Debunked: Lord Christopher Monckton

Status
Not open for further replies.
And why do you think this is being suppressed? It seems to be getting quite a bit of money invested in it, considering there's not a lot of money to be made. There's a few hydrogen fueling stations in California. The problem really is one of the chicken and the egg. Nobody is buying the cars because there's not very many fueling stations. There's not many fueling stations because there are not many cars. It's going to take localized fleet purchases (like with the CNG buses here in LA) to get things moving. Or a hybrid hydrogen/gasoline car.

http://cafcp.org/stationmap
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...en-fuel-cell-cars-hit-the-market-from-hyundai

I think it has definitely been suppressed. Much of this technology has been around for years. Cars running on chicken manure during the war, (Methane). Landfill sites are constantly burning off methane gas, (many years after being filled), to stop explosions from happening. Diesel designed his engine to run on vegetable or hemp oil.

http://rense.com/general67/FORD.HTM

Attempts to move over to LPG are always thwarted by taxation. Yes you mention about the current move toward LPG and LNG but where is the political will. Completely the opposite and that was even when LNG storage facilities were at capacity last year and natural gas prices were at an all time low and production was being drastically cut.

But what are they doing instead... dragging sludge down from Canadian tar pits right across America.
 
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not suggesting it is 'free', merely cleaner technology as it takes less fossil fuel energy to produce gases to run a car than by running a car/lorry/bus on fossil fuel and the emissions are water.
That is completely wrong. How can it be 'cleaner' when it merely adds additional processing? It isn't adding a negative. Rubbish.

Methane costs nothing to produce other than collecting and compressing it.
Both those processes are expensive and dangerous. What rubbish.

The FCX Clarity is currently available for lease in the U.S., Japan and Europe. In the U.S., it is only available to customers who live in Southern California where "fast-fill" hydrogen stations are available.
Content from External Source
5% of hydrogen is explosive in AIR. 5% OF air is ALSO explosive in hydrogen. It will NEVER be able to be used in any confined space whatsoever. Rubbing your head with your hand can ignite it. More rubbish.

I think it is all to do with 'the will of government and the oil industry'.
And I don't think you know much about the oil industry and science.

Don't blame 'the people' :)
I blame you.
 
I think it has definitely been suppressed. Much of this technology has been around for years. Cars running on chicken manure during the war, (Methane). Landfill sites are constantly burning off methane gas, (many years after being filled), to stop explosions from happening. Diesel designed his engine to run on vegetable or hemp oil.

http://rense.com/general67/FORD.HTM

And you still can can run diesel engines on leftover oil from fast food restaurants.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/4332200

Attempts to move over to LPG are always thwarted by taxation. Yes you mention about the current move toward LPG and LNG but where is the political will. Completely the opposite and that was even when LNG storage facilities were at capacity last year and natural gas prices were at an all time low and production was being drastically cut.

But what are they doing instead... dragging sludge down from Canadian tar pits right across America.

Thwarted by taxation? Care to back that up? Alternative fuel vehicles get lots of tax credits at federal and state levels.
http://ngvamerica.org/incentives/federalTax.html
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Public Law (PL) 109–58, provides for an income tax credit equal to 30 percent of the cost of natural gas refueling equipment, up to $30,000 in the case of large stations and $1,000 for home refueling appliances. The credit went into effect after December 31, 2005 and currently is available until the end of 2013.
Content from External Source
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/laws/CA/tech/3253
[h=3]Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Electricity Tax Exemption for Transit Use[/h]CNG and electricity that local agencies or public transit operators use as motor vehicle fuel to operate public transit services is exempt from applicable user taxes a county imposes. (Reference Senate Bill 1257, 2012 and California Revenue and Taxation Code 7284.2)
[h=3]Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Home Fueling Infrastructure Incentive - South Coast[/h]South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) residents may be eligible for up to $2,000 toward the purchase and installation of a qualified Phill NGV home fueling appliance. SCAQMD and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee provide funding for the program, which will continue until funds have been exhausted. For more information, refer to the SCAQMD website.
Content from External Source
Most of the buses and garbage trucks in Los Angeles run on CNG.
http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/products_services/transit.html
Nearly one-third of Californias residents—more than 9.6 million people—live and work in Greater Los Angeles County. To transport those residents to their destinations each day, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) deploys buses on 191 routes that cover a 1,433-square mile service area throughout L.A. County.

Taking a leadership position among U.S. transit operators, Metro has switched 99% of its overall transit bus fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG),and currently deploys Americas largest CNG-powered clean air bus fleet—more than 2,500 buses.
Content from External Source
 
And you still can can run diesel engines on leftover oil from fast food restaurants.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/4332200



Thwarted by taxation? Care to back that up? Alternative fuel vehicles get lots of tax credits at federal and state levels.
http://ngvamerica.org/incentives/federalTax.html
The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Public Law (PL) 109–58, provides for an income tax credit equal to 30 percent of the cost of natural gas refueling equipment, up to $30,000 in the case of large stations and $1,000 for home refueling appliances. The credit went into effect after December 31, 2005 and currently is available until the end of 2013.
Content from External Source
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/laws/CA/tech/3253
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and Electricity Tax Exemption for Transit Use

Natural Gas Vehicle (NGV) Home Fueling Infrastructure Incentive - South Coast

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) residents may be eligible for up to $2,000 toward the purchase and installation of a qualified Phill NGV home fueling appliance. SCAQMD and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee provide funding for the program, which will continue until funds have been exhausted. For more information, refer to the SCAQMD website.
Content from External Source
Most of the buses and garbage trucks in Los Angeles run on CNG.
http://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/products_services/transit.html
Nearly one-third of Californias residents—more than 9.6 million people—live and work in Greater Los Angeles County. To transport those residents to their destinations each day, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) deploys buses on 191 routes that cover a 1,433-square mile service area throughout L.A. County.

Taking a leadership position among U.S. transit operators, Metro has switched 99% of its overall transit bus fleet to compressed natural gas (CNG),and currently deploys Americas largest CNG-powered clean air bus fleet—more than 2,500 buses.
Content from External Source

They have only just done that this January... better late than never.

http://www.thecitywire.com/node/26029#.UVR1qlc_6e8

Tax law changes resulting from federal legislation avoiding the fiscal cliff could significantly improve the cost savings of using alternative fuels in vehicles – good news for advocates of increased use of compressed natural gas (CNG).
CNG and electricity that local agencies or public transit operators use as motor vehicle fuel to operate public transit services is exempt from applicable user taxes a county imposes. (Reference Senate Bill 1257, 2012 and California Revenue and Taxation Code 7284.2)
Content from External Source
 
They have only just done that this January... better late than never.

http://www.thecitywire.com/node/26029#.UVR1qlc_6e8

Tax law changes resulting from federal legislation avoiding the fiscal cliff could significantly improve the cost savings of using alternative fuels in vehicles – good news for advocates of increased use of compressed natural gas (CNG).
CNG and electricity that local agencies or public transit operators use as motor vehicle fuel to operate public transit services is exempt from applicable user taxes a county imposes. (Reference Senate Bill 1257, 2012 and California Revenue and Taxation Code 7284.2)
Content from External Source

But the 30% EPact tax credit has been around since 2005
 
Dallas is converting all of it's buses to CNG. CNG work great for them. I know that Wal Mart is exploring it for trucks. If Wal Mart decides that it will work and be affordable, we will start to see more semis on the road using it.
 
But the 30% EPact tax credit has been around since 2005

But global warming has been an issue since before the 80's. That's over 25 years to get a tax break

Alternate technology has been around also, why have people and companies not converted? Could it be that alternate fuels are deliberately priced out?

Carbon credits = scam Ponzi scheme.

http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-02-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide61
[h=1]Venezuela[/h] Price per gallon of gasoline: $0.06

U.K around £7 gallon

Who is earning the money and what are they doing with it?

U.K tax on unleaded... currently £1.40 per ltr = tax approx 90p at a guess. Where does the money go?




http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channels...CE_CL_000205&propertyType=document#P139_13172

[h=3]3.1.1 Duty rates for fuel substitutes[/h] Fuel substitutes attract the rate of duty applicable to the type of engine in which they are used. For example, a product designed for use in a diesel engine will attract the diesel rate.
Content from External Source
http://endfuelpoverty.org.uk/

‘With 6 million households in fuel poverty, rising to over 9 million by 2016, and an increasing proportion of our incomes being spent on essential items like energy, this latest news, while not surprising, is chilling.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gas is cheap in Venezuela because it comes from a government owned company. They sell it for less than it costs to make. Many authoritarian governments do that. It is the modern form of 'bread and circuses'.

That does mean they skimp on a lot of things. I think that every governement owned oil company, except, I think Norway, are seeing reduced production. It is hated 'big oil' that spends money on developing ways of increasing oil and gas production.

In 1979, a PEMEX well blew out, north of the Yucatan. It was not as big a blow out as the BP one, BUT, if did more damage than the 2010 Macondo blow out. The oiled beaches reached from the Yucatan to just south of Corpus Christi, TX. Padre Island had so much oil on it that it looked like someone had laid a one lane blacktop road on the beach. Only 300 adult female Kemp's Ridley sea turtles survived. Most of that years hatch died. Lots of damage, lots of economic losses and how much did PEMEX pay for clean up or for economic losses. NOTHING, nada, not one red centavo. The only thing that they did to help was the use of Corexit on the spill. It also took over 10 months to bring that well under control and it was in shallow water.

That is the trade off for cheap gasoline.
 
I think it has definitely been suppressed. Much of this technology has been around for years. Cars running on chicken manure during the war, (Methane). Landfill sites are constantly burning off methane gas, (many years after being filled), to stop explosions from happening. Diesel designed his engine to run on vegetable or hemp oil.

There have been many different successful demonstrations for alternative fuels, that is certainly true. A successful demonstration, however, does not mean we have found a solution for our dependance on oil. It is one thing to have one car, a community, or even a whole city run on an alternative fuel, it is an entirely different story making that fuel source sustainable and feasible on a state, national, and global scale. For example, getting microorganisms like algae to create biofuels has had success. Making it work on an industrial scale will take years, maybe even decades, though.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-algae-feed-the-world-and-fuel-the-planet
What are the big hurdles?Everybody trying to grow stuff has all the same challenges. On the growth side, what we're doing with the [Synthetic Genomics] Exxon program, we're actually testing every technology on the growth side. Then there's the cell biology side, the manufacturing side. How do you manufacture on the scale of multiple–square-mile facilities and billions of gallons of liquid hydrocarbons that can go into ExxonMobil refineries? Half the money of the $600 million on the table is going to major engineering tests and concepts.
It's just the size, the expense—billion-dollar–plus facilities. Getting algae that are really robust and can withstand true industrial conditions on a commercial basis. You can't afford to shut down a plant for contamination. Most algae growers have to do that at a fairly frequent pace.

The problem is the same with other technologies, too. Finding an alternative fuel that replaces oil in efficiency, cleanliness, and cost and producing it for the world to consume is not an easy thing to do. The technology isn't being suppressed, it's actively being worked on.

In regards to the human impact on climate and previous changes, I'm no climatologist but I found this documentary to be helpful in understanding how these kinds of questions are answered.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1700738538

The gist of what the documentary presents is that geological records show definitively that warming happens when CO2 levels are higher in Earth's atmosphere. Only question left would be, how much CO2 do humans contribute to the atmosphere? The answer, a significant amount (a lot).

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/carbon-dioxide-people-produce-year
 
One factor that folks don't think about is the infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles. It has taken a long time to build the current infrastructure of service stations. CNG needs expensive new storage and filling places. It works for transit, since their routes are designed to return for refueling to central locations. Wal mart is considering installing the tanks and fueling area at their stores. This is another part of the cost per gallon that needs to be figured in
 
One factor that folks don't think about is the infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles. It has taken a long time to build the current infrastructure of service stations. CNG needs expensive new storage and filling places. It works for transit, since their routes are designed to return for refueling to central locations. Wal mart is considering installing the tanks and fueling area at their stores. This is another part of the cost per gallon that needs to be figured in
Distribution in the face of small profit margins is the problem. Mass distribution of anything is always a problem. These problems are solved in wartime, of course, because it may be your neck if it doesn't work.

The problem for politicians inexpert in logistics is how to put such schemes across when neither they nor their public understand them.

30 years ago I designed a CHEAP mass-producible air-to-air heat exchanger, which when fully-employed in all situations where environmental air gets heated, could recover 83% of that low-grade heat energy, enabling many billions of pounds sterling to be saved annually by Britain alone. I also constructed and ran the prototype exchanger for a year and logged the data. It actually did what it said on the tin.

There were no takers anywhere, but "spoilers" arrived on the home building market for a year or two, which were essentially vent pipes. That was all that ever happened.

In the thirty years since, I often wonder what might have happened had they been adopted, in the way that water closet toilets were. All that great wealth recycled into other activities, all that carbon NOT burnt and put into the air, all the increased health benefits of greatly increased supplies of fresh warm dry air* in homes and public places.

The actual heat energy savings are exactly as much as may be obtained by properly insulating a home. That isn't being done in Britain either, though it is in Canada, Norway, Northern Europe and other sensible places.

Rant over. These sad things aren't conspiracies. They are idleness in the face of luxury (for some), and fear and guilt for the rest.

Well I've had enough fear and guilt, thanks, and now I'm as pleasantly idle as I can be when surrounded by family and pets, who try to drive me to do things for them, of course.

* It worked the other way in summer, reclaiming "coolness" instead of warmth.
 
But global warming has been an issue since before the 80's. ... [/EX]

Not quite true. Scientists have been warning us of climate change/global warming since the 70s. It got a lot of attention originally. But when it became apparent that human activities, industrial activity if we're honest, was the main part of the problem then the attention faded. And then came the denial.

All this debate on how we run our cars? Meh. Less cars. But transportation is only a part of the problem, the emissions from industry are the big problem. Worrying about carbon tax strikes me the same as thinking that the government wants to take away everyone's guns when they consider asking people for ID when they're buying fully automatic weapons. If a carbon tax is introduced it will be aimed at industry. Personally, I think it's a weak plan for dealing with pollution because industry can afford to pay the tax and still cream the profits. It reminds me of the paltry fines given for serious environmental poisonings, where the fine is a small percentage of the profits made during the time period when the offense was occurring.
 
These videos seem extreme, were it not for the fact that ice-caps are melting at a faster rate than predicted, or can be explained.



The one follows the other, quite naturally, and one can only assume that when we achieve the first scenario, we will achieve the second, quite naturally.



It has happened before. It is written in the rocks. The moving finger writes and having writ, moves on.

There is a difference in continental fringe lengths between 250 M years ago and the present. Then it was a single continent, now there are five. The amount of methane clathrate collected so far for release into the atmosphere, will be proportionately larger next time it occurs, and the extinction level greater than 95%.

I think we all tend to avoid thinking about frightening events, and "the lord" Monckton provides comfort. It's essentially a religious role...

The best long-term solution to deal with our "reserves" of clathrates is to mine them and use METHANE as the central energy grid of all economies. Even burnt to make atmospheric CO2, they are immediately much safer than leaving them where they are. The idea is to MAINTAIN atmospheric CO2 at 350 ppm, and for that to happen, carbon compounds will still need to be combusted to balance natural fixation processes and volcanic emissions. As a consequence, there need never be an ice age in the future. That is, of course, a long-term aim, but a very worthwhile one.

Interim reversible palliative measures not requiring huge mining operations/atmospheric contamination exist already, but only on the drawing board. They will alleviate some of the effects already on stream. Halting or slowing ice-cap melting would be the general aim, for that might lessen sea level rise.

Meanwhile, the combustion of the remaining fossil fuels should be made ILLEGAL. They can, after all, be made into useful plastic feedstock, fixed in a form useful to Man, and recycled in perpetuity. The same applies to the mined clathrate methane, of course.

With a conscious will, these "threats" can be turned into an opportunity for our species. Without - we are sure to become extinct.
 
30 years ago I designed a CHEAP mass-producible air-to-air heat exchanger, which when fully-employed in all situations where environmental air gets heated, could recover 83% of that low-grade heat energy, enabling many billions of pounds sterling to be saved annually by Britain alone. I also constructed and ran the prototype exchanger for a year and logged the data. It actually did what it said on the tin.
* It worked the other way in summer, reclaiming "coolness" instead of warmth.

Was that the same time as you were working on kinetic energy melting steel over a 1000 ft drop?

Why did you only run it for a year? Did you tire of saving money and helping the planet?

Shoulda gone on Dragons Den... we could have all had a laugh :)

BTW, what do you propose should be done or what have you done, to mitigate 'global warming', apart from moving to near the equator?

I'm out!
 
Gas is cheap in Venezuela because it comes from a government owned company. They sell it for less than it costs to make. Many authoritarian governments do that. It is the modern form of 'bread and circuses'.

Silly me, I thought the modern form of 'bread and circus' was 'The War on Terror' and 'The War on Drugs', combined with 'See if We Care that you notice we are hoovering up all the wealth and assetts whilst you go hungry'... 'We give you enough to survive in a hovel... stop complaining'.
 
As Alhazred likes this my response also applies.

That is completely wrong. How can it be 'cleaner' when it merely adds additional processing? It isn't adding a negative. Rubbish.
Both those processes are expensive and dangerous. What rubbish.

Perhaps you could do Honda et al a favour and let them know, I am sure they will be grateful.


5% of hydrogen is explosive in AIR. 5% OF air is ALSO explosive in hydrogen. It will NEVER be able to be used in any confined space whatsoever. Rubbing your head with your hand can ignite it. More rubbish.
Did this happen to you?


And I don't think you know much about the oil industry and science.
Think what you will, it does not make it correct.


I blame you.
By what scientific or legal standard do you claim that I am personally responsible for climate change. Insane!
 
Silly me, I thought the modern form of 'bread and circus' was 'The War on Terror' and 'The War on Drugs', combined with 'See if We Care that you notice we are hoovering up all the wealth and assetts whilst you go hungry'... 'We give you enough to survive in a hovel... stop complaining'.

Which is the bread or circus part of that?

Bread and circus is food and entertainment for the masses. War on Terror/Drugs does not really qualify as either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
 
5% of hydrogen is explosive in AIR. 5% OF air is ALSO explosive in hydrogen. It will NEVER be able to be used in any confined space whatsoever. Rubbing your head with your hand can ignite it. More rubbish.

What point are you trying to make here? The discussion was about Hydrogen as a fuel for cars. Clearly it IS being used (in a very limited and subsidized capacity), and there's lots of talk about using it more.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/w...tation-powered-by-sewage-opens-in-california/
 
Last edited:
Which is the bread or circus part of that?

Bread and circus is food and entertainment for the masses. War on Terror/Drugs does not really qualify as either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

I would have thought it self evident... even the title 'Shock and Awe' all the entertainment of war/gladiators, transposed into film and music and propagandist jingoism, (no need for arenas with technology all can see), keeping people distracted and frightened by hating other people who are just 'normal' like them whilst at the same time carpet bagging anything and everything.

As for 'War on Drugs', lol, in reality the staple construct of the U.S economy.
 
What point are you trying to make here? The discussion was about Hydrogen as a fuel for cars. Clearly it IS being used (in a very limited and subsidized capacity), and there's lots of talk about using it more.

I should think there is talk about using more. Everything is expensive when it is first marketed. Mobile phones at £2000 each, Video tape at $50 each, Cars were unaffordable by most when they first arrived... it is natural.
 
What point are you trying to make here? The discussion was about Hydrogen as a fuel for cars. Clearly it IS being used (in a very limited and subsidized capacity), and there's lots of talk about using it more.
Hydrogen can be used for cars all right, but only if it never leaks. It can be stored fairly safely in steel compression bottles containing alkali metal hydrides, but there's always a risk of seal failure to contend with when filling.

The trouble lies more with bulk storage in all its forms and the effects of building enclosure. It is extremely diffusive when it escapes, forms extreme explosive mixtures, can be ignited by any static discharge, and has a very high flame speed. You cannot see the flame in daylight. It is very dangerous inside walled enclosures, which tend to fall over with explosion overpressure. It still kills people every year.

I would not use underground car parks full of such vehicles under any circumstances. The same vehicles parked in the open would be relatively safe.

Hydrogen burns to water, which certainly is most environment-friendly, but it would have to be made using either fossil fuel or nuclear energy. Only if it were to be made from nuclear, and used, say. for local power (and fresh water) stations, trains and buses, where more rigorous disciplines could be applied, can I see practical bulk use made of it. A hydrogen grid is more efficient than an electrical grid, and efficiency, heat insulation and heat recovery will be the only elegant way forward.

The safest fuel to use for car transport is kerosine, and the best feedstock for it would be marine clathrate methane. Using gases isn't intrinsically as safe as using liquids, and it's pretty hard to set kerosine on fire.

But I reiterate, a ban must be placed on the combustion of fossil solid and liquid fuels. It will have to happen.
 
Hydrogen can be used for cars all right, but only if it never leaks. It can be stored fairly safely in steel compression bottles containing alkali metal hydrides.

The trouble lies more with bulk storage in all its forms and the effects of building enclosure. It is extremely diffusive when it escapes, forms extreme explosive mixtures, can be ignited by any static discharge, and has a very high flame speed. You cannot see the flame in daylight. It is very dangerous inside walled enclosures, which tend to fall over with explosion overpressure. It still kills people every year.

I would not use underground car parks full of such vehicles under any circumstances. The same vehicles parked in the open would be relatively safe.

There are pretty rigorous regulations for the storage and use of hydrogen.

Underground car parks are ventilated anyway to remove the carbon monoxide.
 
There are pretty rigorous regulations for the storage and use of hydrogen.
Because there have to be. I can't see them being followed too closely out in the sticks.

Underground car parks are ventilated anyway to remove the carbon monoxide.
They are indeed. Any static irregularity in the ventilation system can act as the primary ignition point, then. There are such things as secondary explosions, which are brought about by the actions of the primary. Vehicles have a static charge on them brought about by their motion. There are too many sources of ignition, which hydrogen can find. It isn't a good idea for public use. But it's an excellent economy within stringent conditions.
 
Both those processes are expensive and dangerous. What rubbish.

One of those being methane extraction and use, yes?

[h=3]Kevin's McCloud of bio gas | Living Off the Grid: Free Yourself[/h]www.off-grid.net/2012/10/.../kevins-mccloud-of-bio-ga... - United States
3 posts - 1 author - 8 Oct 2012
The Kevin McCloud series Man Made Home would more accurately be ... His latest piece of kit, a methane gas burner that takes his poo from ...
Content from External Source
Kevin is presenter of Grand Designs, as you might know. (For others: a UK tv show about er, grand designs - of usually unusual homes built by members of the public).

As a project, he built his own house from all natural stuff, including a toilet that fed the shit into a tank where anaerobic stuff was strategically placed - he uses the gas, methane, to fuel the cooking of food. Easy and safe. It's called 'biology'. And costs nothing apart from initial cost; future cost disappeared.

If you're not convinced, then check out Michael Reynold's Biotecture - his sewage treatment allows for a jungle in the house - no smells - it's that 'biology' again -- Reynolds lost his licence to call himself an architect because the regulating authorities wouldn't allow the recycling of sewage for plant food, but preffered it be dumped in the ground from the septic tank, poisoning it with rawish sewage in the process. As Michael says, 'Rules and codes stop us evolving' - - How correct. Check out his projects, plenty stuff online to see the houses, they even have tilapia growing in the jungle area....

Anyway, I reckon you could save - if not the world, then at least Tenerife - if you put your considerable skills to building a big shit receptacle in your back volcano - think about all the free cooking just one of your theories could enable! :p
 
[h=1][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled [/FONT]Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal. GOOD THING THEY ARE SHUTTING DOWN COAL PLANTS ???? Unintended consequences ? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980[/h]
 
One of those being methane extraction and use, yes?
It's a good idea to use methane. It's just not a good idea to suggest it's without problems. I am really in favor of doing better things with shit than sending it out to sea.

if you put your considerable skills to building a big shit receptacle in your back volcano - think about all the free cooking just one of your theories could enable! :p
It's nice to have you back. You just have to dig down for heat where volcanoes are. Actually just a flat black rock will do right now in the sunshine.

See? I managed those replies without falling to a single temptation. :)
 
Alternate technology has been around also, why have people and companies not converted? Could it be that alternate fuels are deliberately priced out?

Carbon credits = scam Ponzi scheme.


Alternative = change.
Change = fear /rumors/conspiracy theory

Long Islanders are still paying the highest electrical rates in the country because the protestors won and Shoreham Nuclear plant never opened. The last alternative energy project that was quashed by the public was an LPG platform between Connecticut and LI. It would be a terrorist target or it could EXPLODE!! And windmills ruin my view and make NOISE and the BIRDS fly into them.

Forget it, we'll have other sources of energy when the last drop of oil is refined.
 
Carbon credits = scam Ponzi scheme.
Even as proposed, it was never that. Don't be so glib.

The value of combustible carbon must be adjusted to meet its hidden costs. Otherwise we are committing a moral crime on our descendants; the theft of their future.

Hansen's version is the one I prefer. It is ideally suited to the societies that can operate it best. Yours. And mine.

[video=youtube_share;kCxDOs5Taew]http://youtu.be/kCxDOs5Taew[/video]

[video=youtube_share;wa3ZDEZj3P8]http://youtu.be/wa3ZDEZj3P8[/video]
 
To me, adding in a carbon cost is like me adding in the full cost to make an item. Including the time shopping, storing and other 'hidden' costs
 
Aren't they still commissioning one new coal-fired power station each week in China?
[h=1]It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about[/h][h=2][FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/e...-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html Nice ! they are so worried about those who live on sandbars while the rest suffer and freeze . Unintended consequences ![/FONT][/h]
 
Alternative = change.
Change = fear /rumors/conspiracy theory

Long Islanders are still paying the highest electrical rates in the country because the protestors won and Shoreham Nuclear plant never opened. The last alternative energy project that was quashed by the public was an LPG platform between Connecticut and LI. It would be a terrorist target or it could EXPLODE!! And windmills ruin my view and make NOISE and the BIRDS fly into them.

Forget it, we'll have other sources of energy when the last drop of oil is refined.
Shoreham Nuclear plant ? Thank the environmental left wing wackos like the Sierra Club . Long Island has always had high electric rates . I heard form a guy who was doing construction on the plant that there were a lot of second hand parts being used at Shoreham ?
 
It’s the cold, not global warming, that we should be worried about. No one seems upset that in modern Britain, old people are freezing to death as hidden taxes make fuel more expensive. Nice! they are so worried about those who live on sandbars while the rest suffer and freeze. Unintended consequences!
It's a British tradition, at least a 1000 years in the making, to let their little old ladies (their men long gone!) be found in a mummified state. Don't knock it. It's a cultural grindstone bigger than you. :)

Joe said:
Carbon Tax = Ponzi scheme.
This may seem like deja vu. It does to me. Ah, well.

[video=youtube_share;kCxDOs5Taew]http://youtu.be/kCxDOs5Taew[/video]

It's only five minutes. Watch it and explain to me how this scheme actually allows a Ponzi stratagem?
 
It's a British tradition, at least a 1000 years in the making, to let their little old ladies (their men long gone!) be found in a mummified state. Don't knock it. It's a cultural grindstone bigger than you. :)


This may seem like deja vu. It does to me. Ah, well.

[video=youtube_share;kCxDOs5Taew]http://youtu.be/kCxDOs5Taew[/video]

It's only five minutes. Watch it and explain to me how this scheme actually allows a Ponzi stratagem?
He is a fraud . Another public sector worker making millions . The rich get richer and the poor and the middle class pay . They dont want us all to have the same luxuries as them . Hypocrites all of them . the only way they will pass a carbon tax here is if they force it on us like the Healthcare scam they crammed down our throats , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/...now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
 
He is a fraud . Another public sector worker making millions . The rich get richer and the poor and the middle class pay . They dont want us all to have the same luxuries as them . Hypocrites all of them . the only way they will pass a carbon tax here is if they force it on us like the Healthcare scam they crammed down our throats , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/...now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
[h=2]James Hansen Says Coal Is Greening The Planet!?! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/29/james-hansen-says-coal-is-greening-the-planet/#more-83103[/h]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top