Page 236 of 304 FirstFirst ... 136186226232233234235236237238239240246286 ... LastLast
Results 3,526 to 3,540 of 4551
  1. #3526
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveW View Post
    Anger? Probably not. Try frustration - that would be closer to reality.

    To continue on doing the same thing and expect different results - i.e. argu pro global warming with a bunch of naysayers - is widely considered a basis of insanity.......
    I respectfully disagree. To trash science is.

  2. #3527
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    It's no use Aero. I basically said the same thing to him last week. Otoc's mind is completely made up already. We are all going to die don't ya know. MMGW is here and only taxes and carbon credits can save us! Oh yeah, and think of the children!!!!
    You know kb, you had the chance to respond directly to me so that any misconceptions of my viewpoint could be clarified.

    My point was that science has given us studies that point to a gradual change the that can impact the world as we know it. My point has been that a counter viewpoint is best done in the same method and not via blogs that offer a hypothesis that has holes that even I can rebut and I'm not a climate scientist.

    I've expressed an opinion that scientists on the side of man's influence are not expressing a 100% surety while many skeptics do.

    I have never expressed an opinion that I agree with a carbon tax. Get it straight if you are going to knock me in this safe way where you can't have a conversation directly.

  3. #3528
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    The sham is the abuse of this science.

    So, are you simply advocating science that really has no solutions? Are you going to go with this approach?
    Again the misunderstanding that I either advocate science that has no solution. First, I have discussed solutions and none of them involve C&P. I even acknowledge some of yours. I have repeatedly compared the two sides of the science where people like you have decided it is 1000% sham, and as such science has been violated, while I simply look at the studies in science, realize the actual positions, and feel studies should be encouraged. I'm tired of this misinterpretation of my position and feel that to constantly defend myself to such attacks does nothing for the actual issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    The CO2 is something is something I can prove by putting you in an airtight room for a few hours. But it's not the quantity of CO2 that kills you. Do you know what it is? I can show you millions of people living in the desert. I can't do the same in Alaska or Siberia.
    Right, it is the reduction of oxygen causing carbon dioxide poisoning in the case of a closed room. I don't get the analogy any more than I get people living in the desert, Alaska, or Siberia.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    Btw- methane, normally found in swamps, is generally a sign of the compost of rich soil. Maybe I'll suggest growing petunias.
    Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. It the tundra melts then the greenhouse effect increases exponentially. Keep your petunias.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    Basically, technology only produces a very small percentage of the CO2. OUR NUMBERS AND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN THEM PRODUCE A LOT MORE.
    Sure. That is true compared to the entire carbon cycle. The issue is that the natural system has the balance to handle what is produced and what can be contained or taken out. The focus has been on the effect of what man produces and how it is causing a direct result of warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    Got any other reasonable solutions besides voluntary population control? I know that I've heard the private musings of some wholesale solutions "environmentalists" have.
    WTF does this rant have to do with the topic? I've never mentioned population control nor have I seen it mentioned in studies in any other way that the simple effect of population on resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    This is where the MMGW argument falls apart. It's not the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere nor the warming of the globe that is going to kill you.
    Show me where the MMGW argument states people will die from the direct result of increases in CO2. Then we'll continue. Where do you get this stuff from?

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    It's the lack of O2. Even Hawking readily understood that. Had you and they made the argument that it's not the production of CO2 and warming that will kill us but the destruction of O2 production that will- I would have listened.
    Lack of 02? Production of Co2 or warming will kill us? That's not the argument I see at all.
    Again, CO2 is not stated to kill us, for the same reason you brought up earlier. We exist on O2. Warming isn't stated to directly kill us. The environmental effects on crops, water, and climate change will have have an effect as history has shown. That's the argument. From starvation (in that case there could be death) such as the what resulted from the freeze in Europe to the disappearance of the Mayan civilization that was equated in the Holocene study I showed you in another exchange. The issue is the impact of climate change.

    As to lack of O2, interesting hypothesis. Our current average of O2 is roughly 20%. In some urban areas it is found to be lower somewhere around 15%. No one is dying. As to the importance of the known lowering of O2 in the scope of things, here is the best observation from the son of the scientist who started monitoring CO2 levels in modern times:
    Measuring Atmospheric Oxygen Levels as Carbon Dioxide Rises 2008-03-17

    Narrator: This is Science Today. The "Keeling Curve" is a famous, historical graph depicting the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It was started in 1958 by the late Charles David Keeling of the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Ralph Keeling, an atmospheric geochemist at Scripps, has contributed to his father's work by showing that levels of oxygen in the atmosphere are decreasing along with the rise in carbon dioxide.
    Keeling: These changes are really tiny, so they don't comprise an environmental problem per se....everyone is fond of oxygen! (laughter) People get a little worried that it's decreasing, but actually at the present rate of loss we run out of something like 50 thousand years and we run out of fossil fuels long before then
    Narrator: But scientists can learn more about the rise of carbon dioxide by studying oxygen levels.
    Keeling: It's been helpful in establishing, for example, the amounts of carbon dioxide that are being removed by the ocean and by land plants and account for that fraction that isn't remaining in the air.
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    The solutions offered by the MMGW party are side-stepping and ignoring this argument.
    It seems not.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    When you ask people on the street anymore on how to help the environment the answer is becoming to make power more expensive or shutting down power plants altogether and not planting a tree or having fewer children. Though people have issues with it, the Chinese are showing signs of knowing better than we do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
    Ah, the population side issue you brought up earlier. One that affects resources. There's your population control. As to asking people on the street, it isn't science is it? Nor is a general issue of awareness of environment that isn't exclusive to the issue of warming.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    How about reforestation and reclamation?
    No climate scientist denies the effect of deforestation. The scientists studying climate change have come to the conclusion that CO2 production via burning fossil fuels is more of a concern, and not that the issue is mutually exclusive. The issue is balance and to that extent part of the equation is to pay countries like Brazil money to slow that process down. It seems you are in agreement with most climate scientists.

    The question of balance is whether forestation alone is enough on a global scale to counter the production of CO2 that the earth's carbon cycle can handle naturally. So the conclusion is to deal with both deforestation and production of CO2 via fossil fuels.
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    How about irrigation for more than just crops?
    If this is a solution for arid conditions due to warming, I'm sure it will be a partial solution. But the question still remains how fast can man adapt to change and not dying. It's the economic issue that is in the debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    How about trying to figure out what is really killing the phytoplankton, because they have THRIVED with far higher concentrations of CO2 in far warmer climates. We have had a loss of 40% of these since 1950- AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE HEAT AND/OR CO2. This 40% could make things more tolerable.It seems like people already have ideas:


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton
    Why is your statement in direct opposition to the recent studies?
    Ocean warming's effect on phytoplankton / NASA satellite data show how global climate change hurts marine food chain

    December 07, 2006|By Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

    When the climate warms, there is a drop in the abundance of the ocean's phytoplankton, the tiny plants that feed krill, fish and whales, according to scientists who say new research offers the first clues to the future of marine life under global warming.
    Ocean temperatures have generally risen over the last 50 years as the atmosphere warms. And now nine years of NASA satellite data published today in the journal Nature show that the growth rate and abundance of phytoplankton around the world decreases in warm ocean years and increases in cooler ocean years.


    The findings are crucial because they show a consequence of the changing global climate at the most fundamental level. Scientists estimate that phytoplankton is responsible for about half of Earth's photosynthesis, a process that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and converts it into organic carbon and oxygen that feeds nearly every ocean ecosystem.
    Fewer phytoplankton consume less carbon dioxide, aggravating a cycle that can lead to even more warming.
    Over the past decades, California scientists have linked declining plankton numbers to El Niños and other warm-water years in the Pacific Ocean, which set off a domino effect of fewer krill and young fish and eventually failed reproduction of seabirds and even deaths of seals and sea lions.
    "What's amazing is this is the first time we see it on a global scale," said Dave Siegel, professor of marine science at UC Santa Barbara and a study author. "We have an inkling now what will happen to the ocean's biology in future climates."
    The scientists report that the relationship between warmer ocean waters and fewer plankton holds strongly for three-quarters of the world's oceans.
    Last edited by otoc; 01-10-2011 at 11:42 AM. Reason: last [/quote]

  4. #3529
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    8,132

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    Actually, I was trying to make a point with MMGW. MMGW ascribes man-made evil that creates destructive natural events. I'm trying to dispell the label.
    Men are going to create CO2 naturally in order to survive. Man is NOT destroying himself with his natural by-product. Moreover, GW is NOT man-made.
    I don't see it as a good/evil thing for that is counter to the concept of science. So what is it then?

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    It is sun made.
    Oh, sorry. Not according to numerous studies in terms of modern times. The forcing of the sun has been shown historically. Even Hansen showed that in the video. If that was true today, then the reduction in solar output in recent years should have changed the trend from a positive to a negative. But it hasn't. Both land and sat based readings show the trend is still positive. Which is why scientists are looking at a different forcing while not ignoring the sun.
    Here is an article that links to the numerous studies on that and discusses the question...
    Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?


    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    This relationship between CO2 and warming is right as rain. In history CO2 lagged warming likely because warmth encourages more plant life that naturally requires more CO2 to grow- which has been likely encouraged by sizeable increases in the animal and reptile life to feed on the plants.
    The historic lag of CO2 and temp you mention, I assume from historic ice cores has been looked at since climate change has many variables, a point you make constantly.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.html
    Just as there's more than one way to heat a house, so there's more than one way to heat a planet.
    Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.
    Initial warming

    This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.
    We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.
    What is more, CO2 is just one of several greenhouses gases, and greenhouse gases are just one of many factors affecting the climate. There is no reason to expect a perfect correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the past: if there is a big change in another climate "forcing", the correlation will be obscured.
    Orbital variations

    So why has Earth regularly switched between ice ages and warmer interglacial periods in the past million years? It has long been thought that this is due to variations in Earth's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. These change the amount and location of solar energy reaching Earth. However, the correlation is not perfect and the heating or cooling effect of these orbital variations is small. It has also long been recognised that they cannot fully explain the dramatic temperature switches between ice ages and interglacials.
    So if orbital changes did cause the recent ice ages to come and go, there must also have been some kind of feedback effect that amplified the changes in temperatures they produced. Ice is one contender: as the great ice sheets that covered large areas of the planet during the ice ages melted, less of the Sun's energy would have been reflected back into space, accelerating the warming. But the melting of ice lags behind the beginning of interglacial periods by far more than the rises in CO2.
    Another feedback contender, suggested over a century ago, is CO2. In the past decade, detailed studies of ice cores have shown there is a remarkable correlation between CO2 levels and temperature over the past half million years (see Vostok ice cores show constant CO2 as temperatures fell).
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroSim View Post
    Now, if you want to argue how man is destroying O2 manufacture and CO2 processing- the discussion becomes more sensible and viable than carbon regulation, taxation, credits and derivatives.
    I think I've rebutted the O2 production issue. As to Processing CO2 that is one of the solutions that has been studied.

    The issue of C&P is pretty much moot and I think you are barking up a tree that I've never barked up. Even Hansen was against a C&P because it allowed profiteering when the issue should be finding alternative energy sources. I believe you share that concern.
    Carbon Tax & 100% Dividend vs. Tax & Trade
    The root cause is our failure to make polluting fossil fuel energy more expensive than clean energy. We must put a price, a rising price, on carbon emissions.
    There are two competing ways to achieve that price:
    One is Tax & 100% Dividend – tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money back to the public on a per capita basis.
    For example, let’s start with a tax large enough to affect purchasing decisions: a carbon tax that adds $1 to the price of a gallon of gas. That’s a carbon price of about $115 per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670B per year. We return 100% of that money to the public. Each adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3000 per year, $250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for each child up to a maximum of two children per family. So a tax rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of $9000 per year for a family with two children, $750 per month. The family with carbon footprint less than average makes money – their dividend exceeds their tax. This tax gives a strong incentive to replace inefficient infrastructure. It spurs the economy. It spurs innovation.
    This path can take us to the era beyond fossil fuels, leave most remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to extreme environments to find every drop of oil. We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow. Why not do it sooner, for the benefit of our children? Not to do so, knowing the consequences, is immoral.
    The tax rate likely must increase in time, but when gas hits $4 per gallon again most of that $4 will stay in the United States, as dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many gallons. We will be well on the way to energy independence.
    The alternative to carbon tax and 100% dividend is Tax & Trade, foisted on the public under the pseudonym ‘Cap & Trade’. A ‘cap’ increases the price of energy, as a tax does. It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide the fact that Cap is a tax.
    Other characteristics of the “cap” approach: (1) unpredictable price volatility, (2) it makes millionaires on Wall Street and other trading floors at public expense, (3) it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities that threaten “blackout coming” to gain increased emission permits, (4) it has overhead costs and complexities, inviting lobbyists and delaying implementation.
    The biggest problem with Cap Tax is that it will not solve the problem. The public will soon learn that it is a tax. And because there is no dividend, the public will revolt before the Cap Tax is large enough to transform society. There is no way that the Cap Tax can get us back to 350 ppm CO2.
    We need a tax with 100% dividend to transform our energy systems and rapidly move us beyond fossil fuels.
    In absence of a focus on alternative energy sources away from fossil fuels, and with the energy sector more intent on business as usual, while I feel his suggestion is too extreme, I feel that somehow we have to fund research into methods to replace fossil fuels.

  5. #3530
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    66
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Phopojijo View Post
    I'm not sure exactly where it is between hypothesis and theory. I'm also not a climatologist or even a meteorologist.

    I'm of the mind that we should play it somewhat safe of course... no sense pretending the good times will be around forever and completely burning all fossil fuels into the atmosphere just to be frugal about developing new tech.

    I’m a little confused by this exchange.

    I say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3422

    You say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3424

    I say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3426

    You say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3427

    I say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3428

    You say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3429

    Aero says this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3431

    You say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3436

    Aero says this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3438

    You say this
    http://forums.pcper.com/showpost.php...postcount=3442

    One thing you never did mention in your “trend” is the validity of the data you use and you did'nt consider any contrary data.

    So I ask this question:

    Is your trend fact or just opinion.

  6. #3531
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,183

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)



    "I find your lack of faith disturbing"
    "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


  7. #3532
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Red face Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^


    From Queensland, Australia, a month ago:

    Queensland desalination plant to be mothballed

    A QUEENSLAND desalination plant is set to be mothballed as part of sweep of State Government water grid reforms to cut rising household water bills.

    Natural Resources Minister, Stephen Robertson announced the rejig today, aimed at saving $18 million per year.

    Mr Robertson confirmed speculation the $1.126 billion desalination plant at Tugun near the Gold Coast will be placed on standby mode. The move will save $10 million per year and the plant will be turned off later this month.
    (One Australian dollar is as near as damn it the same as one US dollar)

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news...#ixzz1Am8k3nm7


    And now:



    They had very similar flooding in 1974 with very similar tragic results. They're even having to evacuate outlying areas of Brisbane now. The city is only being protected from greater damage by the huge Wivenhoe dam which was built in the late 1970s in the wake of the '74 disaster.

    There were plans for a much more extensive network of dams, relief channels etc for the region, but they fell foul of the nascent environmental movement. By the 90s they'd let the hippies persuade them that (thanks to global warming) floods like this would never happen again anyway. So they blew billions instead on building desalination plants, stupid windmills and carbon trading. Well, now they're paying the price. Or rather the public are as usual.

    More coverage:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...woomba_drowns/
    Last edited by Enmore; 01-11-2011 at 08:40 PM.

  8. #3533
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    24,183

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ That's what really grates me the worst about this MMGW scam. Of all the things the enviroweenies could have chosen to hitch their collective wagons to.. they chose a "threat" that only exists in computer models. I think of the good the billion$ that have been shot straight into the MMGW black hole could have done fighting real threats. It's really sad.
    "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


  9. #3534
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,736

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Enmore View Post
    There were plans for a much more extensive network of dams, relief channels etc for the region, but they fell foul of the nascent environmental movement. By the 90s they'd let the hippies persuade them that.......
    See, here's the difference between American liberals and Aussie hippies. In a situation like this, American liberals always start searching for any group of people they deem "less fortunate" that live in the area and then get the media to show them as much as possible on tv 24/7. Then they blame Bush for not doing enough etc. Then they throw as much money as possible trying to rebuild the cesspool with taxpayer dollars so that "this tragedy can never happen again!", etc. That being said, I think I can help these poor, unfortunate Australians.

    Citizens of Brisbane. Stop doing anything to help yourselves now! Find something to float around on and look miserable. Find the nearest news crew and start crying about how not enough has been done to keep the flood waters from hitting your city. Make sure to mention that if the floods had hit Sydney or Melbourne, much more would be getting done, etc. Insinuate that PM Gillard doesn't like people from Brisbane or doesn't care about global warming. Don't worry about the facts or even if any of this is true. Repeat it often enough and people will start to believe you and rally around you. Soon, the whole of Australia will start to send you money on top of taxpayer money that will rebuild your city for free, much better than it was before. American liberals have proven time and again how effective this advice can be.

    A quick recap:

    1. Float around.
    2. Look and act miserable and be helpless.
    3. Enlist media's help.
    4. Find political fall guy.
    5. Whine a lot.
    6. PROFIT!!!!

  10. #3535
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    66
    Posts
    9,577

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by kbohip View Post
    See, here's the difference between American liberals and Aussie hippies. In a situation like this, American liberals always start searching for any group of people they deem "less fortunate" that live in the area and then get the media to show them as much as possible on tv 24/7. Then they blame Bush for not doing enough etc. Then they throw as much money as possible trying to rebuild the cesspool with taxpayer dollars so that "this tragedy can never happen again!", etc. That being said, I think I can help these poor, unfortunate Australians.

    Citizens of Brisbane. Stop doing anything to help yourselves now! Find something to float around on and look miserable. Find the nearest news crew and start crying about how not enough has been done to keep the flood waters from hitting your city. Make sure to mention that if the floods had hit Sydney or Melbourne, much more would be getting done, etc. Insinuate that PM Gillard doesn't like people from Brisbane or doesn't care about global warming. Don't worry about the facts or even if any of this is true. Repeat it often enough and people will start to believe you and rally around you. Soon, the whole of Australia will start to send you money on top of taxpayer money that will rebuild your city for free, much better than it was before. American liberals have proven time and again how effective this advice can be.

    A quick recap:

    1. Float around.
    2. Look and act miserable and be helpless.
    3. Enlist media's help.
    4. Find political fall guy.
    5. Whine a lot.
    6. PROFIT!!!!


    Can I hire you as a Drama Teacher and Financial Manager if an earthquake ever knocks my house down…
    Last edited by tucker; 01-12-2011 at 02:13 PM.

  11. #3536
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,053

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Some of the fallacies about alternative energy come to light when put to the test of reality:

    From Spain...
    Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

    President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

    But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

    “Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.
    To Massachusetts...
    Evergreen Solar Inc., which received $58 million in state aid to open a factory in 2008 at the former military base in Devens, announced today it would shut the plant and let go 800 workers by the end of this quarter. The solar-panel plant is a cornerstone of Governor Deval Patrick’s efforts to make Massachusetts a hub for the emerging clean-energy industry…

    The company lost $54 million through the first nine months of 2010, and has, since its founding in 1994, accumulated a total deficit of more than $630 million. Last month, it engineered a reverse stock split to maintain capital requirements for the main Nasdaq stock exchange. Before the split, Evergreen’s stock had been trading at about 50 cents.

    Evergreen did not say what will happen to the solar-panel assembly work now done at Devens, but the company noted it will continue to operate facilities in China and Michigan.

    But it was just a few short years ago the company was a darling in the eyes of the Patrick administration, which offered Evergreen a rich package of grants, land, loans, and other aid – some $76 million in all-to build a new facility at Devens. The company eventually accepted $58.5 million, one of the largest investments Massachusetts has made in a private company.
    Let's hope that as Obambi focuses like a laser on jobs, he keeps this kinda stuff in mind.

    link to the links

  12. #3537
    Joined
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorafornia
    Age
    41
    Posts
    12,736

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    You mean a community organizer doesn't know squat about how real business is run?

  13. #3538
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    17,053

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Yeah, that's the feeling I get.

    But I do give him credit for being able to spread other people's money around to his buddies. I think we call that... community organizing.

  14. #3539
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Tagging bad for penguins: Study

    By QMI AGENCY

    Scientists often tag penguins with steel bands under their flippers to track their movements and gather information, but a new study suggests the practice is killing the animals.

    Biologists studied 100 king penguins for 10 years, half of which were flipper-tagged and half of which were not. The results, published in the journal Nature, show penguins with flipper bands had a 16% lower survival rate and produced 39% fewer chicks than the band-less birds.

    That's because the bands caused a “drag effect,” which made them swim slower and arrive at colony sites for breeding much later than other penguins. They also took much longer to complete foraging trips.

    This is in keeping with a 1994 study from Swansea University in Wales that found penguins with flipper bands use 24% more energy to swim. Other studies have shown the bands can wound the animals.

    Yet the bands remain the most common way scientists study penguins.

    “For decades, the standard practice for studying penguins ... has been to tag the birds with flipper bands. It is a controversial technique, however, with conflicting reports on whether the tags themselves can alter the birds' behaviour. Now, the results of a ten-year study of free-ranging king penguins provide convincing evidence that banding is harmful,” the study says.

    Penguin observation, notes the study, is a key component of climate-change research. Scientists compare changes in penguin population to things like rises in sea temperatures.

    But if the tools of scientific observation are affecting the birds' population, that means the data is tainted.

    “Our understanding of the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems based on flipper-band data should be reconsidered,” the study says.
    Do you think they'll stop doing this now?

    No, nor do I.

    What with this and their love of bird-shredding windfarms, these eco-marxists really don't like our avian friends for some reason.

    http://www.torontosun.com/news/world.../16861641.html

  15. #3540
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    E n g l a n d
    Posts
    10,979

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Your tax dollars at work:

    Climate Change is a big money complex. The US government alone spends roughly $4 billion a year to finance climate research and initiatives. That level of spending leaves all private US entities in the dust by a factor of roughly 1,000. In North America, the US federal government controls climate change spending.
    Well worth a read:

    http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2011/0...who-gives.html

Posting Permissions

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