BPSDBI am Ngudima Madriguru, Climate Minister of my country. On behalf of my family (the Abacha’s), my country and the Free World I would like to seek your advice and help.
I have data that proves human caused climate change is a hoax, but UN thugs intent on world domination are keeping me from sharing it with you.
There is proof that I dare not reveal yet. The earth is cooling even though all of the science shows it is not. The sun is what is making the Earth warmer even though the sun is in a cool phase. The Arctic ice is expanding even though there is less of it. The sea is shrinking even as it rises. The glaciers are advancing even though they appear to be shrinking. I have the evidence!
This evidence has been gathered by thousands of real scientists who cannot be named because it would threaten their lives. By day they may produce more and more evidence showing climate change to be real, but that is only to get grants that they would have gotten anyway. At night they have been secretly compiling the evidence that is now in my possession.
Al Gore is actually making making millions even though no one can show he
is profiting by even one dime. From the shadows this man, who could not get himself elected as President, actually has the power to control the worlds 63 million scientists. True they are spread across dozens and dozens of nations and governments, but he is still able to do it. It is true, I swear it.
I know all of the evidence shows that that the US Government has been suppressing and censoring climate science for years, but that was their secret plan. Just as the war on terror has caused more terrorism, so the war on science is actually their way of promoting climate science.
Of course the climate change hoax hurts the oil industry which has been a source of great wealth to many in the Bush government. This is true, but you must realize that they are consumed by their climate religion. The Republicans are far more interested in establishing a world government led by Al Gore and the UN than they are in their own wealth. I have the proof.
To get the proof to you I must bribe some officials. Naturally I am very wealthy, but all of my money is in oil stocks and right now is not a good time to sell. Until I profit enough to get the proof I will need you to help.
All I ask of you is that you risk your life, and the lives of your children, and of all humanity, solely based on my word. As I said I cannot reveal the evidence yet, but the truth is obvious to any who can see it. I feel that you are such a person.
Spread the word, tell everyone about the truth. The truth about the climate, the UN and Al Gore. Tell them everything. Just do this and I promise you I will get you the evidence later. I count on you to help me stop this UN conspiracy to establish global government with global warming.
The fate of the Free World is in your hands.
Ngudima Madriguru,
Climate Minister
Xenophobia, Imaginationland
Climate denial as a phishing scam?
Just a bit of sarcastic humour, right?
Not!
Seems preposterous? Guess again. For a start one of the “prestigious” member’s of Inhofe’s 650 list is just such a scam artist, as I will show you below. The parallels go far, far beyond one individual, but let’s start with him.
As discussed in the my last two posts U.S. Senate Minority Leader Inhofe released a list of 650 “skeptic scientists”. The 650 included the bogus 400 from his previous attempt to push this fraud. One of those 400 is one R.L. Casey (here and here), Director of the “Space and Science Research Center” .
Some of you may recall that this organization was the source of last July’s Press Release “The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration: Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun” based on a mysterious “RC Theory”
This major scientific work, issued as a word document, was a hoax so transparent a child would not believe it. Needless to say it was immediately gobbled up by the Denialophere, quite a number of whom swallowed it whole (eg here).
The “Space and Science Research Center” is a website and that’s about all. The head offices of the “Research Centre” are a rental mail box and answering machine. However, this plucky little enterprise “provides research and study products tailored to meet the requirements of SSRC customers”, for a price.
From issuepedia:
“It seems likely that this group is essentially in the business of getting paid to come up with scientific-sounding justifications for any anti-global-warming message the customer wants to get across. ”
“Note: The phone number does not match any of Intelligent Office’s numbers, but rather the number of Juan Carlos Perez, apparently an attorney in Orlando. “
When he’s not too busy down at the old Space and Science, Mr Casey is with Verity Management Services as his day job. In fact Mr Casey is a very busy boy:
From the forum Thumpertalk:
“John L. Casey appears to be a real individual with a history of creating factious fundraising organizations which only exist on paper, dummy Internet websites, mailing drops and telephone answering services. The biggest venture may have been “Casey Aerospace Corporation” a space tourist company and was seeking a capitalization of $50 million. Some of the organizations associated with this individual include the following.
1. “Space and Science Research Center” SpaceAndScience.net (Active website)
2. “Global Foundation for Sustained Development” GFSDevelopment.org (Domain in premature deletion)
3. “International Space Science Fund” ISSFonline.org (Domain controlled by squatter since 2006-12-14)
4. “Afghan Women And Children Fund” AWACF.org (Domain released after 2005-03-13)
5. “The Iraq Women And Children Fund” IWACF.org? (Domain not verified)
6. “Fideligent Corporation” Fideligent.com (Released about 2006-04-02)
7. “Verity Management Services Inc.” (VMS) (No website found)
8. “Casey Aerospace Corporation” caseyaero.com (Domain released before 2000)”
Needless to say “RC Theory” is a bunch of gibberish with pasted tables from NASA etc, apparently created to phish in Deniers who have more dollars then sense.
And this is one of Inhofe’s 650 “skeptical scientists”?
Well, at least he actually is a real climate Denier, which actually makes his one of the more credible names on the list.
But back to my sarcastic presentation of Deniers as 419 scammers.
The Deniers really do claim that:
- The earth is cooling even though it is not.
- The sun is driving climate change even though it is not.
- The sea is shrinking even though it is not.
- The Arctic ice is expanding even though it is not.
- The glaciers are advancing even though they are not.
In fact most of these bogus claims were made in Inhofe’s report!
They also claim that:
- That there are thousands of skeptic scientists that they can’t name:
- Al Gore is making millions from climate change which they can’t document;
- That climate change is a UN plot to establish world government;
- That the U.S. government has been using grants to promote climate change evidence even the the government has been suppressing and censoring climate science;
All without any evidence. So even though they are not willing to bet their own money, they really are asking you to risk your life, your children’s lives, and all of humanity just on their word.
They promise to get you the evidence, later.
So will someone please tell me how the fictional letter from “Ngudima Madriguru” is not a fair and accurate representation of Denierism in general? and of Inhofe’s report in particular? anyone? anyone at all?
As user lostlyrics posted on one Denier “proof” on the internet:
“I’ve seen more convincing spam for fake viagra”
Huge thanks to Czechxican for the genesis of the idea for this piece.
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 61 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
Greenfyre's 
I buy it :p
Heheheh.
Inhofe should’ve added the following names too:
1. Alex Jones
2. Joe the Plumber
3. George Washington
4. Benjamin Franklin
5. Jesus Christ
[…] Read the rest of this superb post right here […]
[…] Vote I am Ngudima Madriguru, Climate Minister of … […]
Hmmm… [rubs chin in evil genius style]… if I were to set up a website that promised irrefutable evidence against ACC for the low, low price of just $29.99, posted on Digg, Wattsupwiththat and a few other Denial echo chambers, I’d be rich. Rich! I tells ya!
P.S. Mike, I’ve knocked up a little CSS override (as I do most sites I visit regularly). See http://userstyles.org/styles/12913 If you want any of that applied to your main CSS, let me know.
—-
DavidONE:
Speaking of which, whenever inactivists talk about how “50 billion dollars” has been spent on climate research, perhaps they actually got the figure from elsewhere?
When it comes to scamming people, Al Gore the Fat obviously has a lot to learn from the real creators of wealth. 🙂
[…] And, well, the list goes on … And, well, the problem is that we seem to need to go through them one by one rather than simply recognizing the totality as nothing more substantive than a Nigerian winning lottery email. […]
First, I really like the new layout. It’s by far the best of the three major ones I’ve seen.
Mike, Tim Lambert’s done a bit of a comparison between this one and the Discovery Institute’s Darwin Dissident list).
—-
Mike: Would this be it? I wrote about it in the previous post.
—-
> I sure hope changing the theme didn’t screw up your override.
Heh, it did – but it’s literally a couple of minutes to redo it – http://userstyles.org/styles/12913 . If you need any assistance with web design stuff, let me know – happy to do it gratis.
re: phishing
One may recall the brief career of 15-year-old phenomenon Kristen Byrnes and “her” ponderthemaunder website. A large number of people immediately accepted the idea that a 15-year-old student (who would not yet have taken physics or calculus or statistics) had completely overthrown AGW.
She has apparently moved on to other pursuits … but the website is still active, and it still has a page to contribute to the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation….
—-
This is a good minister way to say: “Believe me, support me and after that I will tell you the truth.”
James Inhofe used more scientific way. [1]
Why this minister and James Inhofe has support from business?
In my opinion it is because of mistakes of Al Gore that reduction of carbon dioxide is only one possible way to cool the air. In this case we need conservation of energy and many green way of producing energy.
Conservation of energy is always good, but not enough.
If we imagine that we increase efficiency of our equipment, appliances, heaters etc from average 25% to impossible 100% it will mean that only 4 times more people will live in the same level as middle class in USA today. It is not enough even for USA population, not mention all countries in the world.
Green direction as ethanol, hydrogen cells, solar cells, windmills, geothermal, nuclear are disaster for environment and only blind persons can’t see that.
They are reasons why Inhofe has support.
What can cool the air?
It is not only reduction of carbon dioxide, which are expensive.
It is wind, which send hot air to cloud level. Only this reason is enough to stop windmills direction.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space. White roofs, cars, roads could bring more goods than expensive carbon dioxide reduction.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. We need to use them and take off Inhofe agenda that environmentally friendly way are expensive and not for businesses.
Trees are the cheapest way to evaporate water, using Sun energy and create cheapest source of wood energy, saved in the trees for hundred years.
We no need to argue what is reason for global warming sun or men activity. More important is that in both cases we have possibilities to cool air.
Even in case if somebody will prefer to speculate that we haven’t global warming but global cooling, the same wind, reflection and water vapor can provide us with tools to save environment and make huge profit for economy.
We can stop global warming, be energy independent and reduce weather disasters during 5 years.
We can create 100 % of employment during one year. It will be job for scientists, engineers, farmers and workers all across USA, Mexico and Canada.
—-
Whenever some commenter claims that it’s justified to tell lies now and reveal the truth later, I start to wonder whether this is precisely what the commenter is doing.
[1] Inhofe’s report is just a lying fraud
Mike.
Dear Mike, Inhofe’s report is not so influential as Al Gore mistakes. [A] It is not so important to argue what is reason for Global Warming-Sun or men activity.
More important what can cool the air?
It is not only reduction of carbon dioxide, which are expensive.
It is wind, which send hot air to cloud level. Only this reason is enough to stop windmills direction.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space. White roofs, cars, roads could bring more goods than expensive carbon dioxide reduction.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. We need to use them.
In my opinion Al Gore’s mistakes follow mass media in USA and world, President elect Obama and his staff. Maybe it is time to inform our Government and mass media to prevent our country from huge mistakes.
—-
Oh OK, Inhofe’s a liar but the lies are OK because he’s not “influential”.
Then again, Michael Ioffe isn’t that “influential” either. I presume that means he’s also allowed to lie through his teeth? After all, he already said it’s OK to tell lies now and speak the truth later when everyone believes the lies.
Mike & frankbe:
Al Gore suggestion that only carbon dioxide reduction will cool the air of Earth is true only in situation when we completely forget about reflection, property of water vapor and role of wind in cooling air of the Earth. We need to respect Al Gore for bringing attention to global warming problems and at the same time correct his solutions.
I am retired Designer Engineer with 25 years of experience. In my life I worked 5 years as teacher of Physics in High School. I have eleven patents and ideas for more than hundred new patents, which can revolve Economy of USA, Mexico and Canada.
More than 4years I am studying Global Warming, Peak oil production, Dependence of our economy from foreighn oil, Weather disasters in North America. I solved these problems three years ago. You can read 100 of my articles in willyoujoinus.com under user name mioffe_2000. Last year I stopped published my notes on this site of Chevron Company, because I understand it was lost of my time. Chevron Company used this site only for public relationship.
I can’t understand why so many smart persons in the world support absolutely unscientific ideas about Global Warming.
Please read next my article and I am will answer on any of your question.
Michael Ioffe
How we can use knowledge about global warming for huge profit
In economy, energy independence and reduction weater disasters.
We can look on problems with global warming, prices for barrel of oil, and weather disasters in North America as correlated with each other and found very profitable solutions to be winners in all these directions.
Global warming.
Our efforts in fighting global warming can be more productive if we will reevaluate what we are writing and speaking about it. I found interesting that mass media:
1. Very often changed carbon dioxide equivalent of all greenhouse gases only on carbon dioxide.
2. Forget that “ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”. Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 for they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
3. Mention only that greenhouse gases absorb heat in the atmosphere.
4. More important processes that cool the atmosphere and they are completely ignored by mass media.
5. Absolutely misunderstand role of water vapor in cooling of the Earth, despite that it is also greenhouse gas.
6. Misunderstand that any source of energy – nuclear, wind, hydro, solar cells, hydrogen, geothermal in condition when greenhouse gases anyway will increased by others processes will heat the atmosphere as heat pollutant.
7. Misunderstand possibility of conservation of energy and its limits.
If we will look carefully on result of these misunderstanding we will found dangerous situation when high respectful authors asking us to do what in reality will bring more harm than good things.
Let look in Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007 (126 Edition) page 577, table 897.
“Energy consumption by End-Use sector in quadrillion British thermal Unit (BTU).
Total-1970 year –67.84 (67,840,000,000,000,000)—2004 year-99.74
Residential ——–1970 year –22.11 2004 year-38.6 38.6/22.11=1.745
and commercial
Industrial———–1970 year –29.64 2004 year –33.25 33.25/29.64=1.121
Transportation—–1970 year –16.10 2004 year –27.79 27.79/16.10=1.726
Our consumption of energy in the 2004 compares with 1970 almost double in residential and commercial, and transportation. Industrial energy did not grow in the same rate only because most industrial production moved to China and others developed countries.
Without any doubt to live better we need more energy.
In the world media idea of conservation of energy by increasing efficiency of all equipment and appliances prevail.
Is it true?
If we will increase efficiency of our motors, equipment, appliances, home heating and cooling systems, etc. from average 25% right now to impossible 100% it will mean only that four times more people will live on the same level as middle class in USA today. It is not enough even for USA population, not mention all countries in the world.
Demand for better living in the world will increase faster than our ability to increase efficiency of our equipment, etc.
If carbon dioxide is main factor for global warming we have very narrow way how to escape global warming? It is only one way-conservation of energy!
Conservation of energy is not a solution. It is always good direction but not enough.
Nuclear energy, geothermal energy, wind energy, solar cell energy even if they will emit zero carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the Earth (everyone knew that it is not true) still will heat air in situation where greenhouse gases in the air will be increased anyway by others processes.
It is possible to use these energy sources, but it is not true that solutions to fight global warming are nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar cell, hydrogen cell or many others or very expensive or not so effective sources of energy.
Nuclear and geothermal source of energy will additionally to Sun heat air of the Earth.
By David Fleming, April 2006:
“It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste.
As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world’s total current electricity demand for about six years.
Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a ‘climate-friendly’ technology”.
http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/index.html
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm”
Many scientists can confront David Fleming opinion, but they still need to agree that nuclear source of energy will additionally heat the air and will work as heat pollutant.
As you can read in Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:
1. “ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.
2. “Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
If we will follow Tim Flannery, we can say, that all one-year vegetation wills rots during one year. In nature they are rots slowly, providing during vegetation period nutrition for new growing plants. Together with others vegetation on the Earth they create balance during millions years, when in air we had 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide.
Growing population, industrial revolution changed this balance. It is inevitable: we harvest food from almost all land in every states and bring it to huge cities, where rots of waste haven’t enough plants to take back carbon dioxide.
If we will grow corn, grass, etc. for ethanol or others so called “green sources of energy” we will bring to ethanol production place every year increasing amount of plants from which we extracting ethanol. We need energy to plant and harvest these sources.
Research shows that it takes about 0.75 BTUs (British thermal units – a measure of energy content) from fossil fuels to create 1 BTU of ethanol, compared to 1.23 BTUs to create 1 BTU of traditional oil-based gasoline (Dr. Wang, et al). So ethanol is a more efficient energy source than oil.
This research does not include energy to harvest corn, grass etc and bring it to plants for ethanol production and also does not include energy to produce oil and bring it to gasoline production plants.
It will increase amount of carbon dioxide in the air despite our good intentions. “Green sources of energy” is a disaster for environment and as soon we will agree on that we will not spend money and efforts in wrong directions. Green sources of energy will not save civilization from global warming.
Wind and solar cells energy are very expensive and need batteries to store their energy in times when we haven’t wind or Sun.
If we still want to use them it is better for windmills directly found job, perhaps pump water from places where we have flooding to places where we need water. This will reduce significantly price for wind energy (we no need devices to change kinetic energy of the wind to electrical energy, electrical transformers, lines, motors etc). It also will increase efficiency of windmills. It is not so important timing of pumping water.
Solar energy is better to use to feed population-to grow vegetables, corn, wheat etc.
The best way to use Sun for energy is to grow forests.
Trees are the champion in the world between all plants and grow faster than any others plants. They collect Sun energy during hundreds of years. Wood from the trees can be the cheapest source of energy for power plants and will give all their energy for electricity and heat production.
All emissions from these power plants can be without any harm sequestrated back to the land by water and will be together with ash the best nutrition to grow the same trees.
Instead of harvesting every year corn, grass etc for ethanol production we will harvest wood for electricity production from forest in area at least 100 times less than in case of harvesting grass, corn, etc for liquid fuel. It will be the closest to customer source of energy and therefore cheaper than coal. Coal right now the cheapest source of electrical energy.
It takes one ton of coal to generate an average of 2500 KWH of electricity.
It takes less than 1.6 ton of wood to generate the same amount of energy.
Needs for energy in the world will grow despite all good resolutions.
We intensified style of our life. We need to intensified process of cooling air in the Earth.
