Maybe 'hijacked" is a little strong but a coal train was stopped and boarded by a group of climate change protesters. There is video of the protesters starting to unload the coal right on the tracks. I'm guessing they didn't get to far. Its quite an undertaking when all you have is a few shovels.
Are the protesters misinformed or is this a sign of the future? Will coal fired power plants come under increasing political pressure from different action groups?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7452395.stm
Go here for my rail shots! http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=9296
Building the CPR Kootenay division in N scale, blog here: http://kootenaymodelrailway.wordpress.com/
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Well, I hope that they don't think that they are the first ones to pull a stunt like this. This wasn't an unusual thing to happen in the U.S. People would find a way to stop a coal train and once stopped climb on board and start shoveling coal to heat their homes with.
The same thing happened with the old open auto-racks. They would climb on board and strip parts off of the cars. That's why you have covered auto -racks these days.
.
andrewjonathon wrote: Maybe 'hijacked" is a little strong but a coal train was stopped and boarded by a group of climate change protesters. There is video of the protesters starting to unload the coal right on the tracks. I'm guessing they didn't get to far. Its quite an undertaking when all you have is a few shovels.Are the protesters misinformed or is this a sign of the future? Will coal fired power plants come under increasing political pressure from different action groups? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/7452395.stm
I would not say that hijack is too strong of a term. In fact the protesters are hijacking a lot more than just a coal train. Whether they are misinformed or not depends on your viewpoint. But it is shaping up to be perhaps one of the biggest tugs of war that the world has ever known. The green protesters won't get far shoveling coal out of trains, but that is only symbolism for what they are really shoveling, which is the politics of climate change. And in that arena, I think they are winning the contest. They have won a big battle in the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court declaring that CO2 is a pollutant.
To general perception, it may seem like there have been no consequences of the CO2 ruling, but the implications of the decision are so vast that it will take a few years for them to develop. I think we will look back on it as the point where we made a u-turn unless we can find a way to eliminate CO2 other than not producing it in the first place.
And in this country protestors have managed to close down most of the nations Nuclear Power Plants. Just across the short channel from where they protested is France where 90% of their power comes from Nuclear Power Plants. It has proven to be the cleanest of all power sources with the smallest footprint possible. The dams have proven to actually be the cheapest source of power but protestors are growing in complaits against them and some of these have even been removed.
I have energy efficient lights in every fixture in my apartment, energy saving appliances throughout and most of these I put in at my own expense. When I shopped for a big screen HD television I shopped for the most energy efficient on the market and after comparing dozens of models I purchased the most energy efficient. Inspite of all of my personal energy saving devises my PG&E bill has doubled in one year.
When Rancho Seco the nuclear power plant was still open my energy bills were one quarter what they are today and I had nothing in my same apartment that was energy efficient.
It would be a good start if the government reopened all of the mothballed nuclear plants and built an addditional thirty across the country. The railroads would scream bloody murder over the loss of coal hauling revenue, not to mention the coal producers. We can't continue to build coal burning plants and not suffer the consequences. A good start would to be to reopen Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay to house all of the ACLU lawyers.
Al - in - Stockton
All these ECO Freaks don't know what there talkin about, there is no such thing as global warming. The earth goes though cycles it just happens that we are going though a warming cycle right now. It funny to me that all these enviromentalist are saying the poler ice can is melting and the glaicers on greenland are melting, well here something for everyone to think about. When the Nords sailed across the pond they landed on Greenland and it was Green and lush, and then the earth went into a cool cycle and was cover with snow. I read something about a year ago about one of the glaciers in Greenland, had receeded and do you know what they found. a village and it had artifacts from the vikings that date back before Columbus. But we here anymore about this. NO because they don't want us to. That would mean that they are wrong and there knowing they could do, and for some people that would be unbearable. another point I would like to make is why are we only hearing about the arctic, what the antarctic. Maybe because the antarctic is growing, and that doesn't line up with there thinking. besides with what we have lost in the arctic, Florida and Louisanna should be underwater by now. As for burning coal we should keep using it until something better comes along, and nuclear is not the answer. We as a human race we don't produce nearly as much CO2 or SO2 as nature does. Here another Question how many cubic tons of Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide is the volcanos on the big island of Hawaii are producing a day or that matter the ever volcano in the world. another question is how many cubic ton of Carbon Dioxide is produced when then is a forest/grass fire? In truth natures scrubber system is the trees and plant and that why God put them here. Our father in heaven would not put created coal if we were not suppose to use it.
Regardless of what the media and the enviromentalist say, if anyone would use the brain god gave them they would realize that there is nothing we can do, if the world is destroy, it will be GOD not man.
Ster1 wrote:All these ECO Freaks don't know what there talkin about, there is no such thing as global warming. The earth goes though cycles it just happens that we are going though a warming cycle right now.......... Regardless of what the media and the enviromentalist say, if anyone would use the brain god gave them they would realize that there is nothing we can do, if the world is destroy, it will be GOD not man.
All these ECO Freaks don't know what there talkin about, there is no such thing as global warming. The earth goes though cycles it just happens that we are going though a warming cycle right now..........
Wow, if you're serious then I feel sorry for you. Global Warming is real, and today's climate change was predicted 25 years ago by leading scientists throughout the developed world.
Why don't you use the brain God gave you and do some real research on your own. You may want to consider alternate news sources such as, Scientific American, U.S. News and World Report, and the WSJ. Do yourself a favor and stay away from Rush Limbaugh and FOX News for a month and try something objective. You might be surprised what you will find when you open up your closed and biased mind.
And no, I'm not an ECO freak: I support the responsible use of coal and would welcome the development of nuclear power plants in my backyard. But to stick your head in the sand and pretend that today's global warming is just a cyclic event unrelated to human activity is to behave as if stupidity were a virtue.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
I won't debate whether it's real or not because it is fruitless. The battle is over and we will be moving forward as though manmade climate change is happening. However, I will submit this:
A very small percentage of those who believe it is happening are prepared or willing to make the sacrifices that will be necessary to forestall the very calamity they have defined. There is a huge disconnect between the sacrifice of nearly eliminating CO2 output, and the little knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs and keeping your tires properly inflated. Saying over and over, "We just need to do a lot of little things" does not make it true. It has been sold as a big problem, and it requires a big solution.
sfcouple wrote: Ster1 wrote: All these ECO Freaks don't know what there talkin about, there is no such thing as global warming. The earth goes though cycles it just happens that we are going though a warming cycle right now.......... Regardless of what the media and the enviromentalist say, if anyone would use the brain god gave them they would realize that there is nothing we can do, if the world is destroy, it will be GOD not man.Wow, if you're serious then I feel sorry for you. Global Warming is real, and today's climate change was predicted 25 years ago by leading scientists throughout the developed world. Why don't you use the brain God gave you and do some real research on your own. You may want to consider alternate news sources such as, Scientific American, U.S. News and World Report, and the WSJ. Do yourself a favor and stay away from Rush Limbaugh and FOX News for a month and try something objective. You might be surprised what you will find when you open up your closed and biased mind.And no, I'm not an ECO freak: I support the responsible use of coal and would welcome the development of nuclear power plants in my backyard. But to stick your head in the sand and pretend that today's global warming is just a cyclic event unrelated to human activity is to behave as if stupidity were a virtue.Wayne
Ster1 wrote: All these ECO Freaks don't know what there talkin about, there is no such thing as global warming. The earth goes though cycles it just happens that we are going though a warming cycle right now.......... Regardless of what the media and the enviromentalist say, if anyone would use the brain god gave them they would realize that there is nothing we can do, if the world is destroy, it will be GOD not man.
Wayne, please.....
Global warming stopped in 1998. Since then temperatures have dropped 0.55 degrees Celsius.
The period from the late '70's to the late '90's was one of extraordinary sunspot and solar flare activity. That's why temps were rising at that time. Since then such solar activity has nearly ceased. That's why temps have dropped.
Oh, and prior to 1979 the scientific "consensus" was that man's normal economic activity would cause another Ice Age. How soon we all forget what a crock of BS these so-called "scientists" are continually shovelling out to scare the populance and force politicians to come up with a "cure" for these alleged ills.
Oh yes, the cure is indeed worse than the disease, especially since the disease is non-existent.
You can defer all you want to the psuedo-scientists who get quoted in the mainstream media about how real "global warming" is and how man is responsible. It still doesn't change the fact that one only needs to examine actual raw data to come to a completely different conclusion.
As for those nutjobs who stopped this train - they should be treated as the terrorists that they are and dispatched with extreme force ASAP.
That'd sure reduce their carbon footprint!
But global warming HAS been a cyclic event ever since the start of recorded history. It tends to run in approximately 300 year cycles. The last cooling one ended about 1850 and its been slowly warming ever since. The warmest period recorded for earth was approximately 600-950 AD. No man-made polution problems back then. The one thing that has been consistent when global warming has occurred is increased sunspot activity. Also, we now know that the temperatures are slowly warming on the other planets in our solar system that we are exploring and there's no evidence of carbon activity on them
The big unknown is what impact if any modern activity will have on this global warming cycle. No one knows that for sure and the evidence so far is mixed. I have a professor friend who is one of the US's leading climate researchers. First, he says to not pay any attention to the people that spout off that all the scientist agree on global warming and its cause. Per him, there's really only about 100 US scientists who really are global warming experts and their views vary all over the place. They do agree the earth is experiencing it but there's widespread disagreement as to the extent its caused by natural causes and by man-made causes. Second, his biggest gripe is that so many politicans, individuals, and news media have embraced Al Gore and company to the extent that any unbiased research is getting harder and harder to do and results that contradict the environmentalists' theories are ignored and the scientists attacked as quacks. (Good example: see the previous email attacking Fox news becaused they've reported some of the research findings that contradict the environmentalists' "gospel".) I would add that he is not a big fan of Gore's and his book which he considers too sensationalistic and too much "junk science".
It is interesting that these climate campaigners got as far as they did without police showing up. You would think the police would be on the scene by the time the climate campaigners finished making arrangements with the signalmen working for the railroad as is mentioned in the article. I wonder how this protest concluded.
Norman,
I am one of thoe pseudo-scientists you make reference to. I am now retired and no longer involved in any kind of scientific studies; however, the chemistry behind global warming is rock solid. Statistics can be used to support just about anything, but you should know that this period of climate change is not just some cyclic event that is repeating itself.
If you would like to do something interesting, research how many barrels of oil are burned on our planet every single day, 365 days a year. Hint: the answer will be in the millions and there are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel. And then ask yourself, can we really do this for decades and decades without any consequence? Think about it and use some common sense and logic and ask yourself how long can we continue to use this planet as a garbage pit.
Norman Saxon wrote:Wayne, please.....Global warming stopped in 1998. Since then temperatures have dropped 0.55 degrees Celsius.
You're kidding, right? (sorry for dping, just now saw this) Look at the weather across the Midwestern United States right now. We've basically had severe storms every day for the past few weeks. That's because there's a mass of warm air coming up from the Gulf of Mexico stalling the cold front right over us. Tell me that's normal. NEWS FLASH!! It's not. It's been there for God knows how long. Something seriously wacko is going on, and you're refusing to accept this why?
There is a huge disconnect between the sacrifice of nearly eliminating CO2 output, and the little knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs and keeping your tires properly inflated. Saying over and over, "We just need to do a lot of little things" does not make it true.
Tire inflation is perhaps a percent or two difference in your car gas consumption, and if you are using electricity for a main source of heat, such as domestic hot water or space heating, whether through resistance or heat pump, there is not much you can do in a cold climate unless you want to risk freezing to death (hypothermia, and this will be a real concern for those having trouble this coming winter paying for $4+/gallon home heating oil and may be dialing thermostats way down because they lack the money).
But there is enormous potential for cutting way back on home electricity consumption by the combined influence of "knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs."
Our local power company Madison Gas and Electric has a Web site where you can find the electric and gas usage of anyone in their service area if you know the street address. I compiled my own list of monthly electric usage of members of the faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, leaving off some newly hired assistant professors living in apartments or with unlisted home addresses -- the entries on my list are all for stand-alone houses.
The low was 236 kWHr/month, the median 729 kWHr/month. The high of 3789 kWHr a month was for the outgoing UW Chancelor, who happens to be a faculty member of ECE. You can excuse the Chancelor living in the Chancelor's residence because it is this massive old structure, and I suppose the Chancelor has to leave lights on a lot because numerous official receptions and other hostings of university visitors takes place in that residence. But it may say something about the UW, being at the forefront of the IPCC and the climate debate but being an electricity scofflaw with its own buildings.
The low of 236 kWHr/month, by the way, is for a suburban stand-alone house as mentioned in a Northern climate where heat and hot water comes from natural gas, but this household has an electric range and oven, electric clothes dryer, the house is air conditioned with the basement dehumidified all summer, and it has forced-air heat requiring an electric blower to distribute the heated air.
The collection of "knicknack remedies" include 1) extensive use of motion detector lights and fluorescent lights, 2) not leaving lights on all of the time and using low wattage fluorescent of night lights for lights that must be left on, 3) use of the clothes dryer in timed mode -- the automatic setting runs and runs and often dries clothes more than needed, 4) control of the AC and dehumidifiers and switching to open windows by monitoring humidity gauges, 5) an EnergyStar refrigerator and high efficiency (13 SEER) central air, 6) a variable-speed DC-motor furnace blower (Carrier Infinity) along with some homeowner programming of the settings following instructions in the owners manual to restrict the unit to the 56,000 BTU/hr low heat mode, to operate at only 600 CFMs in the continuous blower mode, and to operate at 1000 CFMs matched to the 30,000 BTUs of air conditioner capacity.
The 246 kWHr/month electric usage has the carbon impact of driving 4700 miles/year. The median electric usage of 729 kWHr/month is the equivalent of driving 14500 miles/year. The electric use of the chancelor's residence is the equivalent of driving 76000 miles/year. The next-highest electric usage in the department is 1907 kWHr/month, the equivalent of driving 38000 miles/year.
When a low energy use, achieved by taking some common sense steps, is one third the median use, that suggests that there is potential more than shaving a couple percent in electric use savings in the residential application. Perhaps the most labor intensive part is adjusting airconditioner and dehumidifer settings based on humidity gauges (it really is the humidity and not the heat that affects comfort). All that can be automated -- Carrier now has residential HVAC systems that switch from A/C to outside air automatically.
I still count myself in the camp of those supporting the construction of more electric transmission lines and coal as well as nuclear power plants.
I concur that continued exponential growth in the use of coal and other fossil fuels will result in large amounts of CO2 that threaten multi-degree C increases in global temperature and serious problems, but the .5 to 1 degree C in global temperature of the 20th century is not inconvertible evidence that this process is already happening on account of the natural background of variations. That I believe the computer models that there will be serious problems following unrestricted growth in coal usage is not saying that I believe the hype that the current "climate signal" is unmistakable. A lot of the hype is for public consumption outside the scientific community where it is believed that the public cannot understand the hedges, qualifiers, and probabilities expressed in the dry scientific discourse, essentially the difference in language from the body of IPCC and the Executive Summary statement that gets all of the press, and this hyped version is doing the scientific community a grave disservice.
I also believe, as I mentioned above, that there is enormous potential to use electricity more efficiently and to conserve without reducing our comfort. But we are facing a near-term crisis of people not being able to stay warm in their homes at current oil prices, and there is not much conservation can do there apart from massive home rebuilding, and the ability to substitute electric heat for oil would provide much economic relief to people and help stabilize oil prices.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
whats funny.....Carl Webster researcher at UofM did a study last year....im looking for the link....but in his study he examined 150 years worth of New York Times London Times and other front page stories of leading news papers ...low and behold...every 25 to 30 years headlines read "WORLD ENDING YEAR LONG WINTERS SOON"....next 25 years "WORLD ENDING SUN GETTING HOTER"...point is for the last 150 years every 25 to 30 years someone comes up with a "therory" to explain hot summers and cold winters....guess what SUMMERS ARE HOT AND WINTERS ARE COLD,,,,until the brainyacks come up with a time machine to go back and actully record things from 200 years ago to compare with today its all just a "therory"....some believe it...the ones that buy $40 light bulbs and pump $4 gas into their "Hybrid".....some dont...IMHO its just another scam to get mush minded sheeple to buy $40 light bulbs "for the good of the Earth"....for every "study" showing climate change is man made theres 5 that say it aint....funny thing is the ones that say it aint are "ridiculed" and pushed aside by todays liberal big dollar press....they cant sell $40 light bulbs if theres news stories about the farce of global warming.....heck i remember the big scare in the mid 70's....remember the "new ice age coming by 2000?"... i do ..it was a joke then and its a joke now............of course i dont mean to detract from what anyone wants to believe after all this is the U.S.of A. and we are all intitled to our own beliefs and opinions
as far as the original post...is hyjacking a coal train to pollute the ground by dumping coal any different then the green goobers that burn new homes by the 100's in California "to stop over population"?
Weather has always behaved by moving from one extreme to another. From these extremes, you can calculate the average, which by definition has no extremes. So, although you can calculate an average, that does not mean that weather should be average. In reality, it seldom is behaving at its average.
To help advance the climate change agenda, however, the meaning of average weather has been hijacked to mean normal weather, as though any departure from the average is abnormal or even extreme. This concept of extreme weather is then used to advance the premise that it is evidence of man's impact on the climate. And of course, since weather is seldom average, this new definition of terms makes for a lot of extreme weather. So, just because ABC, CBS, and NBC spend 15 minutes each night whipping up hysteria over extreme, wild, wicked, and whacky weather, it does not prove that anything is any different today than any other time in the history of weather.
Norman,I am one of thoe pseudo-scientists you make reference to. I am now retired and no longer involved in any kind of scientific studies; however, the chemistry behind global warming is rock solid. Statistics can be used to support just about anything, but you should know that this period of climate change is not just some cyclic event that is repeating itself. If you would like to do something interesting, research how many barrels of oil are burned on our planet every single day, 365 days a year. Hint: the answer will be in the millions and there are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel. And then ask yourself, can we really do this for decades and decades without any consequence? Think about it and use some common sense and logic and ask yourself how long can we continue to use this planet as a garbage pit.Wayne Norman,I am one of thoe pseudo-scientists you make reference to. I am now retired and no longer involved in any kind of scientific studies; however, the chemistry behind global warming is rock solid. Statistics can be used to support just about anything, but you should know that this period of climate change is not just some cyclic event that is repeating itself. If you would like to do something interesting, research how many barrels of oil are burned on our planet every single day, 365 days a year. Hint: the answer will be in the millions and there are 42 gallons of crude oil per barrel. And then ask yourself, can we really do this for decades and decades without any consequence? Think about it and use some common sense and logic and ask yourself how long can we continue to use this planet as a garbage pit.Wayne
I am not sure what a "pseudo-scientist" is -- what journals do they publish in? And if such a person submits a manuscript, what does the review feedback look like? Maybe something like this.
Reviewer 1:
The chemistry behind AGW may be "rock solid" -- that increases in CO2 from present concentrations increase atmospheric absorption of ground-radiated infrared and hence increase net "solar forcing" of global temperature is a well accepted principle apart from some writings on the fringe of science attempting to dispute that aspect of physical chemistry and thermodynamics of atmospheric heat transfer. On the other hand, the dangerously large forecasts for increase in global temperature are derived from computer models, where small increases in heat from increased CO2 are assumed to result in a positive feedback effect on water vapor and cloud formation, which provide the dominant effect on heat balance. These positive feedbacks are based on best interpretation of available data, but to describe those assumptions as being as "rock solid" as the basic mechanisms of CO2 heat absorption will need to be addressed.
As to World production of oil, the number of about 85 million barrels per day of which around 10-12 million barrels per day come from Saudi Arabia and about 5 million barrels per day comes from one supergiant oil field name Ghawar is something discussed every day on a Web site called The Oil Drum along with inferences on the limits to oil production and evidence regarding if those limits have been reached. Burning all of the oil releases into the environment water vapor, water being an abundant substance in the biosphere in all three phases, and it releases CO2, a naturally occuring substance of which the natural abundance in the atmosphere is quite low, but all plant life derives its structure and sustenance by converting that low concentration of CO2, about .03 percent by volume in the air, converting that carbon into the bulk of what you see -- grassy fields, tree trunks, corn stalks, and so on. CO2 is far from a toxic substance to the biosphere at the concentrations in question, and it is only a pollutant inasmuch as it produces an adverse impact on climate.
Burning 85 MBPD is just a number, and whether the resulting emissions of H2O, an abundant substance in the biosphere, and CO2, also an abundant substance but at low concentrations in the atmosphere, but of continued benefit to plant life and tolerable by animal life at foreseeable increased concentrations, constitutes "treating the planet as a garbage pit" requires clarification. Freeman Dyson recently reasoned that the yearly oscillations observed in atmospheric CO2 are the result of update by plants followed by the release of CO2 from the seasonal shedding and decay of leaves and other plant material, but the fact that there are cleanly observable oscillations indicates that the peak rate of CO2 uptake by plants is large compared to what is emitted by fossile fuel burning, cement making, and logging.
The last paragraph thus needs rewording to discuss the toxicity or lack thereof of the putative pollutant and to place its emission in context with natural processes. The author may want to reconsider whether "garbage pit" is an appropriate objective description of the impact of fossil fuel burning on the biosphere.
I'm definetely what some might call a "green freak", I know global warming is real, and it is a serious problem. I am all for the protection of the enviroment, it's not man's world to do what we want with; we just happen to live on it along with a ton of other animals.
What these people are doing isn't exactly very smart though; first of all, it's dangerous, and second of all, it's seriously putting a bad face on us "enviromentalists" to the general public.
They must be handling science differently these days. When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything. They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute. Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up.
Run away. Run far away. Their dogma is dogma still.
BTW, was it not announced that 31K scientists around the globe had signed on to a petition to kill the global warming agenda? Why are astrophysicists not chiming in with the notion that our star, a flare star, goes through 22 year cycles, and then cycles of other orders that impose their own climatic variation? Or is that just a less well understood theory not worthy of more conjecture?
Why have others calculated that the oceans and swamps and lakes produce quantities of CO2 that dwarf, by orders of magnitude, what are known as anthropocentric derivations?
So many good questions, but for sure we need to get millions of acres into corn production so that we can produce more CO2. I guess that passes for logic in schools these days.
-Crandell
Paul,
My reference to being pseudo-scientist was in reference to another posting. I am a retired analytical chemist and know full well that green plants use carbon dioxide in their normal metabolic processes. And yes sir, the chemistry of global warming is rock solid whether you want to believe it or not. And no sir, my last paragraph does not need re-wording. However, you are seriously lacking in logic and need remedial courses in biology, ecology and other natural processes occurring on this planet.
Crandell, all due respect, but while your masonry work on that wall you're building might be according to Hoyle (even if I don't like the pattern or the color), it's a wall that's not on the blueprints for this building.
RWM
selector wrote: They must be handling science differently these days. When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything. They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute. Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up. Run away. Run far away. Their dogma is dogma still.BTW, was it not announced that 31K scientists around the globe had signed on to a petition to kill the global warming agenda? Why are astrophysicists not chiming in with the notion that our star, a flare star, goes through 22 year cycles, and then cycles of other orders that impose their own climatic variation? Or is that just a less well understood theory not worthy of more conjecture?Why have others calculated that the oceans and swamps and lakes produce quantities of CO2 that dwarf, by orders of magnitude, what are known as anthropocentric derivations?So many good questions, but for sure we need to get millions of acres into corn production so that we can produce more CO2. I guess that passes for logic in schools these days.-Crandell
on a similar note....."they" are saying in 50 years the icecaps will melt......when was the last time "they" predicted next weeks weather correctly??....and yes 31,000 scientist (9,000 of which hold Masters degres in Physics) from around the world did inded sign a petition stating, on their reputations, that "global warming\climate change" was a hoax a phalicy a piece of doo-doo.....and again the "mainstream media" dismiss that.....yet they give "quack" scientist air time to tell ya...."yup global warming is true......and the world isnt round.....its shaped like a burrito"
just to fuel the fire.....
from News With Views.com
Hundreds of scientists reject global warming. December 21, 2007. A new U.S.Senate report documents hundreds of prominent scientists - experts in dozens offields of study worldwide - who say global warming and cooling is a cycle ofnature and cannot legitimately be connected to man's activities."Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling - all part of thenatural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years,caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," said researchphysicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing instruments foratmospheric science for clients including the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration and NASA."
from Icecap.us
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History' http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ Intro by Joe D'Aleo, Icecap, CCM I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with *** in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.
By John Coleman It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment. I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, I.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won't believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming. In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. See John's full blog story here.. See John's forecast blog on the *** site here.
from the US Senate Speeches archives at www.thomas.loc.gov....Library of Congress\Thomas Legislative Library
SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change.
