transportation, and other activities; biofuels, greater use of energy alternatives such as wind and solar; and ultimately, limits on how much energy people are permitted to use who drive cars, own homes, or run businesses of all kinds.

In California, for example, proposals and legislation has been put forth to eliminate the inclusion of fireplaces in the construction of new homes and that heat or cooling should be controlled by a central command that will monitor individual energy use and, without concern for the welfare of the individual user, determine the temperature of their living space. This is Big Brother writ large.

The federal government long ago imposed standards on how much mileage a car or truck must have for each gallon of gas consumed and has since mandated that each gallon must include the engine-destroying, energy-poor addition of ethanol. The ethanol mandate has created higher prices for food as corn and wheat supplies diminish.

This is the same government that has already banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the coming years. In time, it proposes to eliminate the use of all light bulbs except fluorescent ones that both consume less energy and give less light.

It is the same government contemplating declaring the thriving polar bear population “endangered” for the sole purpose of putting areas off limits that are believed to be rich in new oil reserves, not unlike the prohibition on extracting oil from ANWR.

It is the same government that has declared 85% of the nation’s continental shelf off-limits to any exploration, discovery, and extraction of our own oil and natural gas reserves.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

When the movers and shakers, the rich and powerful of our time get together in their meetings in Davos or wherever, have they secretly concluded that “pollution” and “consumption” by the Earth’s six billion people can only be reduced by reducing the world’s population? Do they see great profits in forcing us to only drive electric cars and the mandatory adoption of similar “green” technologies?

Serendipitously, the International Herald Tribune published an article by Andrew Ross Sorkin on March 20 titled, “At island retreat, Branson and friends seek to save a world ‘on fire’.” It was an astonishing revelation as it described a retreat hosted by Richard Branson, “the British magnate” among whose guests was Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister who is now a senior advisor to J.P. Morgan Chase.

Richard Stromback, the chief executive of Ecology Coatings, “joked that a gathering like this might seem nefarious to some people.” The reporter noted that, “Many executives and financiers, including some in attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global warming.”

Look nefarious? Yes, it does. Some of the ultra-rich have a stake in the global warming hoax as a means to further enrich themselves.

If that means cloaking their opinion that the world’s population needs to be reduced by appearing concerned for the fate of the planet, than there is no better way of doing that than advancing the goals of the environmental movement.

This is why “strategic thinkers” looked away when the use of DDT was banned worldwide and millions, particularly in Africa, continue to needlessly die from malaria.

This is why “strategic thinkers” looked away when one of the world’s most extraordinary and affordable refrigerants and fire suppression chemicals, Freon, was banned from use worldwide with a bogus claim that “ozone holes” were destroying the atmosphere.

Note, too, that these bans, the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are instrumentalities of the United Nations. These fraudulent environmental issues benefit the ultra-rich whose financial interests transcend national borders.

Presently China, India, nor any of the nations around the world whose economies are responding to the growth in global trade and the improvement of living standards for their people are going to voluntarily accept such limitations.

China has apparently concluded that, if the tradeoff is air and water pollution, that is acceptable until they reach a point where costly technology can be installed to reduce the pollution. This is already an option that a wealthy nation like the United States has adopted.

Another case in point has been the utter failure of the signatories to the original Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions and subsequent negotiations to achieve an impossible reduction of carbon dioxide, a gas that constitutes a mere 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere.

I am still trying to understand why our government and others around the world are subsidizing “alternative energies” to the tune of billions for wind and solar power when neither is a reliable source of energy and, together, they produce such miniscule amounts of electricity as to be essentially worthless.

But my strategic thinker guru says, “You’re arguing the past.” No. I am arguing the future.

I am arguing about issues such as private property and the right to use it for personal gain and profit, the bedrock foundation of our economy, guaranteed in our Constitution. It is becoming a scare commodity as the U.S. government continues to declare vast areas as U.N. heritage sites, wildlife refuges, national parks, and other excuses to deny their use as sources of timber, coal, natural gas or oil.

I am arguing about the Green Revolution of genetically modified crops that can feed the vast population of the Earth without using more forested land. Despite this, supplies of corn and soy are being depleted for the purpose of burning these food sources as fuel. The nation’s supply of wheat has been depleted as acreage is diverted to grow these crops and the cheaper dollar underwrites increased exports.

What better way to reduce the world’s population than a manmade famine?

I am arguing against plans to merge the United States, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union to facilitate exports from China and Asia.

Meanwhile, the great engine of the world’s economy and the beacon of liberty to the world is being undermined by a fifth column of environmentalists and those who expect to benefit from their agenda.

Alan Caruba writes a weekly column posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center,

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

His response was quite revealing. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You’re arguing the past.” He would later post that, so far as the data debunking global warming, he was “beyond caring.”

That's reason enough for me. We have not been good custodians of our planet.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

His response was quite revealing. “It doesn’t matter one way or the other. All the same fixes are required for sheer pollution reasons on a global scale given population increase and consumption increase. You’re arguing the past.” He would later post that, so far as the data debunking global warming, he was “beyond caring.”

That's reason enough for me. We have not been good custodians of our planet.

Figures, that is the easy way out. Just say, "I care".

As far as your custodians comment? bull shit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,184]

The ultra rich cash in on anything that makes them richer. That has no bearing whatever on whether or not it is a "hoax".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What a coincidence that the temperature rise in the last 50 years
>on OTHER planets is due to solar forcing, but the concurrent temperature
>rise on Earth is due to man and CO2...

I think it's hilarious that some people claim that climate scientists, people who have been studying our planet's climate for decades, do not understand the earth's weather, but THEY understand the weather on Mars 100%!

I think it's hilarious that the ONLY cause for the temperature rise could be CO2, given all the other evidence.

So you didn't actually bother to read the scientific articles then.

Why would I need to - the 'consensus' gets all the air time they want, all I have to do watch the MSM "news" shows.

.

So you admit, then, that your previous post was uninformed flippant bullshit based only on media reports. OK, thanks for the honesty.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where is the lable?

You know, one like "denier"?

"Hoax" you blind muppet, "Hoax".

To have a hoax it must be perpetrated by hoaxers. You are calling GW a hoax, therefore you are calling GW climate scientists hoaxers, therefore you are labeling those climate scientists and attempting to stifle debate by calling them hoaxers. It's plain as fucking day. It is inconceivable that you don't get that?

by Alan Caruba
Ultra-Rich Cash In on Warming Hoax
March 31, 2008 02:00 PM EST

Some bullshit

So you admit that you are trying to stifle debate with bullshit lables like "Hoaxer"?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,133]

>Ultra-Rich Cash In on Warming Hoax

I love it! The "ultra rich" climate scientists are "cashing in" on the warming hoax by implementing "big brother" schemes. Whereas the executives of Exxon, the same executives who got 18 billion dollars of our money in tax breaks, leading companies that are making 10 billion dollars a quarter, engaged in trying to deny that global warming exists to line their own pockets - these are your heroes who can do no wrong, noble fighters who sacrifice everything, including wealth and prestige, to bring the world desperately needed supplies.

I think it's safe to say you've never met a climate scientist!

[Remster 30]

Quote

Alan Caruba

Remster

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The ultra rich cash in on anything that makes them richer. That has no bearing whatever on whether or not it is a "hoax".

This sure is a flip flop for you!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln