I did back it up. There are many more examples like that. The global warming nut jobs aren't talking about doing ANY of them.
Copenhagen conference fails.
by BurnTheShips 41 Replies latest members politics
-
-
besty
just for the record HappyGuy I'm totally supportive of the kind of measures you describe.
The problem is how best to get them implemented.
The measures listed on the Obama website seem a more intelligent approach than drill baby drill.
Progress
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in clean energy investments that will jump-start our economy and build the clean energy jobs of tomorrow:
- $11 billion for a bigger, better, and smarter grid that will move renewable energy from the rural places it is produced to the cities where it is mostly used, as well as for 40 million smart meters to be deployed in American homes.
- $5 billion for low-income home weatherization projects.
- $4.5 billion to green federal buildings and cut our energy bill, saving taxpayers billions of dollars.
- $6.3 billion for state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts.
- $600 million in green job training programs – $100 million to expand line worker training programs and $500 million for green workforce training.
- $2 billion in competitive grants to develop the next generation of batteries to store energy.
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included more than $80 billion in clean energy investments that will jump-start our economy and build the clean energy jobs of tomorrow:
-
besty
who are the global warming nutjobs you refer to?
-
BurnTheShips
who are the global warming nutjobs you refer to?
-
besty
stop masturbating BTS
-
BurnTheShips
I know this sounds premature, but the failure of UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen has in all likelihood made anthropogenic global warming a dead issue.
Another nail in its coffin appeared on the site of insciences organization yesterday:
Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
Oops…. what does this mean? More global warming from CFCs and cosmic rays? Actually, no:
“Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000,” Lu said. “Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate.”
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.
Global cooling for the next fifty years? It certainly corresponds with my frozen experience in Copenhagen, not to mention the subsequent snow storms blanketing Europe with people trapped in the Eurostar for fifteen hours, something that never happened before.
Nevertheless, who knows if Dr. Lu is correct, although, unlike the sorry crew at East Anglia and NASA, he shows his work. No Freedom of Information Act request necessary. Also, as far as I know, he’s not destroying his data like the CRU.
With every passing day the AGW crowd is looking increasingly foolish and venal. More revelations are undoubtedly yet to come and some will be related to activities that verge on the criminal or even cross that line. The UN will have to find a new bogeyman to replace CO2 in order to pursue its own goals of bureaucratic power and wealth transfer. Maybe cosmic rays could be the new CO2. They have a certain Buck Rogers ring to them. James Cameron, are you listening?
Meanwhile, certain people have been revealed as buffoons or worse: Al Gore (of course… but we knew that), the UN’s Rajendra Pachauri , Gordon Brown and, yes, Barack Obama. If the report from Die Welt quoted on Belmont Club is even close to the truth, our President is a very strange man indeed.
-
besty
The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.
Observing the future is a remarkable skill.
-
hamilcarr
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002
Strange. Last decade was found to be warmer than the nineties, which were warmer than the eighties.
-
beksbks
If the report from Die Welt quoted on Belmont Club is even close to the truth, our President is a very strange man indeed.
Abstract Two field experiments investigated the impact of postevent information upon eyewitness descriptions of people. In particular, we examined the effects of information introduced after an event upon witnesses' estimates of weight and age. Informing subjects that a man they had seen had either thrown a heavy object or was a truck driver led to significantly heavier weight estimates than telling them he ran away or was a dancer, respectively. Also, referring to the confederate as either "a man" or "a young man" led to significant differences in subjects' age estimates. Additional analyses indicated that neither viewing distance nor subject sex was predictive of either general accuracy or susceptibility to bias.
-
BurnTheShips
Besty has criticized most sources and insisted on peer reviewed sources.
500 peer reviewed papers that are skeptical of AGW:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
BTS