Jeff Id writes a good post about the hilarious “climate experts” who are still, STILL, trying to play the AGW game:
Gawd it’s funny to see grown men caught red handed with their mits in the cookie jar of fraud, claiming vindication and seeing them be supported by the media, government and industrial institutions. All these reviews taught us was that the corruption of reality extends much farther than a few people.
Again — we already knew that.
But the lies will continue as Mann publises one politically laced self-exonerating editorial after another. Like a pile of four year olds, climate scientists haven’t learned anything from climategate other than the obvious — don’t get caught!!
I have news for everyone though, climategate was the tip of the iceberg and climategate II is coming soon. I don’t have any information different from anyone else on where, when or whom, what I have is a brain smart enough to openly analyze the evidence and the evidence says that climate science is far more corrupted than we have seen yet. We aren’t done with this trip. Cuccinelli’s suit against Mann to reveal the 12,000 emails he’s written are a perfect example. Everyone paying attention knows that Mann is 100% in for AGW at any cost. He would sell his grandma for a hockey stick (think tiljander), and he’s not alone!! That just makes it more entertaining. Those emails are probably so full of corrupt commentary that it would make cliamtegate look like a kid spilling his milk. Of course without the emails, there is no proof so it’s just one man’s opinion.
Damn these guys make it fun.The truth is out where even the rock dumb extremist AGWer’s can figure it out now though, Mann’s Nature trick to hide the decline pretty well cleared it all up. This post should serve as a warning/reminder to you all in the media and in the less informed public, we ‘skeptics’ of AGW extremism are well enough versed in climate science to know fully that there is a lot more than you saw from Climategate and ‘hide the decline’ going on behind the scenes, and it is even worse than you think.
Just wait till those 12,000 emails see the light of day. I’m guessing we will see some like this one exposed by Jeff:
From: Mick Kelly
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Mick
Eh….whats shaving off a few points here, a few points there…no big deal. It’s just science dude.
Steve Goddard today:
During October, RSS showed a large drop of 0.232 from September. It appeared that the battle for 2010 as hottest year ever was doomed. 2010 is turning out much cooler than 1998, with no hope of catching up.
But just when the battle appeared lost, the fighters at GISS got their second wind. Instead of a large drop in October temperature anomalies, they found a 0.08 rise! This keeps 2010 well ahead of their hottest year ever – 2005.
GISS is winning this battle by
making upextrapolating temperatures across vast regions where they have no data (pink below) and then reporting global temperatures to within one one-hundredth of a degree.
It’s just science bro!
Climategate taught different people different lessons though. Instead of journals opening up and allowing the reasonable moderate AGW science to be published, they tightened their unofficial policies forcing the non-anointed to go through endless reviews before rejection. Countless hours are spent by those who would publish moderate work in the face of extremist AGW claims. But it is funny!! Apparently climate science believes humans can control not only the planetary temperature but the laws of physics as well!
Dude, it’s only science:
For every one ton of coal burned, 2.86 tons of carbon dioxide is produced.
Wait a minute. How can one ton of hard coal produce nearly triple that weight of a gas (in this case, CO2)?
Those pushing this climate change argument ask us to accept some of the most complex science that very few understand, and to accept that science on faith.
Yet this coal-to-CO2 thing is not complex science. It’s basic first-year high school science that we all learned.
~~~The now-failed American Power Act legislation proposed placing a cost on CO2 in the amount of $25 per ton.
Now, the total amount in dollar terms for the money to be raised from this cost on CO2 comes in at $88 billion per year.
Electrical Power generation produces one third of all CO2 emissions, so if that legislation was passed, government would be looking at raising around $260 billion each and every year.
That cost would have been passed down to every one of us in everything we do in the form of higher charges for the electricity we use at home, and in higher prices for everything else as other sectors pass on their increased charges for the electricity they use.
Can you see now why climate change legislation really was really just about the money?
This money part of that legislation was not rocket science.
And it all hinged on high school science that most of us have forgotten.
All of this was for a trace gas in the amount of 390 parts per million, which is 0.039% of the total atmosphere — and that’s high school math.
Also, if you read the legislation (and that’s high school English), you’ll see that they didn’t stop at CO2, but instead proposed also to place a cost on a number of other emissions as well.
It really was just all about the money.
And it gets better :
The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.
The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ‘’total lack of environmental integrity’’.
Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.
The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.
The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.
What it all comes down to is no idealistic love for the environment. It comes down to money and power and the ringleaders/gatekeepers of the past have been shown to be frauds.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The ClimateGate Comedy….It’s Just Science Dude! -- Topsy.com
@John ryan: I believe in climate. It is everywhere, all over the planet.
Duh smart guy, nice one there….
From the US Dept of Energy:
Because burning is simply a rapid form of oxidation. When you burn–or oxidize–coal, every 1 atom of carbon in the coal combines with 2 atoms of atmospheric oxygen. The result is energy release in the form of heat, and CO2. The triple weight of CO2 gas is because there are now three combined atoms.
Does The American Thinker author actually feel compelled to explain this?
Greg the know it all strikes again.
Not.
Since one liter = 2.2 pounds, then burning one ton of coal produces approximately 1,375 pounds of CO2, or 0.6875 tons.
Nice try Greg, but not nice enough. Your “rapid oxidation” theory sucks wind. Sorry bud, but you have proven yourself wrong once again.
Really, this is just too easy.
@ Greg, The Source is referenced. Consult the links on the AT page for further detail. BTW, do you drink carbonated beverages? You need to give it up now then. If you exhale you are releasing CO, CO-2 and that should worry you? Do you drive a car or ride a bike everywhere?
Do you think that the EPA needs to monitor Cattle or Horse Flatulence or regulate it?
There is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxice causes global warming. Man made carbon dioxide is only .0015% of the carbon dioxide in the air. If you look at scientific evidence, levels of carbon dioxide has historically increased after temperature increases. Temperature increases occured long before industrialization. Those increases are generally attributed to the inability of warm water to hold carbon dioxide. If that is hard to believe, open a bottle of cold soda. Leave it in the fridge. After a few hours, place it on the table at room temperature. Watch it off gas the CO2.
As Curt demonstrated above, the SWAGS (silly wild ass guesses) for areas that have no means to measure temperature is suspect. Measuring air temperature over land and water give widely different readings over the day. One of the biggest issues to surface from Climate Gate was that climate scientists have manulipated the historical temperature readings from around the world so much, few scientists believe there is a reliable base line temperature measurements that exist any more.
When computer modeling of climate changes that do not take in to account clouds and water vapor are declared scientific proof, then there is no climate science! We learned what scientific proof was in junior high school. None of the climate models can meet that criteria.
I believe that the American Thinker and others feel the need to explain the simplist processes since those who jumped on the Gorbal warming band wagon do not! People who are labeled deniers do not deny that the climate changes, they deny that punny man can create warming or stop it! Deniers are actually asking the questions that need answers to meet the requirements of valid scientific thought. Maybe Greg and John Ryan need to spend some time with my 8th grade science teacher, Mr Hartman!
@OT2 – You said –
But then Greg and John ryan would be limited in how much they were allowed to talk…
Hmmm, not such a bad thing after all!
@ anticsrocks, We can only hope that those two will give up the Kool Aid and go ‘on the wagon’.
Quite frankly, every time they share their ‘nuggets of wisdom’ they expose themselves as being what Vladimir Lenin called ‘useful idiots’. We know that their Party Line talking points are parroted nonsense from their last “young pioneers” meeting.
It always does with environmentalists. Oh, they talk a persuasive, emotion-filled talk, but in the end it’s about money and power. The carbon trading/offset racket is ample evidence of how corrupt and mercenary the global warming “scientific community” (using that phrase very loosely) is.
Pingback: This Weeks Posts: Sunday Nov 14-Saturday Nov 20 « The Divine Lamp
@ Old Trooper 2, #4:
The burning of fossil fuels is an altogether different proposition than animal respiration, bovine and equine flatulance, or other processes it’s frequently compared to in order to make a legitimate cause for concern seem ridiculous. All of those processes are part of natural carbon exchange cycles that have co-evolved over millions of years in a state of dynamic balance.
When we burn fossil fuels on a global scale, on the other hand, we’re abruptly (as in, over a few centuries) reintroducing into the mix enormous volumes of fossil carbon that had been progressively–and more or less permanently–taken out over a period of hundreds of millions of years. There’s plenty of reason to wonder whether or not the dynamic climate balance we simply take for granted will be altered by such a sudden man-made change of one variable.
The assumption that the alteration of CO2 levels is unimportant simply because CO2 represents only a tiny component of the planetary atmosphere isn’t really based on sound logic. Observation should demonstrate to anyone that complex balances can often be tipped one way or the other by small alterations in small things. We had a surprising demonstration of the effect a change in one small variable can have when commercial air traffic was grounded following 9/11. A brief spike in radiant energy reaching the ground and in measured surface temperatures was noted. This apparently related to the short-term elimination of high altitude condensation trails. Who would have thought of that?
One’s personal behavior in light of all this is a separate issue from whether or not AGW is fact or fiction. Personally, I’ve owned a gas-guzzling Chevy Blazer 4X4 for the past 9 years. I haven’t changed vehicles but have modified my driving habits, and will probably replace the vehicle with fuel efficiency in mind when the time comes. Common sense has resulted in the gradual replacement of energy inefficient products. To me, for example, it seems just plain irresponsible not to replace spent incandescent bulbs with fluorescents that require a third the energy. For some odd reason, there are people who seem to believe compact fluorescents are part of a left-wing conspiracy. We seem to have increasing difficulty separating politics from both science and common sense.
@ Greg, So Professor, should we immediately shut down Coal Fired Power Plants and live in the dark? Shut down the US Steel Industry, or whats left of it, the ones that the EPA and Unions did not kill? How about shutting down petro fuel and petro chemical refineries as well, due to their emissions?
I raise beef cattle, herd them on horseback as it has been done for about 7 1/2 Decades on my spread. The Carbon Credit/Climate Crisis business is a huge fraud. It is November in Montana and snowing. As it does every year. No real Scientific proof that has been substantiated through Decades is on record but skewed data lends to the spin.
Sorry, I’m not buying any of it.
Even with our global burning of fossil fuels, plant and oceanic life is consuming far more CO-2 than we as a species produce. Al Gore’s whole stint of the oceans turning into an acidic soup doesn’t jive with the fact many species in the ecosystem of both land and water based life is reliant on CO-2 to survive and consume far more of it than we as a species produce via industry. All of our global industry is outmatched by the massive ammount of hive insect life that purposely create CO-2 to feed various fungus and lichen colonies for the sake of survival. Many hive species, especialy in Africa, rely on decompossing materials to thrive and insects are the most numerous presence on the planet due to sheer population scale even compared to humans and how diverse hive species are across the globe. Plants, some plankton, molds, lichen, and even a few deep-sea worm species rely on CO-2 to survive and by wanting to scrub or limit the the “legal” amount allowed by a human standard is one hell of a way to cause serious damage to the bedrock lifeforms needed for all others and to create an extinction event by unintended consquences due to their eco-agendas.
Decrease the ammount of CO-2 and you adversaly effect the health of even crop harvests, which in turn will lead to mass food shortages, which in turn leads to famines, which in turn leads to riots in the Human side of the event and in the ecosystem side: extinction events if plant life does not recover.
Greg, so burning sequestered carbon still only accounts for .00115% of the CO2 production at most. Show that CO2 increases is causing global warming. You can not because it isn’t, yet cap and trade and other proposals that serve to bankrupt countries is proposed all over the world.
Google “periodic table of elements”
Carbon has an atomic weight of 14 and Oxygen 16. (O2 = 36) When Carbon and Oxygen combine by combustion, they must combine in this ratio
Assume that 1 ton of coal (2000 #) is approximately 80% carbon or 1600#
Carbon and Oxygen combine as follows C + O2 = CO2
There are 1600/14 or 114.286 units of carbon which combine with equal units of oxygen to produce CO2. The atomic weight of O2 is 36, so the # of O2 needed are 114.286 X 36 or 3657#
The combined weight of the C and O2 as CO2 is 1600 (orig carbon) + 3657 O2 = 5257 # CO2
5257 # CO2 = 5257/2000 #/ton = 2.628 tons of CO2 ( will change depending on % C in coal)
As human beings we are creative and immaginative. We take stimulus and produce response, we think therefore we are.
What we must all realize is that our views may be so abstract so individually biased as to be incomprehenisible, even to ourselves. The more education, training and experience we have the higher level of thinking we are capable of and at the same time the more disconnected this highly educated, trained and experienced individual will become from the individuals that surrounding individuals.
There in lies the lies . . . or truths . . . it is an individual thing and yes, as our perspectives become more seperated from the each other the greater the level of controversy.
Wiki tells us the story of the conservation of mass . . . that mass can neither be created nor destoryed . . . only changed in form. Mass of the reactants in grams or multiples thereof, remains the same in any chemical reaction. The mass of carbon and mass of oxygen in the chemical reaction we call combustion remains exactly the same from input to output, that is a fact. Note also that there are thousands of other elements and compounds that are involved in combustion, therefore the mass of those reactants remain the same too.
Fossil fuel combustion is based on the simple fact that each of the elements or compounds is reacting in such fashion as to become MORE Chemically stable . . . thus in fact from a chemcial perspective, CO2 is more stable than Carbon or Oxygen. As a compound CO2 approaches being chemically inert, strange but true.
However, now comes the consideration of PHYSICS. Combustion does in fact change the PHYSICAL characteristics of both Carbon and Oxygen. Ah, so now we change the science to a new and different group of individuals. Thus comes the controversy and the heated (pun intended) communications and almost religious zeal in the stimulus/response characterisitc of the human being.
One group of people want to “stop” combustion, another wants to sequester CO2 (PC for long term storeage of the waste) . . . wow. . . it just get CRAZY and becomes a CRISIS . . . wow . . . why waste a perfectly good crisis? LOL
We have one individual who readily admits to being “owner of a gas guzzler/AGW supporter” . . . another who is a believer of “insects rule the earth” . . . another that says, “cattle for the millenium” . . . all I got to say is “Holy ShXX, Batman!”.
Consider, my position . . . “Nuclear Power is the answer” that would allow each of us to maintain exactly what we want without all the BS and what can I expect but a bunch of crazies that come at me yelling . . . “waste sequestration” (opps sorry that applies only to CO2″), in the nuclear business it is long term storage . . . LOL. . . . in the background I hear the laugh of evil villian!!!
This is the modern “Comedy of Errors” . . . Insanity Rules!!!
Quote: “It does not require many words to speak the truth.” Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce.
Some perspectives from previous statements:
1. Oh shxx, the world is ending . . . I will sacrifice YOU so that I can keep my gas guzzler!
2. We need to save the earth . . . raise those other peoples taxes . . . but NOT mine.
3. We got to do something . . . the bees are gona die!
4. I am just so confused . . . but I know more than YOU!!!
5. Go Nuclear or Go to HELL . . . both are infinite energy sources!!!
6. We need COW farts!! They are a renewable energy source!!!
7. Watch this . . . I can baffffffffffffffffffffffle them with my BS!!!
8. The world is so stupid . . . but I am so smart!!!
9. Oh, you don’t like those numbers? Ok, ok, I will give you some new ones!
10. Alright, that is 10 points off your essay for speeling eras!
Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Gram molecular weight of carbon is 12 and gram molecular weight of oxygen is 16 . . . therefore each combination of 1 gmw of carbon with 2 gmw of oxygen produces a compound with 12 + 16 +16 = 44 grams . . . now you can take those numbers and come up with all kinds of THEORETICAL masses but don’t blame me if NONE of them are real world, lol. Oh Shxx . . . but what about the various isotopes . . . damn it Batman!!!
@Greg: You said in post #9:
Once again, you blather on about this fact and that fact, but conveniently neglect to provide proof by citing sources.
Until you do, it is just so much hogwash.
As for the debate on how much CO2 is produced by burning a ton of coal – see post #3.
Excellent post Curt. I was reading a post over at Hot Air that slammed another AGW theory:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/12/another-agw-argument-bites-the-er-dust/
Seems the AGW folks can’t catch a break.
I noticed that anticsrock slapped down Greg’s phony math and Greg moved onto another talking point. It’s funny, you can move numbers around to make them say anything you want them to. Unfortunately for the AGW folks, number’s don’t lie. Someone will find out how the formulas were skewed.
So Greg, if the science is so iron-clad, why won’t the AGW scientists let the light of day shine on their work? That is how science works.
anticrocks – post #3
anticsrocks post #3
not following your logic. if you burn one ton of coal, that ton has to show up in the products. you can’t have less pounds of product than pounds of reactants.
don’t know where you got the ton of coal = 625 liters CO2. Based on what? there is an infinite # of correct answers all depending on what the pressure and temperature are. Change either of those two values and answer will change.
ALL this above from the beginning of the POST, all Is so full of intelligence thinking,
In many various ways that make a lot of sense,
WHAT It gave me to think that they should close the BORDER first to
restrained more illegals to sneak in this country is needing to have a breath of fresh air,
and they are too crowded to out and have it, or too scare of the the change they see happening,
because of those OPEN BORDERS: There lye the no 1 problem,before they even think of
selling the environment problems.
Bees: We should control the things we can and not worry about those we can not! We need to ask for the wisdom to know the difference.
Randy, YES, I can add that when the people ELECT a president, THEY should check
IF it is a person who have the WISDOM to earn the POSITION of a LEADER to serve,
the MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY OF THE WORLD WHICH EARNED THAT PLACE; IF they fail to do it, they are responsible for
EVERY bad judgment, every wrong ruling done, that hurt everybody for the FUTURE.
bye
GREG, I don’t know what your side would have concluded when the DYNAUSORES,
and MALAMUTHS “s flatulences would have HIT your nose, I can imagine HOW many,
TONS of CO2 would have blown up around Y’all. there was no DEMOCRATS there to
TRY to fix it, BUT today they are figuring the unknown but not the past which have
MANY answers to give, LIKE this one ” for GOD’S sake LEAVE IT ALONE”.
bye
@ anaticrocks, #3:
I think maybe there’s some weight vs. volume sleight of hand going on in there. If we take a ton of carbon and fully oxidize it, we’re essentially adding the mass of 2 oxygen atoms for every 1 given atom of carbon. (Discounting the minor details that no coal is truly 100% carbon, and that imperfect combusion invariably produces some carbon monoxide. ) We can’t somehow wind up with less total mass in the process.
Perhaps I’m missing something and a compact fluorescent bulb will suddenly light up over my head.
@ #18:
Seems like I originally picked that up from a Nova documentary a few years back, but I can’t remember the title. There are plenty of online articles:
Jet Contrails Alter Average Daily Temperature Range, from Science Daily;
Dimming the Sun–The Contrail Effect, from Nova;
Airplane Contrails and their Effect on Temperatures, from Christian Science Monitor, with a link to the reseach summary in PDF.
Dennis – Source for #3.
It is from a blog that is pro-AGW and thinks CO2 capture works…
That’s a laugh –
Greg, the studies you cite seem to leave out an awful lot of variables. None-the-less you are advocating that the burning of fossil fuels (jet engines) actually makes the planet cooler? ROFLMAO!!!!
Carbon: Molar mass 12.
Oxygen: Molar mass 16.
CO2: Molar mass = 12 + 16 + 16 = 44.
44/12 = 3.67.
If you burn a pound of pure carbon you in fact get 3.67 pounds of carbon dioxide. The 2.86 figure from the article no doubt takes into account that coal is not 100% carbon – there is a substantial amount of hydrogen in soft coal, and some ash in all coal.
But this is a sideshow. I wouldn’t get caught up in it.
The deal with gobal warming is:
1. The models that predict that the world’s climate will get warmer as a result of human CO2 emissions have failed to make accurate predicitions. They have been wrong for over 20 years. That interval is no longer “the weather” — it’s climate.
2. This is not the warmest period in the Earth’s recent history. Objective proxies such as ice borehole temperatures and oxygen isotope ratios in shellfish show this. Human records from the Medieval Warm Period also show this — crop records, written accounts of weather conditions, etc.
3. The offical international collated temperature record has been compromised by politically-driven fudging. What has been done is outrageous and it is corrupt. And, this is documented. Hopefully more documentation to follow.
4. Most of the last 10 million years have been ice age conditions, with brief interglacial periods like the one we are in now. Nobody knows why ice ages begin, or why they end.
5. Trillions of dollars are at stake and this has turned out to be at least as corrupting to the integrity of people in positions of trust as the narcotics trade. Draconian measures to fix this supposed problem will transfer money in fees and taxes from the many to the few. Poor people around the world will be killed just as dead by the resulting increase in poverty as they would by any envisioned climate change. Facile arguments that we should go Green just in case ignore this.
Burt Rutan put together a pretty good presentation debunking the weak/wishful science involved. Interestingly, this was done well before the Climategate e-mails were leaked; it has since been updated: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
The last ice age started when Pelosi was elected speaker of the house! I expect things to get a little warmer in January.
The temperature spike during the 9/11 halt of air traffic illustrates one of the processes that climate models do not take into account: the effect cloud cover. More cloud cover = more reflection of solar heat. They don’t know how to model it, so they simply don’t bother with it.
Another thing left out: Increased plant growth from increased CO2 levels. This is not a trivial thing – CO2 is actually used in greenhouses to make plants grow faster – a lot faster. More plant growth = more CO2 pulled back out of the atmosphere.
That’s two potential stasis-promoting processes not even considered.
The variable output of the Sun is also not considered, because they can’t model that either.
And remember:
- To date, climate prediction models have failed.
- Nobody knows why ice ages start, or why they end.
If these scientists can not predict if it is going to snow tomorrow in Colorado Springs, How can they predict a heat wave here in 2060? There are too many variables that are not known or programed into the climate modeling computers/programs. The so called scientists like Michael Mann push global warming hysteria so he can garner more grants from the government.
A case could be made that a long-term average is more predictable than a short-term point forecast.
But the long-term average predictions also failed.
@ anticsrocks, #28:
It sure looks that way. Contrails seem to increase high altitude clouds, which reflect more of the radiant energy from the sun back into space. I’m in the Chicago region. I remember how strikingly different the northwest Indiana sky looked a couple of days after 9/11. I hadn’t seen a sky so clear and deep blue since my childhood.
I haven’t missed the irony.
The post-9/11 surface temperature spike is of concern to some in the AGW camp. They think contrails, along with increased levels of reflective high altitude particulates from some of the same activities that increase greenhouse gases, might be masking the full extent of warming tendencies.
The AGW crowd can not statistically measure 5 days of temperature and declare a spike with any scientific accuracy. This is just another red herring!
@ Randy, when you manipulate the data the results are predictable. Kinda like playing poker with folks that deal from the bottom of the deck. Government “Sponsorship” of the study insures a predictable outcome.
It is fraud but the deck has been stacked to “Regulate”, allows denial of permits for technology that is not on the Agenda and the “House” always wins.
OLD TROOPER 2: hi, NOW they are pointing toward AIRPLANE being the culprit,
But I don’t see the trip in INDIA, saving CO2 if we calculate all the AIRPLANES,
who went along the PRESIDENT VACATION.
THERE must be a lot of CO2 around INDIA by now.
bye
Greg, better go back to politics. Your a loser there but your not alone. You and the MSM must feel really vindicated now that Bush has cuased the Democrats to suffer a historic whipping!!
OT2 Are you still in good SHAPE?
@ Randy, still in the black. Despite the Current Regime printing bogus money! I am an old fashioned kinda guy. I finance my Operation with money that was never borrowed, do traditional land and cattle management and meet USDA Standards, EPA Standards, pay taxes on time, meet a payroll for over 30 Hands and the State is happy with me on their Requirements. I indirectly employ several Suppliers of Services by maybe a couple hundred or better and the price of Beef on the Hoof is good. Ruth Cris is one of my Customers. So are several Restaurants with the Market for my product.
I pay cash on the barrel for most supplies, trade beef for Grocery items. Barter works swell for some things. I cut the Middle Man out of the chain for things that are legal to do.
My Retirement Pay and Temporary Active Duty Pay is invested in the Ranch. My Daughter is Service Academy educated so no Tuition, Books, Dorm fees or the rest. I live well but work hard for it and resent Gummint Intrusion, Over Reach and Over Regulation from Educated Fools that never worked a day in their sordid lives. Small Business is the literal backbone of the Economy. I despise further Taxation for crap programs that never worked, Career Politicians that are Economic Illiterates and what Skook calls the Parasite Class that scam the System. The Market has always been Self-Correcting until Meddlers write New Laws to get “Social and Economic Justice” imposed on the Productive Class. The Taxpayers are being taken for a ride right now. You and I know that.
Government of this size, Spending of this size and Over Regulation of the Private sector is unsustainable. Too many hands out and not enough with their hands full paying for this travesty of a Regime’s Agenda. Wall Street got bailed out while Small Businesses failed. I have kept my head above water through Prudent Management of my Assets. If you take Federal Money, they Meddle with Sound Practices and You lose your shirt.
Yeah, Pardner, I’m in the black. Thanks for asking!
OT, I worked for a professional gambler who ran a few underground card games and table gambling. He took the time to explain how the money only flows one way on the tables and that is towards the house. Simple math slapping fools in the face.
At least those fools had the option of walking away, we are being played for fools by cheap conmen and gangsters, but we don’t have the option of walking away from their underhanded games.
They just don’t want all our money, they want the money from future generations.
How’s that Marxism working out for you Libs? are you upset that you can’t be destroyed financially soon enough. Damn those Conservatives, slowing up the impending disaster.
OT, if we survive the imposition of Obamanomics, they should do a study of your business plan for future government and business endeavors. That is a big “IF”, the country might be ready for some sound economic guidelines, especially after the Marxists have tried to destroy the country.
TALLGRASS : hi, I like the quote on your 15tenn, from chief JOSEPH
IT DOESN”T need to much words to speak the truth,
WHEN we listen to speechs FROM LEADERS, we should remind them
To get to the point,and spare us the public the rest[I'm being polite]
some would finish with another word. bye
I think Dennis’ calculations look correct. There is absolutely no way that one liter of CO2 would “weigh” a ton. One liter is slightly more than a quart, but we can use a quart as an approximation. Think of a quart container of milk, which weighs about two pounds. Pour out the milk and then pour in CO2 gas. Ain’t no way that’s gonna weigh a ton. Even a quart of liquid gold (much denser than CO2) is going weigh a mere fraction of a ton. I think anticsrocks confused liters with kilograms and tons with pounds. One kilogram is approximately 2.2 pounds at the earth’s surface.
It takes 22.4 liters of a gas at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is 0 centigrade and 1 atmospheric pressure) to yield one mole (6.022 x 10^23 particles) of the gas molecules. One mole of CO2 contains 6.022 x 10^23 atoms of carbon and 2 x 6.022 x 10^23 atoms of oxygen, for a combined molecular “weight” of 12 + 2 X 16 = 44 grams of CO2.
But that’s 22.4 liters, so one liter of CO2 = 44/22.4 = just shy of 2 grams, which is 1/500 of a kilogram. Therefore, we need around 500 liters of CO2 to make a kilogram (2.2 pounds), considerably more than the one liter that anticsrocks equated to one liter in post #3.
Wm T Sherman is right, though, in that this is all a sideshow. Saying that one ton (or one of any measure) of carbon results in 2.86 tons (or measures) of CO2 is usually meant to scare people. The volume of our atmosphere is so immense that gazillions of tons of CO2 gas can (and do) exist as a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere. How much of this is actually responsible for global warming is the real issue, and science hasn’t been able to figure this out with any certainty or confidence, primarily because of the political pressures that are inducing scientists to deviate from the gospel of the Scientific Method. Theory and hypothesis are great tools, but they have to be reconciled with fact. Climategate is just one glaring example of how far scientists have allowed themselves to corrupted to justify a given desired end result.
Bias in scientific testing is nothing new, and even many of the world’s renowned scientists have been victims of their own pre-conceived notions. In his famous “oil-drop” experiment in which he calculated the approximate electrical charge of electrons, Millikan occasionally got results that didn’t seem correct, and he discarded some of the values that just didn’t seem to match the value he expected to see. Millikan did attempt to understand the nature of the deviations, and this is where today’s AGW scientists are failing. They should be faithfully presenting the data with a disclaimer that it may not validate any particular theory, which should question the theory and not the data.
These scientists have it backwards: you don’t tweak data to fit the model; you tweak the model to fit the data, even if it means the model ends up contradicting the theory that your BOSS (or funding source) is banking on.
- As a side note: One of my first jobs as a fledgling lab technician was to perform earthquake simulation testing with other technicians and engineers on electromechanical components to be used in electrical control systems, including those used for oil pipelines and nuclear power plants. We’d mount these components in enclosures bolted to a “shake table” and test these parts according to maximum anticipated seismic profiles of the locations in which the equipment would be operating. Every once in a while these components failed at energies below the seismic curve, which meant that these parts might not operate properly if seismic activities got near the maximums expected for the area. Our corrupt managers would then tell us that our numbers had to be wrong, and that we were to make the numbers “fit the graph.” We knew what we were doing, but feared the consequences of being “whistle blowers” and ruining our careers just as they were beginning. We laughed about it, and even made business cards calling ourselves “Data Creation Engineers.” To the best of my knowledge, no serious “accidents” occurred. If they had, there’s no doubt who would have had their axes on the chopping block (certainly not the bosses!)
Jeff
Pingback: Climate Doesn’t Kill People, Weather Kills « Robomonkey's Blog
While the bureaucrats and the psedoscientists are concerned about AGW and their funding or reputations, there are young mean and women like Sal who are patriotic and unselfish. Check out this young man! He makes me proud to have led young men like him!
http://vimeo.com/16662374
As soon as cons can explain why the hypercompetitive, economically focused Japanese government believes in man made climate change, as do the Germans, the French, the Brits, etc., I will believe this is all a lefty sham. But our competition is acting as is this is a real issue and working on technologies (cleaner internal combustion engines, solar, wind turbines, clean coal, more nukes, etc.) to replace dirty carbon based burning. Meanwhile, one major political party (I won’t say which one, but you know who you are) refuses to even entertain the concept that they MIGHT BE WRONG and get behind cleaner energy sources. Instead, we get “drill, baby, drill.” It’s as if other countries are debating the best way to circumnavigate the world and the cons refuse to get involved because they KNOW the Earth is flat.
Colder winters possible due to climate change-study 16 Nov 2010 14:52:16 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Colder winters possible in northern regions
* Shrinking sea ice causes airstream anomalies
* Finding does not conflict with global warming
BERLIN, Nov 16 (Reuters) – Climate change could lead to colder winters in northern regions, according to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on Tuesday.
Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study, said a shrinking of sea ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional warming of lower air levels and may lead to anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents.
“These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia,” he said. “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005/06 do not conflict with the global warming picture but rather supplement it.”
Petoukhov, whose study is entitled “A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents”, said in a statement a warming of the air over the Barents-Kara Sea appeared to bring cold winter winds to Europe.
“This is not what one would expect,” Petoukhov said. “Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea ice won’t bother him could be wrong.”
The U.N. panel of climate scientists say a creeping rise in global temperatures will bring ever more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.
Almost 200 nations meet in Mexico from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10 to try to agree a “green fund” to help poor countries deal with climate change and other steps towards an elusive treaty to tackle global warming. [ID:nLDE6AF0FB] (Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum; editing by Janet Lawrence)
I don’t expect that colder winters would creat more sea ice and then reduce this estimated effect? I think global warming is causing a rash on my back side, too!
@Silly Bob: Did you say something?
No?
I didn’t think so…
auntiesrocks –
Yes, I did say something. I tried to use small words so you could understand it, but that obviously did not work. But I refuse to dumb it down any further just for your indulgence, since everyone else here comprehends it perfectly fine.
Anticsrocks: I was going to provide a profound answer about how Spain has gone bankrupt subsidizing alternative energy with tax dollars to B-Rob, but your description of silly Bob was much better.
Just for B-Rob who can not understand that a fiscally responsible congress man can not require utility companies to use renewable but highly inefficient energy!
Romina Boccia
The High Cost of Renewable Energy Coercion
http://townhall.com/columnists/RominaBoccia/2010/11/16/the_high_cost_of_renewable_energy_coercion/page/full/
This midterm election sent a clear message to Washington: “Listen to the people, or you’re out.” While the dire state of the economy and out-of-control public spending were certainly the frontrunners in motivating voters to make their voices heard, the Democrats’ push for “cap-and-trade” legislation followed closely behind.
Voters know that cap-and-trade legislation would lead to increased energy costs, which would negatively affect businesses’ and consumers’ bottom line. Making it harder for consumers and businesses to survive in a tough economy with high unemployment is understandably unpopular.
About two dozen Democrats who had voted in favor of cap-and-trade legislation, or the Waxman-Markey bill as it is officially known, lost their seats in the House of Representatives this midterm election. Compare that to the fate of West Virginia’s Joe Manchin who actually fired a shot through a piece of paper marked “cap-and-trade” during a campaign ad. Manchin wanted to make it perfectly clear that he wouldn’t follow his party leadership in pushing for this job-killing legislation, and he won handily.
Yet, voters should be warned. Although cap-and-trade may be off the table during the next Congress, another costly energy bill is pending, which might be able to garner more bipartisan support. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) introduced the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 in the Senate this fall, and several other Republican senators have already expressed their support.
The Act would mandate that 15 percent of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2021, thereby increasing the cost of electricity for businesses and consumers. Electricity generated from the wind and sun costs more than extracting energy from coal, oil, natural gas, or atoms. Since the broad majority of U.S. utility companies are regulated, the higher costs of renewable energy would be directly passed on to consumers in the form of rate increases.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that renewable energy standards would raise electricity prices by 36% for households and 60% for businesses. Additionally, the standards are expected to reduce our national income by $2,400 per family of four, and add $10,000 per family to the national debt by 2035.
Proponents of the Act argue that it would increase jobs in the green energy sector, which would help get the economy back on its feet. A study by the German Institute of Energy Research refutes that argument, showing that green energy job subsidies by far exceed average wages, at a per-worker cost of $240,000. This is a waste of resources. Those workers would be better off in more productive positions, which actually help the economy grow rather than in jobs that can exist only with massive government support.
Not surprisingly, the biggest winners from the legislation are wind and solar power industries which have been lobbying heavily to use the coercive power of the state to force U.S. businesses and consumers to buy their products. We’ve seen how this works in Germany, where the electricity market is largely deregulated and whose renewable energy consumption was at 16 percent in 2009. In Germany, it took a legislative Act in 2000, obliging electricity companies to buy renewable energy at a government set fixed rate, referred to as feed-in-tariff, to get to those levels. The Act has increased German consumers’ energy bills by close to 10 percent of which only 35 percent are reflected in energy bills and the rest is taken in taxes. The FAZ, a leading German newspaper, paints a glum picture, suggesting that there are no signs that renewable energy will get any cheaper in the foreseeable future.
Most U.S. states have already implemented renewable energy standards, often times in order to prop up green energy businesses in their state. California’s recent ballot decision on Prop 23 is a perfect example of the process that supports these mandates. Venture capitalists invested in green energy technology financed opposition to Prop 23, because a reduction in green energy subsidies and renewable energy standards would hurt their investments. Those in the green energy business won the day in California, and California consumers will be paying the price. The Senate’s new legislation aims to force those 15 states that have so far resisted the push for higher-cost energy to jump on the bandwagon.
Americans know that the term cap-and-trade is synonymous with high energy prices. The term “renewable energy standards” isn’t yet political poison, but it is the same kind of coercive government policy that would force American consumers and businesses to pay higher prices for energy and subsidize less efficient energy sources. Voters are bound to learn the truth, which is something for the new Congress to consider as the new campaign for 2012 gets underway.
Randy –
I am sure back in the days of buggy whips and whale oil, there were those, like you here, who decried the destruction of the American way of life if their particular industries declined. We somehow figured out how to manage, didn’t we? Likewise, for all the gnashing of teeth connected with the very concept of renewable energy and its astronomical cost, you sound like a bunch of nervous nellies.
My post mentioned wind turbines, nukes, clean coal, and solar technologies — all of which our competitors are exploiting at a much greater rate and a greater degree than the US. Cons consistently have opposed any tax subsidies to cleaner technologies, while screaming “drill, baby, drill” and decrying coal mining regulations — boosting the dirtiest fuel sources at the expense of cleaner methods. Polluters ALWAYS oppose any limits on their ability to freely pollute and thereby socialize their noxious byproducts while privatizing the resulting profits. Polluters always scream about how the added costs will really hurt the little guy and “make our industries less competitive.” Boo friggin hoo. If cons and polluters had had their way, garbage would still be dumped in random landfills, chemical waste would still be dumped into our still-burning rivers, and our air would be thick enough to chew. Likewise, if you have your way here, Germany, China, Japan and France will LAP US on cleaner energy technologies. Is that what you want, for the US 10 years from now to be buying all our clean technologies from abroad?
By the way — California just had an election where out of state pollution promoters proposed turning Cali into Texas. The voters, off course, rejected that proposal, because they remember what the air was like and what the waters were like before California took control of its own environmental destiny.
Hey Silly Bob: Two Points
1. Each time you post here at FA, you prove the old adage correct –
It is much better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
2. Why do you INSIST that the government must mandate that America switch to renewable, “clean” energy?
You said:
So you used an example of how America converted from horse drawn carriages and whale oil to automobiles and electricity.
Refresh our memory here at FA – was the United States Federal Government MANDATING that we make that switch?
They didn’t? The free enterprise, Adam Smith approach carried us from the horse and buggy to the car and oil lamps to electricity??
So you used a free market example to prop up your top down, socialistic, totalitarian approach to renewable energies?
*chortle*
At this time, please refer to number one above…
anticsrock; hi, you caught B- Rob , right on the nose, HE still haven’t figure up
that people of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, don’t want rules and regulations ,
thrown at them, this is an AMERICA THAT ALWAYS NURTURE THEIR FREEDOM,
AND CAN THINK BY THEMSELF, THE GOVERNMENT, FORGET THAT THEY LIVE IN AMERICA,
UNDER A CONSTITUTION THAT PEOPLE DONT WANT TO HAVE ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP CHANGE,
BECAUSE IT WORKED FOR CENTURYS WITH WISE MEN TO PROTECT IT. BYE
anticsrocks: Iwas out today, but love your response. Silly Rob does think that nothing can change unless the government subsidizes it. Pennsylvania crude was much cheaper than whale oil and we switched. When solar and wind become viable, we will switch. As far aas polution, Silly Rob believes that CO2 is a polutant instead of a gas necessary for life on Earth.
@ilovebeeswarzone,
Sadly, we haven’t had centuries of Americans nurturing freedom without excessive goverment meddling, corruption, and waste. When the Progressive movement gained traction in the US (beginnng around 1900, give or take a dozen years,) we have seen a sizeable increase in experimenting by social engineers, always with the American citizens as the lab rats. Some good has come from social programs, but bureaucracy, waste, corruption, and influence peddling have increased along the way. Too many “temporary” programs became permanent once politicians saw how they themselves benefitted from throwing a bone to special interest groups. It’s a rule in politics that it’s always easier to spend than to cut. The 2010 midterm election has started to question that rule, and I hope it’s not too little, too late.
I support a goverment that protects the rights and liberties of ALL of its citizens, not just one group at the expense of others. If there are real barriers preventing any persons from improving their lives and socioeconomic standing through education and effort, those barriers should be eliminated. People make it out of poverty every day by ignoring artificial (and often cultural) barriers, and it’s not always easy. Entitlement programs have helped many people, but they’ve also had the unintentional side-effect of reinforcing the attitude that the poor have no other options.
Jeff
@ JVerive, Excellent commentary, Line Drive Out of the Ballpark as a matter of fact. Thanks!
JVerive; hi, yes ,IT’S too bad that they try to impose their belief and views
according to what other COUNTRYS OWN GOVERNING, WHEN THE LAWS OF THIS LAND PROVIDE THE BEST SECURITY AND FREEDOM FOR IT’S CITIZENS IF BEING FOLLOWED;
AS THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEM WANT IT; AND WITH GOOD REASON, BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE AT THE LEVEL TO OBSERVE THE NEGATIVE CHANGE IN THIS AMERICA THE MOST
FREEDOM LOVING COUNTRY OF THE WORLD BY HIS CITIZENS, THE TRUE AMERICANS.
@ilovebees & Randy – Thank you.
And then there’s this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
A few snippets are here:
and here:
Jeff
Pingback: The ClimateGate Comedy….It's Just Science Dude! | Flopping Aces — Themia
Pingback: Al Gore – You Man-Made Global Warming Skeptics Are Racists! | Flopping Aces