They Knew: Smoking Gun Discovered

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech

LFTR reactors, geothermal like iceland uses, solar thermal like SEGS, and windturbines like the Regenadyne
would solve our power issues. Could also use shrouded underwater turbines in the massive currents
offshore such as the Antarctic Circumpolar current ( 125 times the flow off all rivers on earth ).

Of course all this will happen. It is all about cost. Would Americans be willing to pay 5 times or more of their energy bill, 5 times the cost of a car etc for clean energy. The ONLY reason we still use oil as we do is because it is cheaper and better still. The Tesla is a great example of emerging technology that will take over the combustion car. The Tesla S can do 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds, and that is right there with the best super cars on the market. I think they are going to make a Model III for around 35k in 2017. We are getting there. The reality is if you give me the performance, 400 plus miles in range, 1 hour (hopefully less) recharge stations at a competitive or better price the combustion car will go the same direction as the horse did. Make this a truck that can do the same and companies will kill each other to get these with the fuel savings. My point here is we are just now reaching the technology level to do this.

BTW Iceland is a great idea, but their population is 300k with 200k of it in a small area. They also live on 30 active volcanoes so Geothermal Energy is easier/cheaper when molten magma is not too far under your feet. We can do this in the US, but most likely not yet for any efficiently or cost effectiveness. That is why wind turbines are more popular, but once again they have only come on strong in the last decade mostly due to the technology that has made then more efficient and cheaper to build and run.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: rnaa

Food manufacturers are responsible for all the poop in the world!

Prove me wrong!

LOL, but I will take that challenge:

Politicians are also responsible for the poop in the world!

I thought politicians were responsible for all the HOT AIR in the world.

They multi task in these two areas extremely well.

How many products are made from OIL?

originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: rnaa

This is a failure of everyone, not just them.

We all would have revolted if they stopped production and use, then switching to what back then would be cost destructive to every economy.
We all wanted our cars, cheap easily accessable products, affordable energy, etc.
The responsibility is on everyone.

Hi AnteBellum! Unfortunately, you're right. We are voting for the further pollution of the environment every time we turn the ignition key or throw a light switch.

Not only oil and nuclear are environmental disasters, so is coal and deforestation. The carbon sequestration of plants to turn Co2 into wood pulp is being reversed as we cut down the forests and burn them, re releasing the stored carbon back into the atmosphere in slash and burn agriculture. Coal fired power plants are filling the air with soot and Co2.

The natural order of cyclic balance is destroyed by these willful acts on the part of every 'civilized' member of the human race.

Too bad we can't just say, alright everyone stop driving and lighting their homes with electricity. Don't keep food in fridges, run the washer and dryer and shut off the air conditioners and heaters.

God forbid, walking and going to bed at dusk and rising at dawn is too alien for us to even begin to ponder. We have been conditioned to our displaced reality of comfort and impatience.

Now wheres my dog, Im going for a nice walk!

a reply to: hoovercon

Most… From everything plastic to the tar on our roads, to makeup, pharmaceuticals, every conceivable lubricant, pesticide, chemical fertilizer, all by products of oil refining, all pollutants choking us with the effluent runoff of our "civilized" infrastructure.


We are so successful… cough, cough, gasp.

Our whole society is designed so we consume more than at any time in history. Everythign we need to do and go get is miles from home. Food is trucked long distances to reach your supermarket shelf, work is further and from home, friends, venues, resources all the enjoyment we get is a commute with oil burning conveyances.

Planes, trains and automobiles.

And many people shall run to and fro…

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Read more: www.lenntech.com...

1896

We've known for a long time. 119 years... That is because it is quite simple science. The greenhouse effect is real, and is the only reason we are a live today. When man unnaturally increases one of gases that is responsible for the greenhouse effect, its only obvious what will happen. It will increase the greenhouse effect and change our climate in an unnatural way. Radiative Forcing is a fact, not a theory.

There is nothing to argue, and there hasn't been for many years now. The only people arguing at this point are people who have something to lose or gain from doing so.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

You are looking at one aspect. That the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase temperature. That is the greenhouse effect and it works in a greenhouse.

What about the rest of it. The earth is NOT a greenhouse! For instance when temperature increases, water evaporation also increases. When evaporation increases, so does the formation of clouds. Clouds block the sun rays and temperature decreases.

When volcanoes explodes, particulates are discharged into the atmosphere. Particulate block the sun

When the earth gets drier. More dust is created. Again particulates blocks the suns ray.

Climate is far more complicated than simply applying the greenhouse effect.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: rnaa

Global Warming Deniers

Hello association fallacy. Nice to meet you.

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
Then by all means shut down big Oil, but No we get carbon taxes..pfftt.

This whole carbon emission thing is not Man-man folks! We inhale oxygen and exhale mostly CO2, now there more people in the world today then ever before.

So blame us as well for carbon emmissions, as well going by that logic.

It's God's fault for designing life that exhales CO2. We need to stop God since It's obviously evil and wants to kill the creations It designed.

originally posted by: rnaa
The fossil fuel industry knew EXACTLY what the consequences of putting 'all that' CO2 into the atmosphere would be in 1979.

And now that YOU know, you have stopped using fossil fuels; ditched your car, turned off the power at home and thrown out your gas stove, right?

RIGHT?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
You are looking at one aspect. That the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would increase temperature. That is the greenhouse effect and it works in a greenhouse. ... The earth is NOT a greenhouse!

That was the dumbest thing ever posted on ATS.

Yes, the Earth is a greenhouse.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

What about the rest of it. The earth is NOT a greenhouse! For instance when temperature increases, water evaporation also increases. When evaporation increases, so does the formation of clouds. Clouds block the sun rays and temperature decreases.

etc. etc. etc. ...

You are not entirely wrong, but you would be wrong to think that climate scientists don't understand all those mechanisms, have studied them, and have a pretty good understanding of what their effect on the atmosphere is.

Here's a pop-sci article that explains in great detail why all your "natural" causes don't explain what is happening to the climate.

What's Really Warming The World

a reply to: raymundoko

Hello association fallacy. Nice to meet you.

I take it that means you are not a "Global Warming Denier" (else how would it be an 'fallacy') and are somehow offended by a comment I made about "Global Warming Deniers" which you, think I was falsely associating you with with.

What term would you prefer I use to describe a group of people who, unlike you, deny Global Warming science, so that those, like you, who are not Global Warming science deniers won't be offended?

a reply to: DupontDeux

And now that YOU know, you have stopped using fossil fuels; ditched your car, turned off the power at home and thrown out your gas stove, right?

RIGHT?

WRONG!

Sure I've reduced my carbon footprint, I can do more, but I do not advocate just throwing the switch. It is difficult to live off the grid, and I'm too comfortable.

This is not a binary problem. That is the point I have been making in almost every post here. It is a TECHNOLOGICAL and ECONOMIC TRANSITION that is required. Not a cold turkey blast into the stone age. We should have seriously begun the transition at least 35 years ago instead of sitting on our hands.

If the energy companies had started acting on their knowledge in the 70's the economy would not be facing the herculean tasks that you think seem to be required today. Yes it is going to be more expensive to switch to wind power today than it would have been had the research and development that took place in the early 2000 actually taken place in the 1980's.

If the money spent on lobbying and misinformation campaigns had been spent on solving engineering problems in the 1980's we would already be along ways down the track. Continuing the farce just keeps making the task more difficult and more expensive.

Here is a truth that is true today (or a couple of years ago, in fact): Electricity generated by Onshore Wind Power is CHEAPER than Hard Coal or natural gas and equal to soft coal. (source) And that technology has improved to that point almost completely without the trillions of dollars of public subsidies dumped into the fossil fuel industry in order to keep the price down. How about taking those subsidies away from fossil fuels and see how that works on your fuel bills.

There is no ECONOMIC excuse to build another coal fired power plant, ever - and yet the Australian Government in its infinite wisdom, has declared that "There Shall Be No More Wind Turbines In Australia". Why? Because they don't like to look at them from their chauffeured limousines as they drive from Sydney to Canberra - in (ex-)Treasurer Joe Hockey's (now gone fortunately) words "they are ugly" - and that is the ONLY reason they can offer. Doesn't matter that they are cheaper than coal, and are actually much more elegant and beautiful than a coal plant and the mines that support them.

There is no reason to spend billions of dollars on boondoggle technology to create 'green coal' that, if it is anything more than a pipe dream in the first place, will be many times more expensive than wind. How is that for driving up your fuel bills? There is no reason to spend millions of dollars on boondoggle technology that is somehow going to pull the carbon out of the atmosphere and 'sequester' it back underground and that is only going to make your electricity many many times more expensive. Here's a thought: why not leave the carbon in the ground?

And for those arguing against 'alternative energy' on the basis that 'Bio-Fuel' is absurd, you are right is is absurd from every which way you look at it. But Bio-Fuel is just another boondoggle. Farmers like it because it serves to push up the price they can get for their maize or whatever they grow. BigChem likes it cause they can sell more GM seed, pesticide, insecticide, fertilizer, etc, and keep turning over as pests evolve. But it is very expensive to manufacture and takes huge acreage out of food production. So that argument is essentially a straw man argument, 'everyone' agrees with it - but it doesn't have anything to do with the actual discussion.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

That was the dumbest thing ever posted on ATS.

Whoa! Big call there, dude (or dudette, whatever).

Lotta dumb things posted here, but I give you kudos for having an opinion and sticking to it.

Poor you...you don't even understand the fallacy. You get your opinions handed to you by blogs though so I understand your failures.

a reply to: rnaa

a reply to: rnaa

I think you do not understand where the term "Global Warming Denier" came from.

It is a term created by advertising agency at the behest of the Al Gore's of the world. It is intended to bring to mind those people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. But it actually has a more sinister aspect. (Talk about language forming ideas in your mind)

People who deny the Holocaust every happened are subject to criminal prosecution. So it is the one subject where you can go to jail if you express your opinion regardless of whatever evidence you think you may have.

The IPPC is currently lobbying to make questioning of the theory of Global Warming (or is it climate change now) a criminal offence similar to denial of the Holocaust.

Not since Gallileo was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church for daring to propose the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around.......

If the scientists are so sure of their theory...why exactly are they so afraid of having it questioned?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is a term created by advertising agency at the behest of the Al Gore's of the world. It is intended to bring to mind those people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened. But it actually has a more sinister aspect. (Talk about language forming ideas in your mind)

Well that is just silly, but anyway, your answer is unresponsive to the question.

What term would you prefer to accurately describe people who deny the science of Climate Change?

The IPPC is currently lobbying to make questioning of the theory of Global Warming (or is it climate change now) a criminal offence similar to denial of the Holocaust.

No, the IPPC is doing no such thing, and if you thought about it rationally for a moment you would realize just how silly that claim makes you sound.

As for Climate Change versus Global Warming, your 'complaint' over terminology is schoolboy ignorance and a very cheap debating ploy.

They are two sides of the same coin. Global Warming is the direct cause of Climate Change. Talk about one is referring to the other.

a reply to: rnaa

Just silly eh - Try this on for size

A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

It s a discussion of the letter sent by 20 scientists to Obama requesting that RICO laws be used to shut up the "deniers". How about that Shukla - $750,000 for one year's pay. Nice job if you can create it.

Now Exxon has made plenty of profit over the decades but they also created jobs, supported a stable civilization and in general were a mass contributor. They earned their money.

What did Shukla do?????

It was Global Warming right up until the time that even the IPPC had to admit that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was complete bullocks - That is just about 40 years time. Then it became Climate Change.

No one can argue about Climate Change. Of course the Climate is changing. It always does!

Tired of Control Freaks