Page 291 of 366 FirstFirst ... 191241281287288289290291292293294295301341 ... LastLast
Results 4,351 to 4,365 of 5480
  1. #4351
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Dutch's car project discussion can now be found on its own dedicated thread here.

  2. #4352
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    $70 BILLION of our tax dollars going straight down the $hitter...

    Federal government spent nearly $70 billion on ‘climate change activities’ since 2008

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #4353
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Happy 25th birthday.... now GTFO!

    Canada axes green advisory body
    The Canadian government is to mark the 25th anniversary of its green business advisers by shutting the agency down


    The Canadian government is to mark the 25th anniversary of its green business advisers by closing the agency down.

    John Baird, Canada's foreign affairs minister and pointman for next month's Rio+20 Earth summit in Brazil, said this week that the National Roundtable for the Environment and Economy (NRTEE) would have its funding cut in 2013 because of the availability of information from thinktanks, the internet and universities.

    Baird told reporters that Canadian taxpayers should not have to pay for an organisation that has produced 10 reports promoting a carbon tax – "something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected".

    "But that's not correct," the Roundtable's CEO, David McLaughlin, told the Guardian on Thursday, adding that it had never advocated a carbon tax but had looked at cap and trade for regulating Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in a 2009 report commissioned by the government. "Which was government policy at the time," said McLaughlin.

    McLaughlin, a former chief of staff to federal finance minister Jim Flaherty, stressed there was always original analysis in its reports, making available information that would not otherwise be in the public domain. McLaughlin also pointed to the Roundtable's ability to combine research while convening people from industry as well as the environmental sector together.

    Only on Wednesday the NRTEE provided an environmental life cycle analysis commissioned by the federal environment minister, Peter Kent, and a climate change report is due out next month that will look at provincial emissions reduction plans.

    The C$5.2 million funding for the NRTEE will cease as of 31 March next year under a wide-ranging omnibus budget bill C-38 that is currently before Canada's House of Commons. The legislation seeks to speed up natural resources projects such as oil and gas pipelines, and repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.
    Eventually people learn that whenever envoriweenies use any combination of the the following or similar words "investment, green, sustainable, renewable" it means $$$ they plan to take from you. All for your own good of course.

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #4354
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    third stone from the Sun
    Posts
    1,794

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    It is for your own good, the whole planets good !

  5. #4355
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by supercat View Post
    It is for your own good, the whole planets good !
    Of course it is. Would you like to borrow a pic of a polar bear sitting on an ice flow?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  6. #4356
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Of course it is. Would you like to borrow a pic of a polar bear sitting on an ice flow?
    About that... its always a polar bear that's alive.

  7. #4357
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Spain pulls the plug on subsidizing part of the eco-lunacy industry.... that segment (the windmill industry) predictably collapses.

    Spain scuttles clean-energy subsidies; promptly watches the industry go down like a sinking ship

    Serious question, greenies: is a nation justified in completely running its economy into the ground, with all of the hardship and heartache that ensues, if it’s all for the sake of instilling the populace with what the government deems necessary environmental virtue?

    Saddled with a budget deficit more than twice the European Union limit and a ballooning gap between income and costs in its power system, Spain halted subsidies for new renewable-energy projects in January. The surprise move by Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy one month after taking office helped pierce investor confidence in stable aid for clean energy acrossEurope.

    “They destroyed the Spanish market overnight with the moratorium,” European Wind Energy Association Chief Executive Officer Christian Kjaer said in an interview. “The wider implication of this is that if Spanish politicians can do that, probably most European politicians can do that.”

    Spain’s $69 billion of investment in power capacity from 2004 to 2011 was about triple the spending per capita in the U.S. in that period, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance data and U.S. Census Bureau population estimates. Most of the 2012-2013 spending will be for the legacy of projects approved before the aid cuts to wind, solar, biomass and co-generation.

    Investment in solar photovoltaic alone is headed to skid to as little as $107 million in 2013 from $879 million this year and $1.5 billion last year, New Energy Finance estimated. For new wind projects, investment should plunge to $963 million in 2013 and $244 million in 2014 from $2 billion this year.
    Here’s the message that Spain’s green-subsidy policies sent out to the world: ‘Hey, if you’ve got an idea for a green-energy project that you don’t think can compete on its own merits and turn a profit in the free market, come on over to Spain and we’ll hook you up with some sweet subsidies!’ Ergo, it should hardly come as a surprise that fiscal emergency has forced Spain to put an indefinite hold on the subsidies, and the clean-energy companies are immediately flocking to greener pastures.

    Yikes. Didn’t really think that one through, did you, Spain? Germany is often heralded as a world leader in clean energy development, but in 2009, Spain’s clean-energy consumer bill rose to 6 billion euros, ahead of Germany’s 5.6 billion bill — except that Germany’s economy is almost four times bigger than Spain’s. They rushed headfirst into that one, and with top-down large-scale policymaking like that, it isn’t happenstance that their unemployment rate is currently sitting at a miserable 24 percent.

    Environmentalists may argue that our worldwide fossil fuel-based energy infrastructure isn’t sustainable in the long term — even though the evidence for imminent climate-change and peak-oil crises are extremely dodgy, at best — but fiscal insolvency is demonstrably unsustainable in the long term. While some of the eurozone members’ clean-energy ‘investments’ may not be the root cause of their present crisis, they are wildly indicative of the type of no-holds-barred, feel-good spending binges that have brought them down this road. Europe just keeps on proffering examples of precisely what governments shouldn’t do, but alas, will the United States ever listen?

    And, as ever, my usual disclaimer: I have nothing against alternative energy. I only ask that it follows the sustainable recipe for success signaled by the free market, rather than the economic noblesse oblige of the federal government’s political whimsy.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #4358
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    This comes as no surprise, but hey:

    The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

    'Abandon focus on sound science', say trick-cyclists

    By Lewis Page

    A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.

    The results of the survey are especially remarkable as it was plainly not intended to show any such thing: Rather, the researchers and trick-cyclists who carried it out were doing so from the position that the "scientific consensus" (carbon-driven global warming is ongoing and extremely dangerous) is a settled fact, and the priority is now to find some way of getting US voters to believe in the need for urgent, immediate and massive action to reduce CO2 emissions.

    A theory exists among some psychologists, sociologists and other soft "scientists" that it should be possible to convince the ordinary citizenry to accept the various huge costs advocated by environmentalists, by simply raising the level of scientific knowledge and numeracy. People would then be able to understand that there is a terrible danger facing the human race and so would support action to address it. Certainly it appears to be a fact that very few people in the general public – or indeed, in various architecture and industrial-design faculties – have enough basic physics and numeracy to join the debate at all (as the recent rash of human-powered "crowd farm" generator projects illustrates all too plainly).

    Thus, in a just-published US National Science Foundation-funded study, participants' science knowledge and numeracy was tested and compared with levels of concern regarding climate change. The soft-studies profs were amazed, however, to find that as one moves up the scale of science knowledge and numeracy, people become more sceptical, not less.

    According to the profs, this is not because the idea of imminent carbon-driven catastrophe is perhaps a bit scientifically suspect. Rather it is because people classed as "egalitarian communitarians" (roughly speaking, left-wingers) are always highly concerned about climate change, and become slightly more so as they acquire more science and numeracy. Unfortunately, however, "hierarchical individualists" (basically, right-wingers) are quite concerned about climate change when they're ignorant: but if they have any scientific, mathematic or technical education this causes them to become strongly sceptical.

    As scientific/tech knowledge and numeracy appears to be more common among "hierarchical individualists" than among "egalitarian communitarians", this meant that in the sample as a whole the effect of more scientific knowledge and numeracy was to increase scepticism.

    Continued.....
    Quack "scientists" supporting other another quack science. How nice.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05...you_sceptical/
    Last edited by Enmore; 06-23-2012 at 04:54 PM.

  9. #4359
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Meanwhile, in the UK, the Chancellor is thought to be planning to pull the plug on the green scam.

    George Osborne demands massive cuts to windfarm subsidies

    PM's 'greenest government ever' claim undermined by chancellor's move, which follows pressure from Tory MPs



    Damian Carrington and Toby Helm

    Plans for dramatic cuts in government subsidies for onshore windfarms are being drawn up by the Treasury in a move that seriously undermines David Cameron's claim to be running "the greenest government ever".

    The Observer has learned that George Osborne is demanding cuts of 25% in subsidies, a reduction the industry says would "kill dead" the development of wind power sites. The Treasury's stance has put the chancellor at loggerheads with the Liberal Democrat energy secretary Ed Davey, whose party strongly supports more renewable energy.
    Not by 100% unfortunately, but it's a start.

    Windfarms currently get about £400 Million ($615 million US) of taxpayers' money wasted on them a year.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...farm-subsidies

    Of course this lefty rag is spitting feathers about it.

  10. #4360
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Not to worry though.. the MMGW cult is doing it's best to change the historical record to fit it's preconceived notions.

    Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test

    Money quote:

    . . .
    The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”
    . . .
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #4361
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SO CAL USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Probably the best post on the entire debate ever.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/2...re/#more-66096
    asrock x370 taichi,16g gskill flarex3200 wd250mu 3wdblack 1 tera
    Asrock 990FX FX8120 8G Gskill 2133 2x WD2T 6.0 pc p+c 950w
    Asrock 890FX 1090t 2x4 Gskill 1866 RipJaw WD 1T 6.0 mushkin 850w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 8 Gskill RipJaw 1866 WD1T 6.0 ocz 750 w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 2x4 Gskill Rip Jaw 1600 Ocz evo720
    DFI 790FXB M2RSH PII 955 2x1Gskill 1600 Saph 4670 Ocz Evo 720W
    DFI 790FXM2RS PII 720 2x1gig Gskill 1600 Sapphire HD3400
    DFI Lp ultra D SLI Opti 148@300x10 @33c 1 gig Crucial ballistix 4000

  12. #4362
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^ Nicely constructed article.