From Earth Science, Baron’s Educational Series, Inc, 2001
“Solar radiation reaches the upper atmosphere at a fairly constant rate of about 200
kilocalories per minute/square meter. About 1/3 of this radiation is reflected back into space mostly by clouds. Ozone, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in the atmosphere absorb or reflect most of Earth’s infrared radiation; the rest go through the atmosphere and out into space. Solar energy reflected back into space by thick clouds – 75-90%, thin clouds – 30-50%, water – 10%, grassy field – 10-30%, fresh snow – 75-95%, forest – 3-10%…
The atmosphere consists mostly of gases, but also contains water, ice, dust and others particles. In dry air we have 78% of Nitrogen, 21% of Oxygen, almost 1% of Argon. In air we have traces of another gases: Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, Hydrogen, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Methane.
Molecular mass of N2 = 28, of O2 = 32, of H2O = 18. Since the lighter water molecules displace heavier air pressure decreases as humidity increases. HUMIDITY UP, AIR PRESSURE DOWN, HUMIDITY DOWN, AIR PRESSURE UP
Wind blow from region of high air pressure to region of low air pressure as in sea breeze, land breeze.
Climate influences a REGION’S NATURAL VEGETATION.
The roots of plants absorb water that has seeped into the soil. Then the water is transported to their leaves, and released back to the atmosphere, as water vapor. Each day an estimated 15 trillion litters of water in the form of rain or snow fall on the United States alone.
The atmosphere which now has a total mass about 5,000 trillion tons is held in place by Earth’s gravity and extend several hundreds kilometers into space.
A number of factors control the amount of solar energy that an area absorbs or reflects including the angle at which incoming solar radiation-insolation-strikes the surface, the length of time each day, that insolation is received, and a nature of the surface.
Most insolation passes right through the atmosphere to Earth surface, where it is absorbed and changed into form of energy that atmosphere can absorb by conduction, convection and radiation.
Most of the energy radiated by Earth’s surface is infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb or reflect most of Earth’s infrared radiation; the rest goes through the atmosphere and out into a space.
Thus short-wavelength can readily enter the atmosphere, but long-wavelength cannot readily escape a phenomenon known as greenhouse effect.”
What are the most important lessons from these two books?
1. Clouds reflect huge parts of solar energy back to space: thick clouds-75-90%, thin clouds-30-50%;
2. Forests contain much more carbon than does grass and they also absorb more sunlight and produce more water vapor, which affect cloud formation.
3. Water vapor is one of the lightest gases and has tendency to go up to cloud level. Water has another properties it takes a lot of energy to evaporate water. To evaporate one kg of water we need 339 kcal of heat. We need one kcal to increase temperature of 1 kg of water on 1ºC. Evaporation of water will cool air temperature. Despite that water vapor is greenhouse gas, it tendency to go up bring them on cloud level, where distances between molecules bigger and heat will go to space more easily than on ground level. No others greenhouse gases have these properties. Drop of rain when falling down partially evaporated and go back to cloud level, but more important they dissolve a lot of carbon dioxide and others “heavy” greenhouse gases from the air and soil and feed all plants on the Earth.
4. Of course, reduction of carbon dioxide in the air will cool the Earth. Water vapor will produce the same effects of cooling the Earth. We need increase evaporation of water. It is significantly cheaper then other efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Drops of rain at the same time will clean air from carbon dioxide better than any efforts of conservation of energy.
5. Sun is the best source of energy to evaporate water from growing trees, and not only cool the air of Earth but also produce the cheapest, really “green” source of energy, which can be used in any time during hundreds of years.
6. White fresh snow reflects to space 75-95% of Sun radiation. White cars, houses, roads will do the same.
According to Tim Flannery only new forests collect carbon. Tim Flannery wrote also about absorbing sunlight to grow and also produce water vapor. Trees are the best and cheapest pumps in the world. They use Sun energy to evaporate huge amount of water. It is the cheapest way to cool the air of the Earth. Drop of rain on cloud level is the cleanest and the best solvent of carbon dioxide and will reduce amount of carbon dioxide in the air better than any others human efforts in these directions.
Increasing of evaporation of water will do more to reduce carbon dioxide in the air than any attempt of conservation energy.
How we use energy?
For economical and profit reason we are building our power plants so huge that more than 80% of their overall energy – heat energy – we can’t use.
“The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel is converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.
The maximum power theorem applies to generators as it does to any source of electrical energy. This theorem states that the maximum power can be obtained from the generator by making the resistance of the load equal to that of the generator. However, under this condition the power transfer efficiency is only 50%, which means that half the power generated is wasted as heat inside the generator. For this reason, practical generators are not usually designed to operate at maximum power output, but at a lower power output where efficiency is greater.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995, and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_generator
If we will calculate waste of energy to produce electrisity as source of energy together with waste of energy when we using electrical energy we can conclude that more THAN 80% OF ENERGY WE ARE LOOSING IN VAIN.
If we will start new energy policy to make small power plants where we can use not only electrical energy but also heat energy we will increase efficiency of using fuel energy at least three-four times. In this situation wood will provide more useful energy than the same amount of oil products or coal, which we using right now in big power plants.
Small power plants surrounding by forests will use the cheapest and closest source of energy. Ash from burning trees can be used as the best nutrition to grow these forests. All carbon dioxide of these plants can be solved in huge amount of water to watering these forests. Additional nutrition from that water as evaporation of water by forests will provide us with energy sources and cooling of the air of the Earth. Here we need to remember that rain in Amazon Basin over 120 inches per year. It means than more water we will use to watering these forests than more rain will be in area of these forests. Watering trees under some conditions can provide more water in form of rain than we use to start process. Watering trees also will prevent forest fire.
We can start harvest trees for wood after 5 years widening distances between trees as they are growing. We can use coal and gas as additional to wood source of energy. Coal, gas, and power plants Companies will willingly pay for growing forest instead of paying for carbon dioxide emmission.
We need to pay attention that most automotive and small aircraft engines have 25-30% thermal efficiency range. Because this efficiency apply to move not only passenger but and heavy cars, real efficiency of cars where we are mostly alone moving to job and back will be less than one percent.
Mass transportation will not help, because we are increasing distance to place where we are going and most important- time. Mass transportation takes more energy on short distances between stops for one or two persons.
Perhaps mass (m) of car 2,000kg, mass of driver 100kg, and speed (V) of car 65 miles per hour, or 110.5 km per hour, or 30.7 m per sec.
Kinetic energy of this car will be:
E=1/2mv2=2100×30.7×30.7/2=1/2x2100x942.
As you can see in this case mass of car and driver change amount of kinetic energy twice time more than speed.
It is not so important when cars drive on strait road long distance. If cars will stop on every block reduction of mass for car is very important.
In case of public transportation mass of bus will be around 10,000kg. If this bus will held perhaps 100 persons with average mass 100kg it will be additional 10,000kg. If bus will stop on every light and on every bus stop after few blocks, situation will be almost 20 times worse than for usual cars.
Public transportation is not good solution to save energy or reduce emmission.
If we will remember that resistance from air for every moving object increased proportionally area of it greatest section including tires we will found easily weapons to increase mileage per gallon:
It is small (10 kg) cart for one person and roads without intersection.
Huge amount of concrete needed for nuclear energy better to spend on second and third levels of roads, without intersections. Truck and cars with huge mass will be on first existing right now level. Small carts will be on next levels.
Let again make analysis how we make all liquid biofuel, where we extract small parts of energy, from corn, grass, sugar cane etc., and trough away wet waste material which will almost simultaneously oxidized. We will understand that liquid biofuel is disaster for environment and not so green as advertised. All plants take half of carbon from the air CO2, another half they take from the soil. How we can make liquid biofuel green in these conditions?
Why we need liquid fuel to loose 99% of that fuel in vain?
Why we need hydrogen fuel cell with the same efficiency?
We need to grow instead of corn for ethanol – forests in USA, Canada and Mexico.
If we will pay attention to growing trees in the same level as growing corn we will increase production of wood in one acre of forests many times.
Sun is only one nuclear power plant, which will work for millions years and mankind no need to worry about its waste, or proliferation, or others form of disasters.
Trees will work as huge pumps to evaporate water-using energy of sun. Water vapors as lightest than most others gases will go up to clouds levels, where latent heat capacity of producing droplet of water will easily escapes to space. This is natural source of cooling the Earth surfaces. More clouds will reflect to space more sun energy and additionally cool the Earth.
North America is only one huge land from France to Japan. Cooling air with help of forests in places where we growing corn or grass for ethanol production all around USA, Canada and Mexico will mild climate in North America. It will reduce power of weather disaster and more important reduce movement of air from south to north-main reason of melting ice in Greenland.
It is more easy to move millions tons of water, to watering these forests, than millions tons of cars and people, what we did because of hurricane Gustav, or Katrina. Insurance Companies will willingly pay for systems to relocate water from flooding areas.
We will create source of energy to power plants-wood energy-the cheapest and closest to consumer source of future energy.
If we will build small power plants to use not only electricity, but also heat we will use almost 100% of energy of the wood, not 20%. That means we will need to use three- four times less energy sources.
Of course we need time to build these small power plants, but we can grow trees as fuel for these plants right now all across USA. They will start evaporate water immediately.
From “Atmosphere. Clouds. Rain. Snow. Storm” Vincent J Schaefer/John A. Day, 1981:
“The remarkable “year without a summer” of 1816 is thought to have been caused by massive volcanic eruption and is an indication of what could happen-volcanic ash particles serve as excellent nuclei for ice crystal formation. This factor, plus the reduction in solar radiation caused by volcanic dust cloud in the stratosphere and upper troposphere is thought to have been responsible for the widespread change in the weather America and Europe experienced in that time.”
We can provoke volcanic eruption. We can send mirrors particle on the orbit, by the rockets. What we will do depend of our common sense and willingness to spend money on projects. Growing forests for evaporation of water is cheaper and more controllable way to stop global warming. Woods, as source of the cheapest energy will pay all our spending bills in future. Pumping of water from flooding area to watering these forests will pay our spending bills right now. Instead of distribution of tax relief money to support our economy it is better to create new jobs for thousands of scientist, engineers and millions of workers. They can design and build water distribution systems, plant new forests, build new small power plants, new roads for small (10 kg) carts, new carts industries. Coal companies, power plants companies will pay bills right now, because nobody will ask them to participate in stupid projects of carbon dioxide reduction.
It is future of our energy and transportation systems, which will give result right now!
Conclusion.
We need to change our transportation systems. Cars are perfects, but they are relicts of previous century.
We no need spent Government money to improve cars industry. Simple Physics against it.
It is impossible to collect greenhouse gases from millions of cars. We have only one environmentally friendly direction of transportation-electrical transportation. We know that efficiency of electric motors more than 85%. In this direction we can make instead of car weighting more than 2000 kg cart with weight around 10 kg. It is correct-10 kg cart for one person.
Of course we need to use everything what we have right now till time when it is economically working.
As our strategy goals:
1. We need to reduce size of power plants, which we will build in future to use not only electricity, but also heat energy for industry and greenhouses to grow food.
2. We need in nearest future use electricity as only one source of energy for heating (cooling) of homes and for transportation.
3. We need change transportation system.
4. We need grow trees around small power plants as only one source of renewable energy and solvent all gases from power plants in water to watering growing forests. Instead of supporting liquid fuel production – a disaster for environmental, our government need to support growing trees.
5. We need to build systems to relocate water from flooding areas to watering these trees. Instead of spending money on result of flooding we need spend them to prevent flooding.
6. We need start design small power plants with mandatory of using not only electricity but also heat. These power plants can use any kind of energy sources but after some time need to use mainly wood as source of energy. All greenhouse gases from power plants need to be solvent in huge amount of water to watering forest. Of course quality of water for watering need to be checked by scientists.
5-10 years is more than enough time to make this happen.
In these directions we have possibilities to create new industries with 100% of employment for scientists, engineers, farmers and workers despite that many jobs positions goes abroad. It is normal process of globalization.
Here’s how some of our major energy sources stack up based on the average cost in dollars per million Btu for 2007 (annual average for the full year):
Coal — $1.78
Petroleum liquids — $9.21
Natural gas — $7.45
(You can take a look for yourself at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm.pdf)
Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
Year-to-Date through March, 2008
Coal- 50.4%
Hydroelectric Conventional-6.5%
Natural Gas-19.0%
Nuclear-19.8%
Other Energy Sources-3.3%
Petroleum-1.1%
Facts and Figures
Even if all possible arable acres of land in the U.S. (~427 million acres) were devoted to growing corn for ethanol production, at current yields ethanol would satisfy only 12% of transportation fuel demand;
Similarly, if all soybean crops currently produced were to be refined into biodiesel, only 6% of U.S. diesel demand would be met;
Ethanol currently represents just over 2% of gasoline sold;
Studies indicate full scale CELLULOSIC (not corn-based but developed from switchgrass, woodchips, etc), ethanol could be produced for 60 cents per gallon (NRDC Biofuels Study);
Research shows that it takes about 0.75 BTUs (British thermal units – a measure of energy content) from fossil fuels to create 1 BTU of ethanol, compared to 1.23 BTUs to create 1 BTU of traditional oil-based gasoline (Dr. Wang, et al). So ethanol is a more efficient energy source than oil.
Pros of Use
Biofuels can be domestically produced from a number of available agricultural products (e.g., swithgrass, woodchips, animal waste, etc);
Biofuels burn cleaner than most traditional fossil fuel sources;
Biodiesel can utilize current distribution systems and run in current diesel motors.
Cons of Use
At some point (arguably happening currently), food supplies are compromised and food prices rise as a result of additional agricultural products being sold for the creation of biofuels;
Limitations in the total transportation fuel supplied by biofuels exist using current technology;
There is not a readily established, high volume distribution system in place for the transport of ethanol as there is for oil (which currently enjoys a national pipeline system);
Ethanol requires the use of slightly modified, “flex-fuel” engines.
When we completely understand all previous let look on “Picken Plan”, and try to understand where he is wrong?
“Picken Plan”
America is addicted to foreign oil.
It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.
The addiction has worsened for decades and now it’s reached a point of crisis.
In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it’s nearly 70% and growing.
At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.
Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.
That’s 25% of the world’s oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world’s population.
Can’t we just produce more oil?
World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.
The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.
What’s the good news?
The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.
Studies from around the world show that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.
The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America’s electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.
Today’s wind turbines stand up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind’s kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.
A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.
Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.
That’s a lot of money, but it’s a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it’s a bargain.”
An economic revival for rural America.
A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.
Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.
Cleaner
Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.
According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.
Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.
According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.
The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.
Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.
Cheaper
Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.
Domestic
Natural gas is our country’s second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.
Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy — residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.
Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.
While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.
We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity. Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel — reducing our dependence on foreign oil by more than one-third.
How do we get it done?
The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.
Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. But it will take leadership.
On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office.
We’re organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration.
Together we can raise a call for change and set a new course for America’s energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency — breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability.
You can start changing America’s future today by supporting the Pickens Plan. Join now.”
I am sorry to tell that, but Mr. Picken you are on wrong directions:
Mr. Picken are writing about peak oil production (2005), huge price for oil – $700 billion dollars this year.
Solutions: wind power for electricity, Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation.
Will it work? Of course it will it is working right now in small scale. If we will put billions in these directions we will work in huge scale as huge monuments all around our country for our stupidity and misunderstanding of global warming.
Let look how Picken plan correlates with global warming?
Mr. Picken as many others very famous persons in the world and mass media did not understand role of wind to cool the air. Wind energy evaporates a lot of water from any surfaces of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. It evaporates water from the grass, bushes and trees. Any uses of wind energy will reduce these cooling effects of wind.
Kinetic energy of the wind in the atmosphere send hot air from the land or water surface to the high level of atmosphere where it is easy for heat to escape to the space.
Kinetic energy of the wind met the small droplets of water in fog, clouds, and all green vegetables, especially in leaves of trees around all atmospheres on the Earth. These processes produce water vapor that invisible greenhouse gas, which always go up to cloud level and cool the Earth better than anything else.
Mr. Picken think that wind power did not produce pollution. It is not true. Production of millions wind turbines, batteries need energy. Electricity from these turbines is also pollutant –heat pollutant. In case when others processes in human activity will add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere any heat sources- wind, or nuclear, or geothermal and many others will increase amount of heat that will heat air and will be reason for global warming.
Any our attempt to produce source of energy without production additional sources of water vapor will heat the atmosphere and increase risk of global warming.
Let look how Picken plan uses energy sources?
Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation need huge investment to change our cars, where real efficiency in most cases will be less than 1%.
We need destroy all power plants and their distribution lines, which right now produce electricity-using energy of natural gas.
If windmills produce electricity we are loosing around 50% of wind energy on resistance of batteries, when we charge them. When we use batteries around 50% of their energy will be loosing when power from batteries will go to customers. Efficiency of this process around 25% in best case.
We still have room for cooperation with Mr. Picken.
Windmills can work directly pumping perhaps water to grow forests. Efficiency of using wind power will be increased at least tree times. We will have useful job without complication of electrical energy production.
GE can design and build small power plants (for ten-hundred thousands of people), which will use natural gas, where we can use as electrical, as heat energy and look forwards to use in the same power plant as natural gas as wood as source of energy.
GE can design and build 10 kg electrical carts for one person as main transportation system of our future (I have ideas how to make it happen).
GE with cooperation with Companies which specialized in building road systems, working together to build new completely automated transportation systems in North America with three levels without any intersection on second and third level.
These directions can not only solve independence from foreign source of energy, but also global warming problems and reduce weather disaster problems.
These directions will give jobs and new opportunity for all North America citizens with 100% of employment for nearest hundred years.
Of course it will be the best example to the world.
Everybody who understand that, who have power to reach Mr. Picken, or mass- media, please tell them about these possibilities. I am sure that these directions are working and need less investment with huge profit possibilities than anything else.
Let look at “How Siemens does it.”
Wind power is the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Siemens is rapidly expanding its manufacturing capacities in this exciting new business with powerful offshore wind parks, growing much faster than the market. With more than 6,300 wind turbines around the world, Siemens helps to save up to 10 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. As the market leader in offshore wind energy, Siemens offers the largest serially produced offshore wind turbines, with rotor blades sweeping an area bigger than a football field.
The world’s largest gas turbine, the Siemens SGT5-8000H, is also the most powerful. Its capacity of 340 megawatts roughly equals that of 13 jumbo jet engines. In combined cycle operation, plants powered with this new gas turbine will generate 530 MW – enough to supply three million people with energy. A higher than 60 percent efficiency rate in combined-cycle applications (an increase of two percentage points) sets a new benchmark for efficient power generation and results in a reduction of CO2 emissions by up to 40,000 tons per year.
Superior technology for long-distance power transmission is key to generating the thousands of gigawatts of electricity required by our growing planet. But how can we efficiently transport it from remote power plants to populated areas, where it is needed? To overcome the limitations and energy losses of conventional alternating current (AC) transmission, Siemens built high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission links, which are a more economical and ecological means of transporting electric power over distances of 600 km or more.
Buildings account for nearly 40 percent of global energy consumption. To address this massive challenge, Siemens offers measures that help reduce energy costs by 20 – 40 percent, on average. Through energy performance contracting, Siemens plans and installs new intelligent building systems that guarantee savings in cost, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Under such a contract, Siemens identifies the potential for saving energy in a building through modernization and energy services. The investment pays for itself through the energy savings, with no added costs incurred.”
The same as Mr. Picken, Company Siemens make mistakes in wind production. Please read everything, what I wrote in my answer to Mr.Picken.
The world’s largest gas turbine even with higher than 60 percent efficiency rate (Congratulation for that achievement) will loose more than 70% of gas energy in vain.
To use as heat as electricity energy we need design not more efficient huge power plant, but smaller power plants. Power plants, which served to area around 15 km will use as heat as electrical energy. We can transfer electrical energy on 600 and more km we can’t do the same with heat energy. The world’s largest gas turbine will be one of the many others huge heat pollutant, which will prevail reduction of carbon dioxide emission.
Sincerely, Michael Ioffe.
Ioffe,
In that entire long rant of yours you’ve failed to explain why it’s OK for Inhofe to tell lies. Earlier you said
…and so it’s OK for Inhofe to lie. What’s the excuse this time? Do you have one?
Dear frankbi. It is not OK to lie, but Inhofe has right on his opinion.
Al Gore knows about clouds but he was so concentrate on danger for environment that narrows his interest only on carbon dioxide. “But our annual production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is already so large and is increasing so rapidly that simply stabilizing the amount already in atmosphere would require significant changes in the technology we use and in way we live our lives.”
As I see the most dangerous his achievement that mass media almost agreed with his point “…when 98 percent of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2 percent disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible.” Here politicians point of view is winning, is winning in percentage prevail.
In science most often genius of one man confront millions who think different. Al Gore wrote about Galileo: “Even he had had to bend to the convention of his day.” Ironically with his percentages as decisions who are right he came close to judges of Galileo.
“Indeed, sometimes the remaining uncertainties are cynically used by partisans of the status quo for the express purpose of preventing the coalescence of public support for action.”
I am not support Inhofe. I am supporting his right on his opinion. Michael Ioffe
In other words, it’s not OK to lie, although it is.
I had a pleasure to read Al Gore books and a lot of skepticism to believe in his solutions.
His first book “Earth in the balance”, 1992 “Take the question about clouds, for example. A small number of scientists argue that we don’t have to worry about global warming because when the greenhouse gases trap more heat from the sun in the atmosphere, the earth will automatically produce more clouds, which in turn will serve as a kind of thermostat to regulate the earth’s temperature”. “… it is clear that doubling CO2 will in fact increase global temperatures and in the process subject us to the risk of catastrophic changes in global climate patterns”.
Al Gore knows about clouds but he was so concentrate on danger for environment that narrows his interest only on carbon dioxide. “But our annual production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is already so large and is increasing so rapidly that simply stabilizing the amount already in atmosphere would require significant changes in the technology we use and in way we live our lives.”
As I see the most dangerous his achievement that mass media almost agreed with his point “…when 98 percent of the scientists in a given field share one view and 2 percent disagree, both viewpoints are sometimes presented in a format in which each appears equally credible.” Here politician’s point of view is winning, if percentage prevail.
In science most often genius of one man confront millions who think different. Al Gore wrote about Galileo: “Even he had had to bend to the convention of his day.” Ironically with his percentages as decisions who are right he came close to judges of Galileo.
“Indeed, sometimes the remaining uncertainties are cynically used by partisans of the status quo for the express purpose of preventing the coalescence of public support for action.”
But imagine that Al Gore made mistake, how smart will be public support for action?
The same as Al Gore I see danger from global warming. I disagree with his solutions of conservation of energy and carbon dioxide reduction as only one way to cool the earth.
We have wind, water vapor and reflection, which can be used.
Al Gore misleads himself and public opinion about water vapor. This is more dangerous than “lie” of Inhofe. All cabinet members of Obama administration share the same mistake of Al Gore. Implementation of these mistakes will bring more damage for USA industry, than anything else.
I read Inhofe points of view 2 years ago. I disagree with him and do not want argue with him. If he is lying? I am not judge to decide.
—-
1. Dear Mike, believe me I read not only Inhofe and Al Gore.
2. It can’t be good solutions if we will make poor explanation of problems. The worst problem with global warming that most scientists believed that only decreasing amount of carbon dioxide is only one way to stop global warming. It is huge mistake or maybe real lie. Reflection, water vapor can cool the air. This mistake supports scientists responsible for Kyoto protocols, scientist that recently dictate global warming policy from Poland, scientist in Obama Government. That is real problem, because will lead to wrong, expensive and worst solutions.
3. I read your numerous sources, but I am not care if Inhofe liar or not so educated person. I care that wrong explanation of problem with global warming will bring more damage than lie or poor understanding of subjects by Inhofe. As I mention before I read Inhofe and ignore his point of view. I read Al Gore and tried to correct his mistakes. Unfortunately Al Gore found his mistakes in articles of climate scientists, which you recommend me to read. Even very honest scientist could be very wrong. Convection, reflection, property of water, water vapors and properties of ice enough to understand their mistakes. It is simple Physics. Please forget about Inhofe go to the real problems.
So why will you come to this thread, which is a discussion about Inhofe’s lies? And what were your excuses for his lies? First you say it’s OK for Inhofe to lie because he’s “not so influential”, then you say it’s OK for Inhofe to lie because he has a “right on his opinion”, then you say it’s OK because you “ignore his point of view”.
In other words, because Al Gore stated that frogs will stay in boiling water, therefore the IPCC is completely wrong!
Yeah, sure. Please continue to boast about your ignorance.
Dear frankbi.“So why will you come to this thread, which is a discussion about Inhofe’s lies?”
I come to this thread, as I coming on every discussion about global warming, because in my opinion I found better solution for Global warming than Al Gore, Inhofe, or anybody else about whom I can read in mass media.
This topic discusses Inhofe lies, you can found many who will tell you, that Al Gore lies.
Richard S. Lindzen: “All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists–a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.”
“And what were your excuses for his lies?”
It is your opinion that he is liar. I do not hope that Inhofe will read our discussion and answer you. I also do not believe that court will decide his case. I read article, I tell my opinion on article.
“First you say it’s OK for Inhofe to lie because he’s “not so influential”, then you say it’s OK for Inhofe to lie because he has a “right on his opinion”, then you say it’s OK because you “ignore his point of view”.
I wrote that more important in global warming not Inhofe opinion, but mistakes of Al Gore that reduction of carbon dioxide is only one way to fight global warming. Scientist like Richard S. Lindzen told to Gore that water vapor can cool the Earth. I will add that reflection, convection and wind also will cool the air. We need use all natural sources to cool the air. That is real important knowledge that I found reading articles about global warming.
Lindzen and Inhofe opinion that Al Gore liar, or your or mine opinion that perhaps Lindzen and Inhofe liar is not so important. I am not judge, article do not make very strong for me statement that Inhofe liar.
“Please continue to boast about your ignorance.” If you carefully read my answers, you need to understand
I am not ignoring global warming. I found solutions for global warming, energy independence, and 100% of employment for Canada, USA and Mexico.
If you will found mistakes in these solutions we can argue about them. It is counterproductive to argue about honesty of politician. Look please on Blagoevich case. Everything are against him, but he still in power.
[…] bookmarks tagged factious I am Ngudima Madriguru, Climate Minister of … «… saved by 1 others omayinoblivion bookmarked on 12/24/08 | […]
I see frankbi’s being hateful again, so I thought I’d pop in and put a stop to he and his ferret’s annoying banter.
Sorry, but the party’s over and it’s time to go home. No last calls either. We want to give frankbi and his contemptuous little ferret a chance to escape before Al Gore gets hungry. So leave now, frankbi, before it’s too late.
http://magus71.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/its-over/
—–
Magus71
What is your point? Please explain.
Michael I
100% employment? Please elaborate.
Martha
Michael I
100% employment? Please elaborate.
What I see problem for new President:
The most dangerous is if Obama will follow global misunderstanding of Physics of atmosphere, mistakes of Al Gore, and others celebrities, and mass media about carbon dioxide reduction is only one solution to fight global warming.
It is not only carbon dioxide.
It is wind, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is water evaporation, which take a lot of energy on the ground level and send vapor as lighter gas to cloud level, where infrared radiation escapes to space. We need to use them.
If our auto or others industry will follow the best Japanese or EU companies, they will loose because they will follow yesterday solutions. Cars with weight more than 2,000 Lb. are relict of previous century. We need completely change our transportation system.
We need to pay attention that most automotive and small aircraft engines have 25-30% thermal efficiency range. Because this efficiency apply to move not only passenger but and heavy cars, real efficiency of cars where we are mostly alone moving to job and back will be less than one percent.
Mass transportation will not help, because we are increasing distance to place where we are going and most important- time. Mass transportation takes more energy on short distances between stops.
Trying to save car industries we are loosing money, time and our invention spirit. We need no more efficient car still weighting more than 2000 Lb., but cart for one person with weight no more than 20Lb.
Any biofuel will feed these cars. Only this fact shows that biofuel is wrong direction.
Biofuel production bring to biofuel production plants corn, switchgrass or others product from thousands of acres of land, take small part of their energy and through away waste, which will oxidized very fast and make more carbon dioxide than fossil source of fuel. Biofuel is disaster for Environment.
If we will analyze windmills, solar cell, hydrogen cell, nuclear power plant, geothermal we can prove they all also disaster for environment.
If we improve efficiency of our equipment from average 25% right now to impossible 100% it will mean that only four times more persons will live on the level of middle class in USA. IT IS Not enough even for our country. Conservation of energy always good, but not enough.
Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 for they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows.
If we have global warming, global cooling or status quo in global climate all recommendation to cut carbon dioxide are stupid and only Gore, our Government world media, and many persons on this site for some reason do not want understand.
In all these cases we need grow forests, burn wood from old trees in small power plants to use not only electricity, but also and heat.
We need roads without intersection for carts weighting around 10-20 Lb.
We need completely change how we building houses. Theirs second, third floors and roofs can be parts of second, and third level of roads without intersection.
We need build system of relocation of water from flooding area to drought places. It is easy than relocate millions people in case of disaster.
We need build small power plants for 10,000-100,000 people to use not only electricity, but also heat energy and grow forests around them to use cheapest in the world wood energy from old trees.
We can’t afford support CEO who creates bubbles in economy and follow yesterday solutions.
We need new vision on global warming solutions. Al Gore mistakes bring many businesses to wrong directions. All “Green” sources of energy are disaster for environment.
We need more Inventors for 21-century vision.
If we will implement these ideas we have possibilities to make 100 % of employment for scientists, engineer, workers and farmers