Global Warming -- just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster. As the senator who has spent more time speaking about the facts regarding global warming, I want to address some of the recent media coverage of global warming and Hollywood's involvement in the issue. And of course I will also discuss former Vice President Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of London's Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.
SUMMARY OF LATEST DEVELOPMENTS OF MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING HOCKEY STICK
First, I would like to summarize some of the recent developments in the controversy over whether or not humans have created a climate catastrophe. One of the key aspects that the United Nations, environmental groups and the media have promoted as the "smoking gun" of proof of catastrophic global warming is the so-called ‘hockey stick' temperature graph by climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues.
This graph purported to show that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century presumably due to human activity. Mann, who also co-publishes a global warming propaganda blog reportedly set up with the help of an environmental group, had his "Hockey Stick" come under severe scrutiny.
The "hockey stick" was completely and thoroughly broken once and for all in 2006. Several years ago, two Canadian researchers tore apart the statistical foundation for the hockey stick. In 2006, both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the "hockey stick." http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
Climate alarmists have been attempting to erase the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period from the Earth's climate history for at least a decade. David Deming, an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma's College of Geosciences, can testify first hand about this effort. Dr. Deming was welcomed into the close-knit group of global warming believers after he published a paper in 1995 that noted some warming in the 20th century. Deming says he was subsequently contacted by a prominent global warming alarmist and told point blank "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." When the "Hockey Stick" first appeared in 1998, it did just that.
END OF LITTLE ICE AGE MEANS WARMING
The media have missed the big pieces of the puzzle when it comes to the Earth's temperatures and mankind's carbon dioxide (C02) emissions. It is very simplistic to feign horror and say the one degree Fahrenheit temperature increase during the 20th century means we are all doomed. First of all, the one degree Fahrenheit rise coincided with the greatest advancement of living standards, life expectancy, food production and human health in the history of our planet. So it is hard to argue that the global warming we experienced in the 20th century was somehow negative or part of a catastrophic trend.
Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
selector wrote:They must be handling science differently these days. When I went to school, the scientist of integrity didn't claim to have a complete understanding of anything. They tried to work with hypotheses and theories, but they certainly didn't claim to have a firm grasp on an absolute. Yet, the global warming proponents insist they have it down pat, and that the rest of us should darn well catch up. -Crandell
Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. One of the three requirements for a scientific theory is the capacity to make predictions that can be tested and validated. (The other two are: a Theory has to explain the observations in question and secondly, a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).
The chemistry behind global warming is rock solid, the theory about climate change is just that: a theory. Gravity is just a theory, but it is certainly reliable. The theory regarding climate change was presented decades ago and exactly predicted what is happening today. This same theory is predicting what will happen in the next few decades. Are scientists absolutely correct? Of course not. I just think it is foolish and short sighted to have an attitude of doing nothing today and just wait and see what happens 30 years from now. That is not a world I want to leave my daughter.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: There is a huge disconnect between the sacrifice of nearly eliminating CO2 output, and the little knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs and keeping your tires properly inflated. Saying over and over, "We just need to do a lot of little things" does not make it true. Tire inflation is perhaps a percent or two difference in your car gas consumption, and if you are using electricity for a main source of heat, such as domestic hot water or space heating, whether through resistance or heat pump, there is not much you can do in a cold climate unless you want to risk freezing to death (hypothermia, and this will be a real concern for those having trouble this coming winter paying for $4+/gallon home heating oil and may be dialing thermostats way down because they lack the money).But there is enormous potential for cutting way back on home electricity consumption by the combined influence of "knickknack remedies such as changing light bulbs."Our local power company Madison Gas and Electric has a Web site where you can find the electric and gas usage of anyone in their service area if you know the street address. I compiled my own list of monthly electric usage of members of the faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, leaving off some newly hired assistant professors living in apartments or with unlisted home addresses -- the entries on my list are all for stand-alone houses.The low was 236 kWHr/month, the median 729 kWHr/month. The high of 3789 kWHr a month was for the outgoing UW Chancelor, who happens to be a faculty member of ECE. You can excuse the Chancelor living in the Chancelor's residence because it is this massive old structure, and I suppose the Chancelor has to leave lights on a lot because numerous official receptions and other hostings of university visitors takes place in that residence. But it may say something about the UW, being at the forefront of the IPCC and the climate debate but being an electricity scofflaw with its own buildings.The low of 236 kWHr/month, by the way, is for a suburban stand-alone house as mentioned in a Northern climate where heat and hot water comes from natural gas, but this household has an electric range and oven, electric clothes dryer, the house is air conditioned with the basement dehumidified all summer, and it has forced-air heat requiring an electric blower to distribute the heated air. The collection of "knicknack remedies" include 1) extensive use of motion detector lights and fluorescent lights, 2) not leaving lights on all of the time and using low wattage fluorescent of night lights for lights that must be left on, 3) use of the clothes dryer in timed mode -- the automatic setting runs and runs and often dries clothes more than needed, 4) control of the AC and dehumidifiers and switching to open windows by monitoring humidity gauges, 5) an EnergyStar refrigerator and high efficiency (13 SEER) central air, 6) a variable-speed DC-motor furnace blower (Carrier Infinity) along with some homeowner programming of the settings following instructions in the owners manual to restrict the unit to the 56,000 BTU/hr low heat mode, to operate at only 600 CFMs in the continuous blower mode, and to operate at 1000 CFMs matched to the 30,000 BTUs of air conditioner capacity.The 246 kWHr/month electric usage has the carbon impact of driving 4700 miles/year. The median electric usage of 729 kWHr/month is the equivalent of driving 14500 miles/year. The electric use of the chancelor's residence is the equivalent of driving 76000 miles/year. The next-highest electric usage in the department is 1907 kWHr/month, the equivalent of driving 38000 miles/year.When a low energy use, achieved by taking some common sense steps, is one third the median use, that suggests that there is potential more than shaving a couple percent in electric use savings in the residential application. Perhaps the most labor intensive part is adjusting airconditioner and dehumidifer settings based on humidity gauges (it really is the humidity and not the heat that affects comfort). All that can be automated -- Carrier now has residential HVAC systems that switch from A/C to outside air automatically.I still count myself in the camp of those supporting the construction of more electric transmission lines and coal as well as nuclear power plants. I concur that continued exponential growth in the use of coal and other fossil fuels will result in large amounts of CO2 that threaten multi-degree C increases in global temperature and serious problems, but the .5 to 1 degree C in global temperature of the 20th century is not inconvertible evidence that this process is already happening on account of the natural background of variations. That I believe the computer models that there will be serious problems following unrestricted growth in coal usage is not saying that I believe the hype that the current "climate signal" is unmistakable. A lot of the hype is for public consumption outside the scientific community where it is believed that the public cannot understand the hedges, qualifiers, and probabilities expressed in the dry scientific discourse, essentially the difference in language from the body of IPCC and the Executive Summary statement that gets all of the press, and this hyped version is doing the scientific community a grave disservice.I also believe, as I mentioned above, that there is enormous potential to use electricity more efficiently and to conserve without reducing our comfort. But we are facing a near-term crisis of people not being able to stay warm in their homes at current oil prices, and there is not much conservation can do there apart from massive home rebuilding, and the ability to substitute electric heat for oil would provide much economic relief to people and help stabilize oil prices.
My reference to knickknack remedies had nothing to do with valid measures to reduce energy consumption for either economic or environmental reasons. I have got 24" of fiberglass insulation in my walls, so I am all for reducing energy consumption. However the small energy conservation measures (often called tips on being green) are indeed knickknack remedies when compared to the size of the goal, which the proponents of manmade global warming insist must be realized within ten years if we are to prevent runaway climate change that will shortly destroy the planet.
I am speaking of the goal declared by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% worldwide within ten years, and their stipulation that the most developed manufacturing countries may have to reduce their CO2 by 100% in order to meet the 80% objective worldwide because China and India will probably not make the 80% objective. And that stated ten-year period to accomplish this goal is probably about eight years by now.
sfcouple wrote: Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge. ... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).Wayne
Science has always been about developing a hypothesis that may eventually evolve into a working theory. Theories are not written in granite, they get changed all the time as we acquire more knowledge.
... a Scientific Theory has to be falsifiable--- a theory has to have the potential of being proved false, in order for it to be considered a scientific theory).
Yes, but not this theory. If somebody comes forward with new information that challenges this theory, they will be told that the debate is over.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.