And the Earth warmers sobbed

Stu wrote:

What are you saying Rich...Your glad this happened? Do you also not
believe that most global warming is due to man?

Of course its not - dont be foolish.
Eric

wrote:

I might even be willing to stipulate to the nonsense being promoted by
the agenda-driven governments and scientists that global warming is
real and a threat.
_____

That is a good start. Research shows that the earth is indeed becoming
warmer.


It also seems to indicate that what man is doing has been
responsible.

No it doesnt, that is the politicos speaking and noise made by
so called environmental groups with anti-American and anti-industrial nation
agendas. The media jumps on it and re-spews the garbage science because
disasters grab audiences. If you hear the lie often enough you will believe
it is true and this is exactly what has happened with global warming. Go
look at the real hard data, not the twisted data put forth by environmental
groups, go dig for unbiased data. How much CO2 goes into the atmosphere
from natural sources like volcanoes and wildfires? How much warming is due
to the sun?
Recently global warming was discovered on Mars - where's all the cars and
factories on Mars? Remember! The whole goal of these environmental wackos
is to get you to live like a frickin refugee - They want to change the
first world nations standards of living to as far below the 3rd world
nations standards as they can get it. They couldn't care less about the
environment - Kyoto proved that. And dont even get me started on DDT (the
ban of which resulted in millions of deaths around the world) or CFC's
Eric



As to the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol in dealing with this...

Rather than avoiding any effort to improve the situation, to edit out
unfavorable aspects of scientific reports, to follow the wishes of big
business, we as a nation that uses a large and disproportionate amount
of the world's resources, ought to be embracing and acting in every
possible way.

Pointing to others and saying "Well, he doesn't have to do it so I
won't do it" is a fruitless and foolish approach. Rather than being
happy to go along with our old ways, we ought to be leading the world
in dealing with this problem. We led the world into this, we ought to
take the forefront and do our best while there is still time.

Sticking our heads in the sand, pointing fingers, and going along with
business as usual is a short term solution.

Personally I am far more skeptical of politicians who get large
campaign contributions from oil companies and others who might have
profits reduced by things like the Kyoto Protocol than of scientists
who spend their life trying to understand the workings of the world.


Jon Isaacs

IMO, this is nonsense. The Asian nations have assumed nearly 70% of
all the production of basic goods that were formerly done by Western
nations. There is no way they will only contribute 1/4 of the CO
pollution. More propaganda that proves the anti-Earth Warming
inititive is just a diversion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0776146.html
----------------------

It should be no surprise that we in the west are the largest polluters
and consumers of energy. All those coal fired stoves really can't
compete with an SUV when it comes to producing carbon dioxide. Other
forms of pollution can be controlled but CO2 is the final biproduct of
the combusion of anything containing carbon, no way around that.
Burning a pound of gasoline produces about 2.6 pounds of CO2.

So, the diversion here is simply the refusal of some politicians in the
US to accept the fact that we are a major source of the CO2 pollution
in the world.

Jon Isaacs

Zane wrote:

On 17 Oct 2005 08:50:52 -0700, "
wrote:

(snip)

So, the diversion here is simply the refusal of some politicians in the
US to accept the fact that we are a major source of the CO2 pollution
in the world.

I keep hearing that, but don't know which ones are not accepting it.
I have heard Bush make statements to that effect, so I know you're not
talking about him.

They admit to the CO2 output. But refuse point blank to do anything at
all about it. Not even the most basic no regrets energy efficiency
measures (such as occurred during the 1970's oil crisis).

Who are these rascals, so we can give them the scorn they deserve?

Come on Zane. The present US government is dedicated to profligate waste
of energy. Only now that the crude price has topped $60 a barrel are
they paying lip-service to basic energy efficiency measures.

The new "Energy Hog" campaign is laughable even when viewed from Europe.
(designed to fail perhaps?)

The automotive and fossil fuel industries have the US government in
their very deep pockets. The best politicians that money can buy.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Does anyone on this group remember the 70's. In those days we were heading
for an ice age, the earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze in the
dark in the 21st century. Look it up on Time Mag archives or other papers.
Now we are going into a warming period.

In some of the research papers I have read on this subject a lot of
information is left out or misrepresented. Keeling's original work has been
called into question as the original program he used favoured finding a
warming trend and ignored any contradictory evidence. At least that is what
I read in some reports.

Disaster promotion is big business, politicians will use it to get
re-elected promising to prevent the disaster, and the media lives on bad
news so of course scientists will favour that type of report over a good
news, be happy report. How would they get their 15 min of fame.

We just had a report come out this month indicating that the increase in the
severity of huricanes was due to global warming. But it you look at the
trends for the past 200 years, the severity is cyclical and in the past
there were more powerful huricanes then we see now but there were fewer
people affected so it was not as widely known. Not to mention the fact that
the scale used was different.




"Shawn" sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote in message
...
Erik wrote:
Rich,

I am sure you are not taking this one example in isolation to disprove
the scientific theory of global warming (yes, I know, it is "just a
theory," just like evolution, the big bang and gravity). I am also
certain that you actually have conclusive evidence that there is not
global warming? That the polar caps are not melting? My understanding
from what I have read (and I would be interested in reading anything
you posit -- preferably a peer-reviewed journal or a website directly
connected to such research) is that the question is not global warming
itself, but what the cause of it is (either man-made or part of a long
term cycle). Scientific research is not simply to create jobs. That
is what government handouts to corporations are for ;-)

Yeah, jobs for lobbysts. ;-)

Shawn

On 17 Oct 2005 08:50:52 -0700, "
wrote:

IMO, this is nonsense. The Asian nations have assumed nearly 70% of
all the production of basic goods that were formerly done by Western
nations. There is no way they will only contribute 1/4 of the CO
pollution. More propaganda that proves the anti-Earth Warming
inititive is just a diversion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0776146.html
----------------------

It should be no surprise that we in the west are the largest polluters
and consumers of energy. All those coal fired stoves really can't
compete with an SUV when it comes to producing carbon dioxide. Other
forms of pollution can be controlled but CO2 is the final biproduct of
the combusion of anything containing carbon, no way around that.
Burning a pound of gasoline produces about 2.6 pounds of CO2.

What is that, transmutation of energy into matter? How do I get 2.6
pound of matter from one pound????


So, the diversion here is simply the refusal of some politicians in the
US to accept the fact that we are a major source of the CO2 pollution
in the world.

Jon Isaacs

Rubbish. Look at this page:

It clearly shows that China and Russia (1.6 billion people) produce as
much or more emissions than North America (600m people) even if both
were at opposite ends of their respective scales. And that does not
even include India, another Kyoto signee that doesn't have to control
pollution.

-Rich

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:24:49 -0400, "Andre"
wrote:

Does anyone on this group remember the 70's. In those days we were heading
for an ice age, the earth was cooling and we were all going to freeze in the
dark in the 21st century. Look it up on Time Mag archives or other papers.
Now we are going into a warming period.

The jerks in the "Club Of Rome" (a leftist think tank) also said we'd
be out of oil by the mid 1980s. Nostradamas had nothing on them.


In some of the research papers I have read on this subject a lot of
information is left out or misrepresented. Keeling's original work has been
called into question as the original program he used favoured finding a
warming trend and ignored any contradictory evidence. At least that is what
I read in some reports.

Disaster promotion is big business, politicians will use it to get
re-elected promising to prevent the disaster, and the media lives on bad
news so of course scientists will favour that type of report over a good
news, be happy report. How would they get their 15 min of fame.

We just had a report come out this month indicating that the increase in the
severity of huricanes was due to global warming. But it you look at the
trends for the past 200 years, the severity is cyclical and in the past
there were more powerful huricanes then we see now but there were fewer
people affected so it was not as widely known. Not to mention the fact that
the scale used was different.




"Shawn" sdotcurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote in message
...
Erik wrote:
Rich,

I am sure you are not taking this one example in isolation to disprove
the scientific theory of global warming (yes, I know, it is "just a
theory," just like evolution, the big bang and gravity). I am also
certain that you actually have conclusive evidence that there is not
global warming? That the polar caps are not melting? My understanding
from what I have read (and I would be interested in reading anything
you posit -- preferably a peer-reviewed journal or a website directly
connected to such research) is that the question is not global warming
itself, but what the cause of it is (either man-made or part of a long
term cycle). Scientific research is not simply to create jobs. That
is what government handouts to corporations are for ;-)

Yeah, jobs for lobbysts. ;-)

Shawn

"Zane" wrote in message
...
Tony Blair is apparently beginning to realize the facts of this (not
the SUV aspect) himself as related to costs to the voter. He has
already started the (IMO) inevitable backing-down from the Kyoto
Protocol and is starting to sound more like Bush. That is, that the
necessary near-term actions for Kyoto have too adverse an impact on
recovering economies and that any really meaningful actions must come
from new or evolving technology.

Which they steadfastly refuse to fund.

One example - Millenium Dome - c£600M
Research into Hydrogen based energy p/a - c£50m

It's a shame that "big oil" is so powerful and the obvious fuel sources are
ignored (hydrogen is something like 95%+ of the mass of the solar sysem). At
least until shareholders in oil based economy have had their last hurrah.

i.e. Politicos pay lip service to the real issues whilst getting paid by
their masters who have different agendas.

Other
forms of pollution can be controlled but CO2 is the final biproduct of
the combusion of anything containing carbon, no way around that.
Burning a pound of gasoline produces about 2.6 pounds of CO2.

What is that, transmutation of energy into matter? How do I get 2.6
pound of matter from one pound????
-----

Hi Rich:

This is Simple Chemistry. No miracles here. I would hope anyone who
was claiming to understand global warming and CO2 would at least
understand the basics of combustion.

We are combining carbon and hydrogen in the gasoline and oxygen from
the air to produce carbon dioxide. You know Carnot Cycle and all that
stuff...

Start with one pound of fuel, say Octane. (~100 octane gas)

Each Octane molecule has 8 carbon atoms, 20 hydrogen atoms. The
atomic weight of each carbon atom is 12, the atomic weight of each
hydrogen atom is 1. Thus the molecular weight of the octane molecule
is 8x12+ 20x1= 116,

Now each carbon atom combines to make 1 molecule of C02 which has a
molecular weight of 44.

So, in terms of octane/gasoline we start with 116 mass units and when
it is burned in the engine it produces 8x44 mass units of CO2.

This is actually a factor of 3. (=352/116) So what this means is that
you start with 1 lb of Octane and you end up with 3 pounds of Carbon
Dioxide.

You also get 10 molecules of water per octane molecule, which means 180
mass units per 116 mass units or about 1.5 lbs of water per pound of
octane.

So, bottom line. Simple chemistry, no miracles. The CO2 and water
vapor are not normally considered pollutants because they are the
products of ideal burning and are not normally hazardous in smaller
quantities.

Also, for some reason your link did not seem to make it.

Jon Isaacs

adm wrote:

"Zane" wrote in message
...

Tony Blair is apparently beginning to realize the facts of this (not
the SUV aspect) himself as related to costs to the voter. He has
already started the (IMO) inevitable backing-down from the Kyoto
Protocol and is starting to sound more like Bush.

Hopefully not. The UK can easily meet its Kyoto target by using gas,
nuclear and wind power instead of coal. It was on target for beating
that target by a reasonable margin until fairly recently.

Blair is trying not to become too distant from Bush. That is not the
same thing at all. High oil prices seem to be having the right sort of
effect on the street with SUV sales reported down 35% like for like...

That is, that the
necessary near-term actions for Kyoto have too adverse an impact on
recovering economies and that any really meaningful actions must come
from new or evolving technology.

Which they steadfastly refuse to fund.

One example - Millenium Dome - c£600M
Research into Hydrogen based energy p/a - c£50m

I was at the recent hydrogen fuel event in London a couple of weeks
back. London's mayor (hated by all UK governments) has 3 hydrogen
powered busses operating. I believe they have cost more than £1M each
(and way more than 50M to develop). Mercedes had their H powered A-class
there and one exhibitor even had a motorbike!

The amusing/ironic thing was that this exhibition of bleeding edge
hydrogen fuel cell technology (something the US is a world leader in -
NASA spin off) held in Trafalgar Square was powered by a noisy smelly
deisel electric generator. This was absurd when a mobile commercial fuel
cell system *theoretically* capable of powering the entire show was
being demonstrated dumping its power into a dummy load!

It's a shame that "big oil" is so powerful and the obvious fuel sources are
ignored (hydrogen is something like 95%+ of the mass of the solar sysem). At
least until shareholders in oil based economy have had their last hurrah.

Hydrogen gas is an absolute pig to work with. Diffuses through steel,
burns and/or explodes at a wide range of compositions in air. Needs
special firefighting techniques - hot flame nearly invisible in
daylight. The prospect of bulk LH2 cryotanks at commercial urban garages
is truly scary. The vehicle tanks seem to be a solved problem now.

The fire safety images were interesting. Better not roll a hydrogen
powered vehicle in a crash unless you want to be incinerated.

http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=482

Looks quite benign with the hot gases going upwards...

i.e. Politicos pay lip service to the real issues whilst getting paid by
their masters who have different agendas.

Masters? Many senior US policitians *are* oil men. And will doubtless
return to their family business when they leave office.

Regards,
Martin Brown