Global Warming Hoax Update
Tags: Global Warming Hoax.
Calling in Hollywood to burnish the “settled science” of global warming:
Keeping the public looped in on what scientists are discovering has never been easy. For one thing, the traditional explainers – journalists – can distort, hype, or oversimplify the latest breakthroughs. But the need to communicate science broadly and clearly has never been more urgent…
…One effort, announced at the meeting, will recruit Hollywood to help scientists tell their stories. NAS and the University of Southern California will team up to draw on USC’s expertise in film, TV, websites, and video games. The partnership will be the first between a federal agency and a film school.
“Entertainment media has been pretty much untapped as far as science literacy goes,” Dr. Fink says. A huge portion of the public doesn’t go to science museums or watch science programming on TV, she says. “Those are the eyeballs we’re trying to capture.”…
Are they kidding? No, I’m afraid they’re not. Either they are stupid, or they think we are. While Hollywood is a lot of things, “truth factory” has never been among them. Even when Hollywood tells a “true” story, its still modified for dramatic effect. Remember, you have to make war exciting – so you don’t concentrate on the logistical build up, the endless training and the long periods of inactivity…such things, which are vital in war (and, indeed, are often decisive), don’t make for good movies. And so when a war picture is made, its all about the action.
If you’re going to try to present climate science in movies, then what are you going to do with your one to two hours? Concentrate on the data, mathematical calculations and comparisons with past events? No – you’re going to show huge storms, polar bears on ice flows…all with dramatic, threatening music and thirty second sound bites of alarmist predictions. Because you want people glued to the idiot box or theater seat.
In short, what we’ll get might rate as excellent entertainment, but not something worth while for decision purposes. But that, of course, is what is wanted. They want people entertained – propagandized; primed to believe certain things…convinced that the smart and good looking people are all on board for anthropogenic global warming. That will make it easier for Gore to sell carbon credits and grant-mongering scientists to keep the money flowing in.
It won’t work. The people are wise to this sort of thing. This is the last, desperate effort of a con artists to save the scam.
Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
113 Responses to “Global Warming Hoax Update”
Caucus of Corruption
global warming remains an unproven scientific hypothesis.
>one cant say it is, or isnt true.
HA !!
yea i know ur proven ignorant about the scientific method.
>the historical fact of previous cooling & warming makes no impression..
sure it does just NOT man made B.S.
simple
mid west= T-rex
mid west= glaciers
mid west= temperate
No, man made Co2,chlorofluorocarbons,hydrocarbons, or algores B.S.
i didnt write AGW.
i wrote global warming, period.
and that was what I addressed in my answer.
ok so u might believe we ARE going thru a period of warming.
No
not on a 150 yr baseline, who knows what “normal” is supposed to be.
The temp has leveled for the last 10 years this is a stupid argument, close to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
35 errors in al gores movie…yet hollywood and the UN…use it like a bible…number of scientific pages gore wrote = “0″…percent of climategate scientists that lied to prove thier “hypothesis”=100%…percent of climategate scientists that refused to account for “all” the facts “all” the time when debating pulic policy about climate change= 100%
…
school janitors (00) that actually think before posting…. = “00″
…
notice any…consistencies?
js02
school janitors (00) that actually think before posting…. = “00″
…
notice any…consistencies?
ROTFLMAO…….
http://myweb.stedwards.edu/jlehman/chef.jpg
oh i see, cause gore’s movie had errors then no warming or cooling EVER happened in earth’s history?
chef
refer to above…..
neocon1 says:
March 17, 2010 at 12:15 pm
I understand orrin being stupid. There are a lot of stupid people in the world. What I don’t understand is his insistence on advertising it, continually calling attention to it.
This—”…cause gore’s movie had errors then no warming or cooling EVER happened in earth’s history?” I mean, I’m embarassed for the lad.
Unless he really IS in third grade, which would explain a lot, including the spelling.
well amazona, its difficult to take anyone seriously who has interactive links in their post for erectile disfunction like you.
But that’s just for you, sweetie….after all, SOMEONE’s got to look out for you.
Just curious—does anyone think that orrie truly believes I have anything to do or say about the random ads placed in posts here?
I didn’t think so. Dumb as a box of hair, yes, but even orrie is not THAT dumb.
But what kind of weird pathology insists on going out of his way to call attention to stupidity? That’s a quirky thing about orrie.
Just as sadie’s posts are sad pathetic pleas for sexual attention, orrie’s are sad pathetic pleas for ANY attention, and if he has to carry on like a total moron, well, hard to break old habits. It’s just embarassing sometimes to see his LOOK AT ME LOOK LOOK LOOK I’LL DO STUPID THINGS TO GET YOUR ATTENTION LOOK HOW DUMB I CAN BE LOOK LOOK LOOK I’M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING REALLY REALLY STUPID NOW AIN’T I CUTE LOOK LOOK LOOK I CAN DO STOOOOPID SPELLING I R CUTE LOOK LOOK LOOK
I am so glad to hear about this plan. I was a little worried that the “stimulus” money might go to something silly or frivolous, or that the Obamunists might not be spending our money wisely.
But a movie to claim that an unproven hypothesis is fact? What a great idea. Maybe they could get Tom Hanks to star in it—he seems to have a lot of time on his hands these days, and if he can just get back on his meds…….
Or Leo DiCaprio, if they can lever him out of Al Gore’s vast and ever-expanding butt crevasse.
gaahhh… there is a sight worthy of eye bleach… your an evil person tfmo…
Ahh, finally the source of the greenhouse gas…methane in trillions of Sq Ft.
Joy! Another payout to the obama supporters. This time is it hollywierds turn to get paid off.
dvindice, I didn’t think of the payout aspect. How foolish of me to observe an expenditure of federal funds by the Obamunists/Chicago machine and not recognize a payback for services rendered.
Sometimes, in their world, you play first and get paid later.
Nah, Mo—I think Hanks’ over-the-top manic goofiness is more suited to the project, as Leo, while clearly an acolyte, is still falling short of the total immersion in the cause shown by Hanks.
And that climb out of that crevasse looks mighty daunting, though it is less crowded in there than it used to be.
Well, if we’re looking for over the top manic goofiness, there’s always Jim Carrey.
Oh, that guy pisses me off. I’d always been a fan, was SO looking forward to that Scrooge movie (me and Mrs. Mo are BIG fans of 3d animation), then he pops off with his stupid anti-capitalism statement.
The idiocy of Hollywood never ceases to amaze me. They still cry and whine about McCarthy blacklisting actors, even though none of them lost their jobs, nor did McCarthy have ANYTHING to do with rooting out Communists outside of government. Carlos Santana runs around in a Che shirt, even though Che would have cheerfully gutted Carlos for being a musician. Sean Penn trumpets gay rights, then goes to suck up to Islamonazis in countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. Jim Carrey bashes the very same capitalism that made it possible for him to get the air-time. Hollywood makes movie after movie depicting Catholic priests as rampant child molesters, while defending child molester Roman Polanski. Similarly, Hollywood churns out more and more movies depicting our soldiers fighting the terrorists as animals, those poor sweet barbarians, while Islam would see them all beheaded for their decadent and perverted lifestyles.
More and more, I’m thinking just let the big quake hit and send the west coast into the sea.
Tfmo
More and more, I’m thinking just let the big quake hit and send the west coast into the sea.
Yup….start with S.F. when piglowsey is there and 0-chimpy is campaigning for her…..2-4-1
Nice summary, Mo. While Hollywood is bleating about the way the world views the United States, it constantly exports movies which tell the world that we are a nation of violent, near-naked, sex-crazed hedonistic adulterers, wallowing in selfish greed and excess, consuming drugs and alcohol in vast quantities and living in constant fear of random violence and death.
And they never stop to consider how much of “the world’s” distorted view of America is created by them. They tell “the world” that America is nothing more than “Dallas” and “Dynasty” on TV, than the constant barrage of filth they churn out daily in their movies. They produce and export movies of explicit violence, brutality, promiscuity, shamelessness, selfishness, greed, and depravity, and then get all pompous about the fact that we are so often perceived as violent, brutal, promiscuous, shameless, selfish, greedy, and depraved.
No, they purposely create a horrible and distorted image of America and then use the acceptance of that image abroad to indict America for the very lies they created.
The images created by Hollywood have done more to damage the perception of America, worldwide, than any action we have ever taken.
nice neo, wishing death on fellow americans just like aQ.
00
No one said anything about death….words in ones mouth does not make one correct.
maybe they could float to Hawaii and finally find that pesky Birth cert.
Crap floats.
LOL
“nice neo, wishing death on fellow americans just like aQ.”
As the saying goes about crackpots like DADTmarine/neocon1, they love America, they just hate most of the people who live here.
More and more, I’m thinking just let the big quake hit and send the west coast into the sea.
Interestingly, the buzz around the water cooler yesterday was the earthquake that struck the LA area in the early morning hours. It was news to me — I slept through it.
Anyway, thank you tfmo for your enlightened, thoughtful comment. You are truly a man among men, and a real beacon for the New Conservative movement. With you as the ensign, I’m sure people will flock in.
And thank you rico for taking an off handed comment literally. It’s so “liberal” of you to react with faux emotion.
And thank you rico for taking an off handed comment literally. It’s so “liberal” of you to react with faux emotion.
;)
It was a JOKE, Rico. I have quite a few friends on the west coast, and the vacation Mrs Mo and I took to San Diego a few years back was one of the best we’ve had. If it weren’t for the earthquakes and the insane politics and policies there, I’d probably move there (and everyone here knows how much I love Texas!)
Unlike so many on the left, I do NOT feel that disagreeing with me demands their death.
Unless they’re just being REALLY obnoxious about it.
That was a joke too.
If it weren’t for the earthquakes and the insane politics and policies there, I’d probably move there (and everyone here knows how much I love Texas!)
Interestingly, one of my favorite places in the world is the Texas hill country. Assuming I can persuade Mrs Rico of its numerous virtues, I’d like to retire there. I figure I have a decade or more to work on her.
neo,
you still assert that your president was not born in this country?
hahaha..wow, you’re truly delusional..
It really does not matter what country mr obama was born in. One of his parents is an American so by default, he is. The problem I see with the birth certificate is for a man that promised to be transparent it should not really be such a big deal to show the birth certificate. For me, it is about mr obama living up to the campaign promises he made when running for president.
mazzy,
I honestly don’t even care about the birther issue, but sense you were so smug in your response, I am assuming you do have proof that he was born in this country. Care to share that with the rest of us?
You “don’t care” about the birther issue, yet you demand to see “proof” Obama was born in this country. So you aren’t a birther, you just mouth the same long-debunked birther talking points. Good job, stupid. Hey, have you bought your crisis garden seeds yet? You’re just the kind of mouth breather who would fall for that.
No sweetie, you must have not read my post. mazzy must have the proof, otherwise he wouldn’t be so smug. I mean, if there was even a fraction of a doubt, and no current proff, why would someone be so demeaning?
slccr does bring a special kind of stupid to the site. It’s comical to read his knee jerk attacks. I actually think, that he thinks he’s being clever, witty, and engaged in a substantive debate (without the substance of course)
“why would someone be so demeaning?”
Because birthers are idiots who deserve nothing but scorn for their carefully protected ignorance (still running with the “no proof” line? Really? How sad…). But I see that you have certain sympathies with birthers, so I understand that when they get made fun of for being laughable idiots, it hurts your delicate feelings as well. But that’s nobody’s fault but your own, little man.
Oh, Obama must have submitted his birth certificate, which would be the proof that is missing. I am glad you cleared that up slccr, could you please link me to the article?
Wow, seriously? You’re still going to go with “where’s the birth certificate?!?!?” and pretend that the proof you’re asking about hasn’t been presented countless times before? What a good birther you are! Perhaps you can get your grandson to explain to you how badly you’ve embarrassed yourself, little man. After all, he’s probably a lot more worldly and knowledgeable (and, one would hope, less prone to self-humiliation) than you are.
Then you shouldn’t have any problem providing the links to those “countless” instances where it was reported.
Still waiting….
slccr, you must have knowledge that the rest of the nation does not. The birth certificate has never been presented. And again, not that I care, but I do enjoy watching you seethe with anger.
See, here’s what’s funny about birthers like you and cluster (and Ranty!), ‘mo: No matter how many times the proof is presented to you, you deny it. It’s one of the defining characteristics of a birther: You have to be so stupid that to this very day, you’ll still deny the plain and simple truth. So sure, I could show you said proof. I could point you to all kinds of threads on this very blog in which the proof was presented (and, of course, birthers like Ranty screamed and wailed that that proof didn’t count because…well, because!). But why go through all that song and dance when you and I both know that as a birther, you’re simply going to do what birthers do: Deny the truth that is right in front of your face. While I enjoy pointing and laughing at your astounding stupidity, I think I’m gonna let you do your own research on this one. I figure it’ll at least provide a new twist on an old classic, right?
It must be sad living a life of such stupidity. I suppose that, along with your paranoia, would explain your anger and bitterness.
“not that I care”
If you don’t care, why do you continue to mouth birther talking points? Are you just that stupid, li’l clustie? Well, are you?
Still not offering any proof, just a lame attempt to avoid it without looking like your avoiding it.
FAIL.
Still waiting.
And yes, the three-post demand I made on the Health Care thread DOES apply to your posts on other threads Either offer some legitimate, verifiable proof to back up your claim or shut up.
Oh, you wacky birthers…always throwing around words like “proof” like you know what they mean. Hey, I have an idea: File a lawsuit! It worked out great for your queen, Orly Taitz, right? She only ended up being a laughingstock, and I’m sure you’ll do so much better than her. Reach for the stars, kiddo!
Who knew the world is absolutely full of “birthers”?
When my wallet was stolen and I had to replace my Social Security card and drivers license, I had to present my birth certificate at each office. BIRTHER ALERT!!!! DMV TINFOIL HAT MORONS DEMANDING PROOF OF BIRTH!!!! SS OFFICE LOONS REQUIRE PROOF OF BIRTH !!!!! BIRTHER BIRTHER BIRTHER !!!!!
But to ask the same to verify that the leader of the Free World is legally qualified for the position is paranoid?
The louder the RRL squeals about this, the more they call attention to the fact that even they know something is wrong, but THEY need to distract from it.
I’ve never denied that Obama was born in the United States. I’ve never denied that the Hawaiian government decided not to issue photocopies of long-form original birth certificates and decided to substitute a document that was never intended for that use. I’ve never denied that what Obama’s surrogates have produced is accurate.
But I do admit to some curiosity about the reason he is so adamant about refusing to simply ask the Health Department in Hawaii to issue a photocopy of the original long form document. It just strikes me as odd, that’s all.
If a cop stops a car and casually asks “Mind if I look in the trunk?” and the driver immediately refuses, hires lawyers, and spends a fortune to keep the police from looking in the trunk, there will always be the simple question: “Why?”
So, without any question whatsoever about the legitimacy of Obama’s claim to be Hawaiian-born, or of the documentation he has had his handlers show us, I still have two questions:
1. Why does he refuse to provide a copy of the full-length birth certificate issued by the state based on information given by the hospital? and
2. Where did he get all that money to fight the court actions trying to force him to do so?
Note that now the official defnition of “birther” seems to include people who accept that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Also note that my two questions will not be answered.
“Who knew the world is absolutely full of “birthers”?”
Well, let’s not get carried away, here. A blog that is essentially a half-dozen wingnuts validating each other’s psychoses does not “the world” make. Still, you can take comfort in the fact that you’re not the only birther here. Hell, with ‘mo’s performance of late, you might not even be the craziest birther here (I’m not sure if you would regard that as a good thing or a bad thing, though).
Don’t take slccr/skidmark too seriously. He seems to post here only out of the pleasure of trying to get people worked up.
I’ll reword this for you scuzzy, it is not about proofing that mr obama is a citizen, it is about proving that he can live up to the campaign promises he made.
slccr,
there is “proof”, and then there is valid proof…
you might give me a copy of your original birth-certificate with all the information except what I need in the form of your nationality of origin, you might change your nation of origin (the nation you were born in) to something else…
…therefore, you’ve given me proof, but not the original document that proves the exact location that you were born…and thus, I need the original in order to have 100% valid proof…
…where you run into a problem is, upon making the new information, in creating a new birth-certificate, after you’ve changed the information, you could throw away or burn the original and no one would ever see it again…so no one will know your nation of origin except you…
…now whether that is the case with Obama or not, I don’t know, but I do know that he has a brother that has lived in Africa his entire life…and I would bet on it that that is where Obama was born too…
And seems awful strange that he doesn’t want to help his brother much over there who lives on what, 2 dollars a day, maybe? if that…
if we questioned his brother, and provided security for him in case he didn’t want to give the information for fear of his brother Barack doing something to harm him, I think we could do that….
I have never seen any proof slccr. So if you could maybe humor me, and show me something, just once? But again, it’s not an issue with me, so if you don’t, I could care less. Obama is such a failure, and so incompetent on so many other levels, that the birther issue is pointless
Also note slacker’s lies. We are supposed to overlook them, surrounded by panic-spittle and hyperbole as they are, but they do stand out.
For example, he/she/it bellows “….I could point you to all kinds of threads on this very blog in which the proof was presented (and, of course, birthers like Ranty screamed and wailed that that proof didn’t count because…well, because!). ” Because I, for one, never questioned the legitimacy of the ‘proof’ presented, and merely asked the same two questions.
I may have pointed out the obvious—that there are two ways to obtain the ‘proof’ in question and that, therefore, the ONLY way to ‘prove’ that the ‘proof’ is based on the only way that would matter in this case (ie: the issuance by the Hawaiian Health Department in lieu of a long-form birth certificate on file, showing the same information) and not the non-’proof’ way, which would be for Obama’s mother, Obama’s father, Obama’s grandmother, Obama’s grandfather, Obama’s kindergarten teacher, or Obama himself to apply after the fact for a document clearly stated in the law as being designed for “persons born outside the state”.
It’s not my fault there is more than way to acquire one of these documents. Don’t scream at me. I just acknowledge a simple proven objective fact: You can get a COLB without being born in Hawaii. As a matter of fact, the law creating the COLB was, at the time it was written, clearly defined as being ‘for persons born outside the state’.
And there is another fact. If you bother to read the law, you will see that the only investigation the Health Department is authorized to undertake, regarding a COLB application, is regarding the legitimacy of the claim that both parents were, at the time of the child’s birth, residents of the state.
None of this means that Obama was not born in Hawaii. None of it means that his COLB was not issued by the state because it decided it was easier or cheaper or something to generate a whole new document when asked for a birth certificate than it would be to just photocopy the original one.
But it is still factually true, and shrilly attacking anyone smart enough to read the Hawaiian laws of the time and understand what they said is a very stupid and clumsy way to make a point, if one is there to be made.
Ha! Slacker is still tapdancing! Not an answer, not a fact, just more hootin’ and hollerin’, just more hot air, just more insults and namecalling. I love it.
jeremiah, don’t get bogged down in irrelevant details, like Obama’s brother. His father was a serial bigamist, with several “wives” in different countries. There is no proof he was ever divorced from one wife before claiming to have married Obama’s mother. Obama’s mother had only one child with Obama’s father, so any other children of Barack Senior are irrelevant to the topic.
There ARE people who think that Barack, Jr., was born in Kenya. The theory is that Barack Senior took his ‘wife’ to visit his family and that she was considered too close to delivery of the baby for the airline to allow her to fly back to Honolulu for the birth, so she had to have the baby in Mombassa. Understand that this is pure speculation, though it has been fed by Obama’s grandmother repeatedly insisting, with great vigor, that she was present at the birth in Kenya.
The only reason I mention this is because the same people who get all shrill and hysterical about the utter STUPIDITY of thinking that a woman might be considered too pregnant to fly safely are the same ones carrying on about a theory that 40-some years later, in a far more advanced nation, with dramatically more sophisticated medical care and diagnostics available, not to mention vastly improved air travel, a woman who had given birth to four children and had experience with childbirth would have been criminally reckless to fly near the time of HER child’s birth.
It has nothing to do with where Obama was born, but is just a commentary on the stupidity and insanity of our resident trolls as they swing wildly from one position to another.
Please point out the post in which you base your argument that I am a birther.
PLEASE. Pretty please. With crack cocaine on top and a pretty little bow. By all means, call in whatever friends you might have, real or imaginary, to help you search. Put out the call to all the forker freaks to help you. Find the post were I said that I believe Obama WAS NOT BORN in the US.
“…A blog that is essentially a half-dozen wingnuts validating each other’s psychoses does not “the world” make..”
And none of them asked me for my birth certificate, either.
You can try to actually respond to what is said, or you can continue to act like a clown and buffoon and simply rant away at things that were never said.
No matter—no one pays any attention to you anyway, other than to see you as kind of a poster child for RRL lunacy.
Do you really think that spinning in circles calling people names is going to disguise the fact that you simply cannot answer any of the question?
Mo, I’ve never said it, either, and in fact have said the opposite, yet old mouthbreather slacker just keeps spewing the same old lies.
Obama’s mother had only one child with Obama’s father, so any other children of Barack Senior are irrelevant to the topic
Ok, I see. So then he’s not too concerned about his half-brother. He’s not a full blood-brother to Obama.
That makes sense then.
I thought they did have the same mother and father.
My apologies if I changed the course of the discussion, then.
Here’s a couple of must reads, IMO. The first is a report by the Kinsey Group, one of the premier energy consulting agencies, on the potential of optimizing energy efficiency. The bottom line: the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 trillion in waste – well beyond the $520 billion upfront investment (not including program costs) that would be required. The reduction in energy use would also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually – the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads.
The second is a report by the World Economic Forum, in partnership with IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA, arguably the “biggest of the big dogs” in energy consulting), again detailing the economic benefits of an aggressive pursuit of energy efficiency.
The long and the short of it is, anyone who thinks an aggressive pursuit of energy effeciency and renewable energy technologies will “kill the economy” is not just wrong, but profoundly so.
The long and the short of it is, anyone who thinks an aggressive pursuit of energy effeciency and renewable energy technologies will “kill the economy” is not just wrong, but profoundly so.
Then you have no concept of how our economy works, Rico. If you DO NOT HAVE a replacement for the current energy in use that is as efficient in both cost and usage, then the economy WILL SUFFER.
And we do not have any such alternative energy ready to replace fossil fuels. We simply don’t, and all the wishing and money in the world isn’t going to change that. Aggressively switching to an alternate fuel or fuels that does not meet the standards of the previous fuel will damage the economy. Couple that with this disastrous health care bill, and all the money that has been stolen from future generations as payola for the people who helped get these idiot Dems elected, and our economy will never recover, barring some Christmas miracle like cold fusion or Star Trek replicators.
As for the McKinsey & Company, Obama named three of theirs to cabinet posts. They are very much in Obama’s pocket, and hardly what I would consider unbiased.
Pursuing alternative energy is one thing. By all means, let’s look at alternative energy and find something that works. But this isn’t about merely pursuing and research and perfecting alternative energy, this is a push to switch to these fuels BEFORE THEY ARE READY.
And in what timeline do you propose rico? Because that is what is really at issue. I think everyone agrees that greener energies need to be our future.
And in what timeline do you propose rico? Because that is what is really at issue. I think everyone agrees that greener energies need to be our future.
I’m glad you asked. It at least shows an appreciation for the fact that the current status quo, vis-a-vis energy, is unsustainable. That’s a big first step. But to be perfectly honest, I don’t think many here have taken it with you. So would it be too much to ask for a show of hands by those who agree with your comment, “I think everyone agrees that greener energies need to be our future”?
Secondly, though I could, I don’t want to provide a one-sided polemic on “what rico thinks about energy”. I would prefer a dialectic, a give-and-take format, where both (or more correctly, all) sides have a chance to interact, and point out the strengths and weaknesses of their respective arguments.
Pursuant to that end, here’s what I would suggest as an overall strategy: pursue most aggressively the lowest hanging fruit first, while at the same time incentivizing, as broadly as practicable, secondary solutions.
What would you do?
rico, I have always said that we must transition to a greener, more sustainable energy platform, always! So don’t suggest it’s a revelation of mine. And I didn’t see any proposed time frames, so let me suggest that we transition only at the pace of which mass produceable alternative energies will allow. Transitioning any earlier will only result in needless costs and negative employment ramifications, because their are plenty of crude resources to draw from in the interim. That being said, I believe strong efforts are being made to find those mass produceable energy resources, and I am confident that within 50 years, we will have succeeded.
I have no problem with greener energy. As long as it actually meets the needs our society demands.
As I said in a previous thread, the biocell battery thing that’s been making the round on the net looks very promising. From what I’ve seen, it’s every bit as fuel efficient as fossil, it’s infinitely cleaner, and it looks like the cost would fit well within the necessary parameters. By all means, lets pursue this.
I feel the same about nuclear energy. Clean, cheap, and efficient. The worst part of the waste from it was the spent rods, which the French have figured out how to recycle those cheaply, cleanly, and efficiently.
But until these things are ready, we simply can not afford to switch off fossil.
And our fossil fuel situation would be able to sustain us long enough for these two alternative fuel sources to be made ready, and then some. But NOT if we are to rely so heavily on foreign sources as we are now. We need to drill off shore, we need to drill that barren wasteland in ANWR, we need to go after that oil shale and natural gas that’s just sitting there on federally protected land.
Increase our drilling, offer tax incentives to the various energy companies to devote a decent percentage of their remaining profits towards pursuing the new biocells and upgrading our nuclear technology, getting those prepared for full use. Ten, maybe twenty years down the road, we’ll be ready for that switch over.
Don’t misunderstand me, Rico. I’m not married to fossil fuels. If we have a truly viable alternative, I’m all for it. We’ve gone about as far as we can with fossil; there’s not really much room to improve on it. These new technologies have room for expansion, and become even MORE efficient, and I doubt that anyone would argue that a fuel that’s cheaper and more efficient than fossil is a bad thing. But NOT before the new stuff is ready.
I posted this on another thread, but i think it’s worth posting again.
http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=11558
“Engineers from the University of Cincinnati devise a foam that captures energy and removes excess carbon dioxide from the air — thanks to semi-tropical frogs.”
“The researchers are finding ways to take energy from the sun and carbon from the air to create new forms of biofuels, thanks to a semi-tropical frog species. Their results have just been published online in “Artificial Photosynthesis in Ranaspumin-2 Based Foam” (March 5, 2010) in the journal “Nano Letters.” (It will be a cover story for the print edition in the fall.)”
Ok, here is the bottom line. They have found a way to do Artificial Photosynthesis. If this works, we can create biofuels from CO2 and sunlight, without using farming land, while reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I see it as a win win.
Sounds good to me, if it works.
One question I have is how much sunlight is required. If this is too hinged on solar, then we run into a similar problem with solar panels; a cloud passes overhead and the output decreases.
I’m also liking the Bloom Cell. I’d be delighted to see the funds going towards solar and wind diverted to these two for R&D.
One question I have is how much sunlight is required. If this is too hinged on solar, then we run into a similar problem with solar panels; a cloud passes overhead and the output decreases.
If that’s your question you might want to read the article again. It clearly states that what they intend is to harvest the sugars that result from the photosynthetic process. Those sugars are then intended as input to either an enzymatic or hydrolyzation process to yield some kind of alcohol or hydrocarbon, which can then be burned in some kind of internal combustion engine.
Given that, perhaps it’s obvious why the occasional cloud passing overhead isn’t a factor in the grand scheme of things. What likely IS an important factor though, is how efficiently and cost effectively they can flush the sugars and/or lipids from the surfactant medium without disturbing its photosynthetic properties. They don’t seem to address those issues.
Certainly a lot more hopeful than a plan to get Hollywood to dress up the Gorons scam…
There is such an either/or quality to so many of the arguments we see here. It’s as if refusing to walk away from fossil fuels right this minute means a refusal to consider alternatives.
And we need to examine WHY any given alternative is desirable. We have had the ethanol experiment rammed down our throats, had billions spent on subsidies to support a technology that could not sustain itself on its own merits, and had mandates pushing ethanol. I think these were all more in line with social engineering than with science or economics.
Any rational, market-based, scientifically valid approach to alternative energy is great, as far as I am concerned. But anything that smacks of social engineering or political agenda has to be very carefully and objectively evaluated.
And while developing alternative energy sources, we absolutely MUST secure our national security by making sure we are energy independent. The only way to do this, at this point in time, is through development of fossil fuel extraction and coal mining.
Precisely.
BTW, I’m calling you Ammie now. Cluster corrupted my nifty Mazzie nickname for you. ;P
oops, didn’t know that
Don’t sweat it, Cluster. S’all good! Ammie knew who I was talking about, and I figure I had enough context in my posts that people knew who I meant by Mazzie and who I meant by Missy/Marxist Zoo Animal 330/Idiot.
Amazona: The only way to do this, at this point in time, is through development of fossil fuel extraction and coal mining.
Explain that to me. Specifically, where are you getting your numbers, and which fossil fuels are you talking about? Also, when pricing fuels you have to appreciate that the prices that are quoted all the time are “mine-head” prices — i.e. the cost of extraction, which doesn’t include transportation and delivery costs. That’s especially important when you’re talking about coal, because coal can’t be sent down a pipeline or a wire. That is precisely why coal is not considered a fungible commodity, and never will. That is also why “delivered” coal prices are tied to oil, so long as oil is the primary extraction and transportation fuel. In a manner of speaking, the same is true for natural gas. I say “in a manner of speaking” because gas can be sent down a pipeline. It’s just that, so far, there isn’t an adequate pipeline infrastructure to make it widely available for uses other than what it’s currently used for. And unfortunately, developing such an infrastructure would be hugely expensive. Granted, ultimately building a robust gas pipeline would be cheaper than trucking or training it in, but it’s also true that it would be much more cost-effective to send energy down a wire than to pipe it in. But we don’t have enough wires yet, either. Too bad that, eh?
In the mean time we’re spending about $500 billion per year in foreign oil (including subsidies, but not including externalities). And in a very real sense the federal trade deficit is the private sector analog of the federal budget deficit.
First of all, I wish to point out that finally, at long last, we’re actually having a conversation about energy alternatives! How cool is that?! I hope this is the first of many more to come.
Okay, so to respond to Amazona’s point: And we need to examine WHY any given alternative is desirable. We have had the ethanol experiment rammed down our throats, had billions spent on subsidies to support a technology that could not sustain itself on its own merits, and had mandates pushing ethanol. I think these were all more in line with social engineering than with science or economics.
First of all, I guess we could ask who the primary proponents of the ethanol program were and are. Personally, I’m not a big fan of it. But I do understand how difficult a question it is. For one thing, Brazil was pretty successful at it. But they were very well situated to take advantage of sugar beets. The US isn’t. The short-term thinking was… okay, maybe we don’t have sugar beets, but we do have lots of corn. The long-term thinking was… how hard could it be to break down cell walls of all kinds of plants to get at the underlying sugars? As it turned out the answer was… pretty darned hard! Yet every month or so (I’m being conservative here) you hear about one company/lab or another claim they’ve made a game-changing breakthrough on the laboratory bench. All that’s left is to bring it up to commercial scale. Casper’s link is the latest. The trouble is, it’s often far harder to get an idea into cost-effective commercial production as it is to get it onto the laboratory bench. And actually, even that’s a gross oversimplification. The long and the short of it is, in my personna as a techno-geek, I think it’s all way cool. But as an investor, I only pay attention to ideas that have gotten off the lab bench, have shown success in their demonstration phase(s), and have a reasonably clear path to commercial production. But even then the probability of long-term success is relatively small. A general rule of thumb among venture capitalists is that maybe only 1 in 10 companies that make it that far will actually end up making money in the long run. But those that do make up for the other 9, often many times over. That’s not social engineering, that’s just how it goes. Obviously, careful, objective evaluation improves one’s chances, but the fact remains that even the best VCs typically make more bad bets than good ones. It’s just that the good ones are REALLY good!
Anyway, that’s one reason why I don’t think it’s a good idea to subsidize one technology over another. It’s better to take a more broad-spectrum approach. In fact, IMO, it’s more efficient to target the problem rather than to subsidize any putative solution. Granted, that’s easier said than done in many cases, but I think it’s a good starting point.
But there has to be a point where we stop throwing good money after useless technology.
Neither wind nor solar tech is going to do the job. We’ve been dumping billions into solar for decades and it’s made no significant gains. Time to cut it loose.
Wind is newer, but has proven even worse; it causes health problems for people living 50 miles away, and it loses 75% of the energy between the turbine and the relay. And we have NADA that we can do about either of these problems, nor are we likely to find a solution regardless of how much money we throw at it.
Time to cut these dogs loose and devote our attention (and money) towards things that show real promise, like the cells, and things that are already proven, like nuclear.
But yeah, nice to be having an ACTUAL conversation for a change. Civil discourse is always easier when twits like SlackerWeasel and Missy aren’t spouting off their nonsense.
But don’t think I’m going to go easy on you for other subjects, bucko.
Neither wind nor solar tech is going to do the job. We’ve been dumping billions into solar for decades and it’s made no significant gains. Time to cut it loose.
Actually, both solar and wind look extremely promising. Costs have been plummeting the last several years while efficiencies are going up. Both of them are getting about as cost-effective as coal-fired plants, and both are already more cost-effective than nuclear — assuming you have sun or wind available. And where did you hear we’ve been dumping billions into solar for decades? That’s absurd.
But don’t think I’m going to go easy on you for other subjects, bucko.
If you come loaded with facts and logic rather than baseless talking points and personal invective, bring it on. Just expect the same in return — bucko, lol!
Absolutely excellent article on Teach’s site:
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2010/03/17/agw-today-what-say-we-kill-the-oceans-to-stop-agw/
THIS is why we must stop these climate hysterics. They are giving knee-jerk reactions to everything under the sun, with little thought of the consequences. In their “altruistic” effort to “save the world”, they may well screw it up so badly that they destroy it.
Jer:
As I understand it, Barack Sr fathered a slew of kids all over the place. Barack Jr’s mother (I’m awful with names, sorry. I recall it’s a guy’s name; her folks were seriously weird) had two kids; one with Barack Sr (the Narcissist-In-Chief) and a little girl with her second husband, Soetero, Barack’s adoptive step-father. But Dear Leader was the only issue from what’s-her-name and Barack Sr.
I could be wrong though. No biggie; there’s little point to pursuing it, since Obortion’s various siblings has little to do with any discussion.
tfmo,
I’d read about the Bloom boxes before. Exciting stuff.
Artificial Photosynthesis, if it is workable could be a world changer. Think about it. Create biofuels while reducing CO2. No more drilling or dependence on energy sources from other countries.
I don’t think CO2 is the bugaboo it’s being made out to be, all things considered, but if this new AP cell releases oxygen as a by-product, as happens in regular photosynthesis, I can’t see that having MORE air to breath is a bad thing.
I’m still concerned about the viability, though, based on how much sunlight is required for the thing. Anyone got any intel on that?
And the added benefit, OPEC and the barbarians in the Middle East would lose their power in the world. Ain’t NOTHING bad about that.
This would indeed be a game-changer, on many levels and throughout many games.
“And the added benefit, OPEC and the barbarians in the Middle East would lose their power in the world. Ain’t NOTHING bad about that.”
I agree 100%. What I like about this is it doesn’t matter whether you believe in global warming or not. We win regardless. CO2 is reduced and we get the energy we need.
I am still concerned about the sunlight factor. Any word on that? Also couldn’t find if the AP cell produces O2 in the exchange from CO2.
As much as your side of the aisle is concerned about too much CO2, if these cells just devour CO2 and don’t throw off O2, we could run into problems from a shortage of CO2. Trading one problem for another isn’t going to help. And given that a lack of CO2 could cause cooling is dangerous; more people die from cold than from heat every year.
Oh goodness. What, did you sleep through chemistry and biology or something? The basic photosynthetic process uses CO2 and H2O as inputs and generates simple sugars (e.g., glucose: C6H12O6) and O2 as outputs. The sugars, along with one or more other things, are then used as input into one or more additional reactions, the nature of which depends on whether you want to produce some kind of alcohol or some kind of hydrocarbon (e.g. pentane, hexane, octane). Then you put THAT in a fuel tank and burn it in an engine, along with O2, to produce CO2 and H2O (assuming full combustion). So in essence, you’re back where you started. At least theoretically (i.e., if you only look at the reaction chain), the whole cycle is CO2, H20, and O2 neutral.
birthers are fortunate to have a site like B4V to hide out in.
>they’re laughing stocks elsewhere.
attention birthers – this thread is about global warming.
chef
first you post…….
ohioorrin says:
March 18, 2010 at 6:50 am
birthers are fortunate to have a site like B4V to hide out in.
>they’re laughing stocks elsewhere.
then you post…….
ohioorrin says:
March 18, 2010 at 6:51 am
attention birthers – this thread is about global warming.
anal cranial inversion?
Neo makes an off-hand joke in passing about Obama’s birth certificate, your lefty buddies start shrieking about it, we answer…and of course, it’s all our fault…even though most of us are NOT birthers.
Hypocrisy, insults, ageism, stupidity, and outright deception…all before 7 am.
Might want to pace yourself, Zilch. Don’t worry; I’m sure you’ll have plenty of time to make a fool of yourself on the company dime today.
unlike u, im not at work…
…so ur a thief & a fool no matter the time…
“even though most of us are NOT birthers.”
…you just say all the same stuff that birthers do. Uh-huh. You stand proudly behind your other craziness, why shrink away from this one?
ONCE AGAIN, SlackerWeasel. Find the post where I claim to believe that Obama was NOT born in the US. Get as many of your “friends” together as you can to help you.
STILL WAITING.
“Find the post where I claim to believe that Obama was NOT born in the US.”
I never said that you did believe that. Reading is fundamental, ‘mo. Evidently, it’s also difficult for you. I merely pointed out that you spew an awful lot of birther talking points, yet you bristle at being called a birther. I then asked the question: Why shy away from birtherism when you loudly and proudly own your other crazy theories? I am, to use your parlance, STILL WAITING! YOU HAVEN’T REFUTED IT! ET CETERA!
Obviously you still haven’t quite mastered reading, dipstick.
Birthers are people who question whether or not Obama was born in the US…first clue there should have been the BIRTH part of the word BIRTHERS.
And I have REPEATEDLY stated my beliefs on the subject. I believe that Obama IS a US citizen. The reason he refuses to release his full birth certificate is because he is INTENTIONALLY inciting the birther folks, so asshats like you can point fingers, call the crazy, then claim that EVERYONE on the Right is a birther. Textbook Alinsky.
Amusingly enough though, and hat-tip to JS for pointing this out, there actually IS a question whether or not Obama is a US citizen, but it has nothing to do with his birth certificate. It has to do with his father NOT being a US citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.
According to the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless he or she is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
Among members of Congress and the mainstream news media, the consensus of opinion is that anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen”. However, when we researched this issue a bit more carefully, we found that the consensus opinion is not consistent with American history.
In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility question. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
Barack Obama publicly admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to Minor v. Happersett, there is unresolved doubt as to whether the President is a natural born citizen. This doubt is not based on the imaginings of some tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has actually said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources which are presented and discussed here.
So, as I was saying.
STILL WAITING.
“The reason he refuses to release his full birth certificate is because he is INTENTIONALLY inciting the birther folks, so asshats like you can point fingers, call the crazy, then claim that EVERYONE on the Right is a birther.”
If you actually believe that, then why do you feed into it with the recitation of birther talking points?
STILL WAITING! REFUTATION! DIPSTICK!
Mo, slacker is twisting in the wind: “I never said you believe Obama was not born inthe US I just call you a birther and I call lots of people birthers and it doesn’t matter if THEY believe Obama was born in the US either and I just decided that if anyone anywhere ever had any degree of any curiosity about any aspect of the entire overall question of Obama’s birth or the law regarding natural citizenship I would call them birthers too because it is just too hard to try to keep to one definition of a term and why bother if I can spew more venom by just using the word randomly and why do you pay so much attention to my spittle-flying hysterical overreaction any time anyone even approaches the subject I am not not NOT hypersensitive about it or oddly defensive you crazy crazy loony birther birther birther you….”
gosh it’s hot outside! so GW is true!
>remember if the winter cold is proof against GW, then hot weather proves GW is for real. wingnut logic comes home to roost & crap all over….
ATTENTION……chef……..ATTENTION!!!!
ohioorrin says:
March 18, 2010 at 6:51 am
attention birthers – this thread is about global warming.
Still he is a foreign born muslem with NO birth cert.
Comes directly from you AGW Chicken Littles.
Apparently you don’t read or watch the news much. So far, EVERY weather type is being attributed to AGW.
Hot? AGW. Cold? AGW. Rainy? AGW. Clear? AGW. Windy? AGW. Calm? AGW. More hurricanes? AGW. Less Hurricanes? AGW.
same stupidity, different day.
Tfmo
same stupidity, different day.
By the same donk idiots.
Did you guys ever take a course in statistics? Even one?
yes we learned they can be manipulated.
The extent to which you can be manipulated by statistics correlates highly with the extent to which you don’t know statistics.
of course not rico. which is why fox uses dumbed-down pseudo math as a sub.
>lil wingnut tommy had 3 balloons, half were red. what color was the other half..
…fox viewers will typically not solve that w/o alotta help.
OO, while I’m quite sure there are some here that would fit your characterization, I’m also quite sure there are others who don’t.
My favorite is the effort to get lemmings all wound up by claiming that “50% of all Americans have incomes below the median”.
orrin’s so stupid he can’t even invent a fake math question.
BTW, glad to see you and sadie foaming it up, but get a room, OK? Or do it on her web site like her other customers do.