  13. #4363
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    ^ Nicely constructed article.
    Watts as usual with a no nonsense approach.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #4364
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    The Rio global warming junket came and went with barely a whisper. Maybe because people have got real things to worry about now, like jobs and the pending collapse of the world's financial system.

    This article about summed it up:


    MPs have no idea how to meet the 'carbon' target they voted for

    When readers asked their MPs to explain how the UK would cut CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, the answers made worrying reading


    By Christopher Booker


    The great global warming scare has long been dying on its feet, but that sad fiasco of a conference in Rio last week saw it finally dead and buried. “It’s pathetic, it’s appalling,” wailed a spokesman for WWF, one of the thousands of green activists who flew to Rio, many at taxpayers’ expense, to see the last rites read over their lost dream. Their cause has even been abandoned by one of its most outspoken champions, the green guru James Lovelock of “Gaia” fame, who now admits that the warming scare was all a tragic mistake, and that talk of “sustainable development” is just “meaningless drivel”.

    But the “epic failure” of Rio, as Friends of the Earth called it, is an apt cue to recall how this leaves Britain as the only country in the world committed by law to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent in less than 40 years. The Climate Change Act, on the Government’s own figures, faces us with a bill of up to £18 billion every year until 2050, making it by far the most costly law ever passed by Parliament.

    More important still, however, this raises the question: how do all those MPs who voted almost unanimously for this target (only three voted against it) think we can meet this obligation without closing down virtually our entire economy?

    This is the question which, in April, I invited readers to put to their MPs, and I am very grateful to all those who have now sent me the replies they received, from nearly 50 MPs. These, I fear, are even more depressing than I anticipated.

    The question put to the MPs was simple. Since we depend on CO2-emitting fossil fuels for 75 per cent of our electricity and almost all of our transport system, how in practical terms can we reduce those emissions by four-fifths? It is no good pretending that we can rely on “renewables” such as wind and solar to fill the gap, since these are so intermittent that they would require up to 100 per cent backup from fossil fuels to keep our now largely computer-dependent economy functioning.

    Not one of the 47 MPs who answered showed the faintest understanding of the question. Many simply relied on a form letter supplied by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, starting with the sentence: “Decarbonisation does not mean de-industrialisation.” The more honest MPs sent on DECC’s letter, others used cut-and-paste to pretend that this reply was all their own work.

    Some, such as our climate change minister Greg Barker, chirped about “the Green Deal, Renewables Incentives and Smart Meters”. Fiona Bruce (Con, Congleton) was “assured that onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source”. Roberta Blackman-Woods (Lab, Durham) claimed “nearly a million people now work in the low-carbon economy, with the potential to create 400,000 green jobs by 2020”.

    The silliest response came from Oliver Letwin, who said that the quoted costs of the Climate Change Act had been greatly exaggerated (not realising that the figures come from DECC’s own website), and predicted that solar, wind and carbon capture (as yet non-existent) will soon be so cheap that, in a few years, they “will be able to operate without subsidies”.

    As reader after reader observed, not a single MP addressed the question. Not one had done any serious homework or showed the slightest practical grasp of how electricity is made and how our transport system is powered. They merely regurgitated irrelevant, jargon-ridden propaganda passed on to them by others. As one reader put it: “What is infinitely depressing is that all these idiots believe the nonsense they are fed.”

    They live in a bubble of make-believe which doesn’t touch reality at any point. Yet these are the people who passed the most potentially damaging law in our history – in the name of a delusion which, in Rio last week, died the death.

    Somewhere along the way, if our country is to survive, that Climate Change Act will have be thrown into the dustbin of history. But judging by their letters, these MPs will be the very last people to realise it. As the man from WWF said, “It’s pathetic, it’s appalling.” One couldn’t put it better.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9...voted-for.html

  15. #4365
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,978

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Sensors installed on wind turbines to model bat death risk

    By Olivia Solon

    Engineers and biologists are to place microphones on wind turbines in the US in order to protect bats -- which are important pest controllers -- from being killed.

    The ultrasonic microphones -- to be placed on a wind farm in Wisconsin -- be listening for the squeaks and clicks that bats make when navigating. That data will be fed into a predictive model that will also factor in meteorological information to model the risk to bats from the wind farm at any one time.

    If the risk is high -- i.e. there are likely to be a lot of bats present -- the wind energy company will be able to shut down the turbines temporarily. The meteorological information is useful because it can help predict the likelihood of bats flying -- bats rarely fly when it's raining -- and the financial implications of stopping the turbines, for example when it is particularly windy.
    Yeah right.

    The test wind farm -- Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Centre -- was the setting for bat mortality studies in 2008 and 2009. These estimated that the 88 turbines were responsible for around 3,500 bat deaths each year.
    These shredders - so "green".

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...-wind-turbines

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •