[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Confused. I asked if we should continue the corn/alcohol biofuel research (after finding out that the emissions are no better) or do we turn from that into another area more promising?

You think using more and more cropland for automobile fuel will produce less expensive or more expensive food?



I've already mentioned the practical need to build more nuclear reactors and I think there is a need for heavy government financial support for developing fusion generators.

This was what you asked:

I supported its research. So far, the research isn't making much of a difference in the emissions.

Do we continue?

Continue what?
Diverting more and more cropland?
Or looking for practical alternatives on a large scale?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Interesting. My Alzheimer's must be kicking in. (or maybe my selective memory)

So sad

[lizard]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

It was the left who so actively demanded biofuels research.

Now it's proven to be no better, and you blame it on the Bush Administration.

Man, that is rich, indeed.

I haven't debated biofuels. I don't recall seeing a thread on that. Got a link?

Anyway, Uhh, who was in charge and...Uhh, who bought a ranch in Paraguay?
BTW, how did he get there, via AF1 and official political business, or by train?
Boat?

[lizard]

Originally Posted by Stoner

.....Or looking for practical alternatives on a large scale?

Just spotted this the other day, seems interesting.
Gas Quickly Produced From Old Wells

A vast new energy supply in hard-to-tap older oil fields may be generated simply by feeding fertilizer to some deep-dwelling, gas-making microbes, new research suggests.

Canadian and English researchers were able to convert oil into usable methane in small glass tubes during two years of lab research, instead of a process that takes tens of thousands of years underground. The next step is to do it in real oil fields.

Don't know how methane measures up against biofuels though.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Sins

Interesting article. Anyone consider whether or not the melt weight would be sufficient to cause a shift in the earth's poles, i.e. The HAB theory?

Hi Sins,

The Earth's magnetic North Pole has been shifting for years, and at some point in the future will flip-flop with the South Pole, i.e. all compasses will point South instead of North. This has nothing to do with ice melt.

-- Tom

[LANMaster]

Global Warming Consensus: An Illusion?


There’s an eye-opening report today at the web site of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.”

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

[lizard]

I spotted this photo of LANMaster in the "Picture Of The Day" thread, posted by LANMaster himself.

Since LAN also regularly posts in this thread, I saw no harm in also reproducing it here for those who are genuinely concerned about Global Warming and are kinda tired of the U.S. based misinformation posted here a regular basis and wonder where LANMaster's incentive comes from....



Impressed, were we?





BTW, I read that 'globalwarmingheartland.org', where LAN gets many of his sources, is also funded by none other than big oil itself, Exxon Mobil....Which is prolly the reason why 'globalwarmingheartland.org' refuse to reveal their funding sources.

Go figure.

Exxon/Exxoff. simple.

LAN's post above this just proves that the U.S. government actively seeks out contrary opinions on the issue.
There are over 3000 expert scientists in the IPCC, from all around the world.
There will always be belly-achers, and those that didn't agree with the final assessment should have resigned, and forfeited their share of the Nobel Prize glory and money.

[lizard]

In 2006, the Heartland Institute received over $115,000.00 from Exxon-Mobil.
This is one of the highest amounts contributed by Exxon-Mobil to any organization.
Download the PDF from Greenpeace Investigations.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by lizard

In 2006, the Heartland Institute received over $115,000.00 from Exxon-Mobil.
This is one of the highest amounts contributed by Exxon-Mobil to any organization.
Download the PDF from Greenpeace Investigations.

That figures .
I have read that Exxon has stopped funding this nonsense , organizations that claim warming is a hoax .
Possibly Lans source has hit hard times ??? >f
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics
Oil giant also in talks to look at curbing greenhouse gases
NEW YORK - Oil major Exxon Mobil Corp. is engaging in industry talks on possible U.S. greenhouse gas emissions regulations and has stopped funding groups skeptical of global warming claims — moves that some say could indicate a change in stance from the long-time foe of limits on heat-trapping gases.

Exxon, along with representatives from about 20 other companies, is participating in talks sponsored by Resources for the Future, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit. The think tank said it expected the talks would generate a report in the fall with recommendations to legislators on how to regulate greenhouse emissions.

"Boudreux said Exxon in 2006 stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit advocating limited government regulation, and other groups that have downplayed the risks of greenhouse emissions."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

[lizard]

Hi Fidelista.

Originally Posted by Fidelista

That figures .
I have read that Exxon has stopped funding this nonsense , organizations that claim warming is a hoax .

Seems like good news.
Exxon has some interesting names on it's list of funding recipients.
But, do you think they'll cut ties to the media and policymakers anytime soon?

Possibly Lans source has hit hard times ??? >f

I think he might deny that.

[lizard]

Committee Report:
White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science

Investigation by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion:
the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

And that's not Al Gore talking, or the IPCC.

Global Warming Snowjob Indeed!

[compushlep]

Originally Posted by lizard

Committee Report:
White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science

Investigation by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
And that's not Al Gore talking, or the IPCC.

Global Warming Snowjob Indeed!

Busted!! And LANMeister is probably on their payroll
(see him crawling up Bush's backside in the pic above in #3217 )





P.S. Merry and Cold and White* X-mas to all



* lots of the white stuff here in BC, enough to export ... PM me for a quote

[CrazyComputerMan]

Originally Posted by compushlep

Busted!! And LANMeister is probably on their payroll
(see him crawling up Bush's backside in the pic above in #3217 )





P.S. Merry and Cold and White* X-mas to all



* lots of the white stuff here in BC, enough to export ... PM me for a quote

Is fog got to do anything with global warming?

[lizard]

Hi compushlep.

Originally Posted by compushlep

Busted!! And LANMeister is probably on their payroll

Busted it is!
Throughout these pages, I've tried to keep to the science of the matter of Global Warming, not the politics. However, with LAN's persistent accusation that my views represent those of left-wing liberal nutcases, I decided to do a bit of political digging myself, to see who the nutcases and con-men really are.

Perhaps LAN would now prefer we stick to the science?

(see him crawling up Bush's backside in the pic above in #3217 )

He was only fixin' to administer a presidential-type wedgie.

P.S. Merry and Cold and White* X-mas to all

Happy Holidays!

* lots of the white stuff here in BC, enough to export ... PM me for a quote

We don't need no BC snow over here.
We had a blizzard a few days back, then it snowed off and on for a couple of days....and then a big melt yesterday....half of it is gone. Today is just really cold and crazy windy.

[lizard]

Hi CCM.

Originally Posted by CrazyComputerMan

Is fog got to do anything with global warming?

Local weather usually doesn't. But the ice cover in the Arctic has reduced significantly and temperatures there have gone up drastically. With reduced ice cover and higher temperatures, there is little doubt that evaporation is occuring at an unprecedented rate.
IMO, this should result in more snow, more rain, and more fog.

But fog in the U.K. is nothing new...isn't it what gives the U.K. ladies their peachy complexions?

Happy Holidays!