Let It Snow..

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:53 am

-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Karlsweldt » Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:39 pm

While there are some hazardous materials used in production of solar panels, the panels are more than 99.98% pure silicon when done. Any impurities are filtered from the process and recycled into new material production. Small amounts of silver and copper are used for connections to the cells. Some sources of solar panel manufacturing do not adhere to rigorous safety rules.. and do cause unwanted pollution.
http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/ ... rimer.html
While the production process may create some unwanted 'greenhouse' gases, the panels themselves are non-polluting while in use. At the end of their service life, they are recycled into new panels. In about 4 years (average), the panels have amortized the equivalent cost of undesired elements. They are then good for use for another 20 plus years.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 459AAvOpKs
Electricity production from fossil fuels or nuclear create mass amounts of 'greenhouse' gases. While in their life span of use, solar panels produce near zero.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemi ... icity.html
More pros and cons..
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/ ... ide-o.html
F@H.. to solve mankind's maladies.. in our lifetimes!
Karlsweldt
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 20671
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:57 am
Location: 07438

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:12 am

Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day

The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.

But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?

Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.

When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.

No, it’s worse than that. You get less than nothing. You get stuff forced on you that you really don’t want: bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes looming on your horizon, keeping you awake, trashing your property values; fields of solar panels where they used to grow wheat or you used to walk your dog; prissy missives from your local council expecting you to be grateful for the fact that now you’ve got to separate your trash into seven different recycling bags rather than the previous five, and that they’re only going to collect your rubbish once a fortnight instead of once a week; teachers filling your kids’ heads with junk science propaganda; free parking slots for electric cars you don’t own but which you subsidise for richer friends who do; feel-bad nature documentaries about how it’s all your fault that this stuff “may” soon disappear; energy-saving lightbulbs that take your nocturnal home back to the kind of sepulchral gloom Western civilisation thought it had bade farewell to in the 1890s; the Prius, the car which recalls the style and comfort of the cars the fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to have ended; yawning gaps where used to grow the woods which have been chopped down and chipped to create biomass for burning in power stations which used to run more cheaply and efficiently on coal…

Then there are the people who benefit financially from this $1.5 trillion climate change industry: the carbon traders; the dodgy academics; the vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; the environmental NGOs; the environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; the sustainability officers at every level of local government; the green advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; the PR companies that specialise in green awareness; Dale Vince….

These people do not deserve your money. Not a penny, a cent, or a sou of it.

Look, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living — just so long as they’re providing someone, somewhere with something they actually need. Not a single person working in the climate change industry fulfils this criterion. Not one. If you scrapped Michael Mann’s job tomorrow the world would not suffer the slightest loss and science would be all the better for it.

Sure, you might argue, there’s some kind of trickledown effect as the money we’re force to pay these shysters and bludgers and charlatans and scroungers via various taxes and tariffs feeds back into the economy. But you could make the same argument were these people paid the same amount of money by the government to dig holes in the ground and fill them up again — which would be a vastly preferable use of tax payer money because then these utterly useless parasites would be reminded every day how pointless the “work” they do actually is, whereas as things are, many of them suffer under the delusion that their green non-jobs are somehow virtuous and important.

In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.

Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:

..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.


That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.


www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:19 am

Renewables should compete without subsidies, we should worry about the Smart Grid’s vulnerability from hackers, solar flares, EMPs. We should conserve energy wisely, protect nature sensibly. Let the carbon credits scheme die
The Climate Change Industry drastically depletes the Energy Market
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- August 12, 2015

Countries and companies around the globe have spent trillions of dollars to stop the Earth from warming and the Earth did not get the message, it responded by cooling. Not to worry, environmentalists who were blatantly wrong and tried to say that cooling is part of global warming, changed their golden goose agenda to climate change. Even though climate change is real, it is called seasons, critics of the climate change industry, of climatism, have been marginalized under the rubric of global warming heretic deniers.

The United Nations came up with a clever scheme to convince the world that the “Four Horsemen of Environmental Apocalypse, overpopulation, resource depletion, pollution, and climate devastation” will annihilate humanity as we know it. The Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations, explained how they succeeded:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”


According to Dr. Steve Goreham, with the establishment of U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, “climatism was born and controlling carbon has become a bureaucrat’s dream.”

World leaders, politicians, corporations, universities, and NGOs have been captivated by the climate change industry even though the theory of global warming has failed miserably and all the climate models were proven wrong. They declared war on fossil fuels and waged it with a vengeance at the expense of taxpayers and electricity users.

Suddenly using too much energy derived from coal, oil, and natural gas became a sin even though energy is the driver of global prosperity. Environmentalists have decided to deny the same opportunity for prosperity from cheap fossil fuel energy to millions of citizens of third world nations, forcing them instead into expensive solar and wind energy they cannot afford. Hydrocarbons became the black sheep, and billions and billions in subsidies were spent to make room for renewables.

“It’s in our interest - and we wouldn’t be able to stop it anyway - for the poorer countries, which only are responsible for about 20 percent of the globe’s pollution, to develop, but they should develop according to a different path, a different industrial prescription than we did.” (Michael Oppenheimer on This Week with David Brinkley, 31 May 1992) (Link Source)

Environmental NGOs lectured impressionable students that nobody should be drilling at all because fossil fuels destroy the planet, we should pay $10 per gallon like Europe, use renewables and learn to live modestly on solar and wind, if we can afford them. If we must return to medieval living to save one of God’s creatures, then we should. It is getting serious when even the oil producers have bought into climatism.

But environmentalists are not all equal. They want electricity to their smart devices that use more power than a refrigerator. They want tents, shoes, sunglasses, caps, and clothes made from hydrocarbons but they are protesting fossil fuels. They want their Priuses and electric cars but have no idea that the electricity to power them comes from hydrocarbons. Some enviro-denizens are Nimby (Not in My Back Yard) when it comes to unsightly wind turbines. Others are Banana (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). And yet others are Nope (Not On Planet Earth). There is too much oil, “enough to deep fry the planet.”

Dr. Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, and author of Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, described the collateral damage from the war on hydrocarbons using Europe as an example of an “energy disaster unfolding.” He said, “there are 487 national climate change laws in 66 nations” and they are hurting the economies of those respective countries.

Europe is a basket case of subsidized and mandated renewables that has resulted in higher electricity rates for customers, causing electricity penury among some of the citizens of Germany. Giving renewables output priority, energy from other sources like nuclear, hydropower, and fossil fuels was scaled back. Germany shut down nuclear power plants and Germany and France banned hydraulic fracturing. The market for electricity and wholesale prices became dependent on the mercy of weather and wind, regardless of demand.

There was a massive installation of solar panels in Germany even though Germany is not exactly a sunshine state. Spain decided to use Diesel generation for its solar panels because the solar panel electricity was too expensive, 23 cents per kWh. The ugly wind turbines everywhere produced inefficient and undependable electricity.

Dr. Goreham also mentioned that some countries imported wood from Alabama to burn as electricity generator instead of dirty coal. The Green Revolution has been so expensive for Europeans that subsidies were dropping in every area, followed by layoffs in the renewable industry. The wind industry in the U.S. gets 2.3 cents per kWh in tax credit in order to compete.

Even though IPCC said that “burning biomass is carbon neutral,” the reality is that biofuels release as much or more carbon dioxide than coal does. And the trading of carbon on the carbon markets is failing. People can pay all the carbon footprint taxes in the world and it will not make a bit of difference in the actual CO2 in the atmosphere. It will just make the traders and the companies richer.

Dr. Fred Singer, physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, reminded us that the climate change industry does not take into account the CO2 emissions from operation and maintenance of renewables such as how often these devices must be replaced (solar panels, wind turbines, parts, lubricants), and the transmission costs. Wind and solar power does emit CO2 in the construction process, during the mining of the metals used, lubricants, etc.

Even the President blamed the low GDP on cold weather. Perhaps it is time for global warmists turned climatists to be exposed again.

Honest scientists say that we have enough fossil fuels reserves for centuries of use. In the world’s economy renewables should compete without subsidies, we should worry about the Smart Grid’s vulnerability from hackers, solar flares, and EMPs, we should conserve energy wisely, protect nature sensibly, and let the carbon credits scheme go into the trash bin of expensive hustles.
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Karlsweldt » Thu Aug 13, 2015 3:54 pm

And weather forecasters are concerned about a " Godzilla El Niño" that may soon materialize, stronger than the one in 1997.. and cause excess rainfall to the South-Western U.S. areas, especially California!
F@H.. to solve mankind's maladies.. in our lifetimes!
Karlsweldt
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 20671
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:57 am
Location: 07438

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby bdub » Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:38 pm

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/h ... -resources

"In what’s come to be known as “Earth overshoot day,” we’ve reached the point at which everything else we do this year will be unsustainable six days earlier than we did last year. As it stands, we are on target to consume the equivalent of 1.6 planets over the course of the year. For most of human history we’ve managed to live within the planet’s limits, but since around 1970 we moved into the red. Back then, humanity reached overshoot day in the last few days of December, but ever since we’ve been hitting it earlier and earlier."
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby Karlsweldt » Sat Aug 15, 2015 3:30 pm

And now the OFA (Old Farmer's Almanac) is predicting a colder and snowier Winter season for a large part of the U.S.
Brace yourselves: Old Farmer's Almanac predicts super cold, slew of snow for much of nation.
"Just about everybody who gets snow will have a White Christmas in one capacity or another," editor Janice Stillman said..

http://www.startribune.com/super-cold-s ... 321956301/
F@H.. to solve mankind's maladies.. in our lifetimes!
Karlsweldt
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 20671
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:57 am
Location: 07438

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:30 am

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
October 3, 2015 11:00am
MIRANDA DEVINE PerthNow

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity
. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby bdub » Thu Oct 08, 2015 11:25 am

here's all you need to know about your "dr. evans"...

https://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.co ... vid-evans/
my main rig...
asrock 970 extreme3
AMD athlonII X3 440
zalman cpns5x performa hs/fan
crucial ballistix 2x4gb sport ddr3-1333
powercolor ax7750 1GBK3-H vga
antec neo he 650r
Samsung 840 EVo SSD 120 GB
toshiba 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
seagate 1TB HDD 64M cache sata3
hitachi 2TB HDD 64M cache sata3
lg wh14ns40 bd burner
optiarc ad-7240s sata dvdrw (nec chipset)
bdub
Black Belt 3rd Degree
Black Belt 3rd Degree
 
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 2:12 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: Let It Snow..

Postby BrevCampagnolo » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:37 am

Climate Doomsayers Ignore Benefits Of Carbon Dioxide Emissions – Now compiled in a new report
Anthony Watts / 1 day ago October 12, 2015

London 12 October: In an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, former IPCC delegate Dr Indur Goklany calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide, which he says has many benefits for the natural world and for humankind.

Dr Goklany said: “Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15%. This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature”.

Pointing to estimates that the current value of the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect on global crop production is about $140 billion a year, he notes that this additional production has helped reduce hunger and advance human well-being.

But the benefits go much further than this. It is not only crops that benefit from this “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect”: almost without exception, the wild places of the Earth have become greener in recent decades, .largely as a direct result of carbon dioxide increases. In fact, it has been shown that carbon dioxide can increase plants’ water-use efficiency too, making them more resilient to drought, so that there is a double benefit in arid parts of the world.

And as Dr Goklany points out: “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters these benefits are firmly established and are being felt now. Yet despite this the media overlook the good news and the public remain in the dark. My report should begin to restore a little balance.”
In a powerful foreword to the report, the world-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson FRS endorses Goklany’s conclusions and provides a devastating analysis of why “a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts”, arguing that “the thinking of politicians and scientists about controversial issues today is still tribal”.

The report is available here: benefits-of-co2 (PDF, 2.7mb)
-- Campy

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, 1949
BrevCampagnolo
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:11 pm
Location: Mucus City, USA

PreviousNext

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest