(V): "Seriously, that was just an avoidance answer."

Look who's talking. Avoid this... who is in control of air/water standards in China? The US, or China?

Iamon lyme: More to the point. Your air quality.... or is it just yours.... Asian pollution is impacting on your West coast, much of that pollution is from manufacturing plants contracted (as the labour is cheaper and regs less bothersome) to make your stuff for you... so, added onto your own home grown crap is stuff from Asia.

There is a nice island of plastic forming in the Pacific ocean.

(V): By the time that pollution reaches the west coast most of it is gone... dissipated in the air and washed from the sky into the pacific ocean. The only "pollution" we've had to deal with lately is debris from last years Japanese tsunami.

I saw something in the news about dust from a Chinese dust storm reaching the west coast... which is pretty remarkable, since dust from our own dust bowl disaster (before I was born) only made it as far as a few miles past the atlantic coastline.

(V): The Chinese pollution problem is easy enough to fix, we'll just send our presently unoccupied occupy wall street protesters over to disrupt operations in China. And I will personally sent a strongly worded letter of protest. That alone should be enough to get results, but we should still send the protesters. The Chinese and the US manufacturers in China will have no choice but to shut down their manufacturing operations... permanently.

(V): "No they are not, you are just using '''liberals''' as a scapegoat for everything that you think is wrong with the USA."


I wasn't talking about "everything". They are responsible for most of the goofy ideas we Americans are treated to on an almost daily basis. I was also talking about the game liberals play when it comes to oil...

They approach it from an environmental angle. This gives them their excuse for limiting oil production and refining. They push for "energy alternatives" for two reasons. They say it's better for the environment. And it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil... which is a crock, because if they hadn't been working so diligently to limit our production of oil, which includes not allowing the Alaskan pipeline to be finished, then dependence on foreign oil wouldn't be an issue. But if oil production has been rising all this time (according to you and the New York times) then apparently liberals have been lying about our dependence on foreign oil.

Whenever the US goes to war in a country that has oil, they automatically assume the reason for that war is to get control of their oil. This is also a crock, and for the same reason liberals push for energy alternatives. They claim it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and then we wouldn't have to invade other countries to get their oil... I think some of them have been smoking weed for so long anything they dream up seems reasonable to them.

Anyway, solar panels and windmills and electric cars aren't enough to replace everything we get from oil. But even if I assume liberals are correct about the US going to war for oil, they can't avoid the obvious... they are the ones who created the conditions that led to those wars. It's fascinating how their reasoning process works... they see themselves as blameless, but even in their fantasies they can't avoid pointing the same finger back at themselves.

The claim that wars are fought over oil is not related to their efforts to limit our oil production, it just happens to be a convenient complaint they are able to tie to our lack of adequate domestic oil... and who can we thank for that?

Iamon lyme: Wrong...

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5615

"As Jaffe explains, the commonly heard phase “air pollution knows no boundaries” takes on a new meaning when we start to understand how pollution is travelling around the globe. The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe.

Typical westerly wind flows across the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere mean air pollution from China is often carried over the Pacific Ocean. If the weather conditions are right, contaminants including mercury, ozone, sulphur and nitrogen oxides, black carbon and desert dust, can reach the west coast of the US within days.

The most visible recent examples were the giant dust storms originating from the Gobi desert in 1998 and 2001, which carried significant levels of pollutants across to the US. At the time, researchers feared this could be the start of an era of Chinese pollution dumping itself on the US. However, a similar large event has not occurred since, although smaller dust storms are still frequent.

Far more common, says Jaffe, have been the ozone events. These are not visible in the same way as giant dust storms, so haven´t garnered the same level of interest, but have proven to be damaging to public health and air quality standards. Levels of ozone detected at the mountaintop research centre have been "creeping up" over the past decade, according to data collected at the site, a result linked to, among factors, rapidly increasing vehicle emissions from Asia."

..........."Ironically, the US could also be contributing to its own mercury pollution too if it pushes through plans to scale up the export of coal to China.

US coal is already being exported to China through Canada. Just south of the west coast port city of Vancouver, the Westshore Coal Terminal ships 22 million tonnes of coal a year, of which 59% goes to China. There are now plans to build dozens of new terminals in the states of Washington and Oregon, on the west coast of the US, and export 150 million tonnes of coal a year to Asia.

"It's a classic jobs versus environment," says Jaffe, who lives in Washington state, which is phasing out its only coal-burning power station. "It's a dumb idea. We ship coal to China, they burn it and we get the pollution back.""

Iamon lyme: No they are not enough... But with other stuff, they can reduce our reliance on it. When you see your countrymen fitting hydrogen converters to their cars, which are powered by water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nld6HzEjM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgUF5M3FTI

(V): If I'm the President, I hire and independent firm to substantiate the claims in the videos and then I put up a few billion in tax money to fun production of these things. (if it's true).

I suspect that hidden in the secrets of science are a vast number of ways to produce clean energy (or cleaner energy) and we ought to be exploring some of these claims on a grand scale.

I also suspect that the big oil lobby is working hard to squelch such and idea.

(V): Iamon lyme: "...fitting hydrogen converters to their cars, which are powered by water."

Clean efficient energy, and the only by product is water. Sounds great, but it takes energy to take the water molecule apart to get the hydrogen so we can then combine it with oxygen to make energy for powering the car. This can get a bit expensive, seeing as how we must first use energy to get something that can make energy.

(V): "The pollutants pumped out into the air never disappear into thin air, as we might like to believe."

I said pollutants dissipate. I did not say they disappear.

(V): I've said this before, the reason we've been able to advance so fast technologically is because private enterprise was allowed to do what it does naturally. Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down. Not only that, but it can also create unforeseen conditions and problems in other areas of society as well.

It's called the law of unintentional consequences, and we've already seen what can happen when we tried to make some beneficial changes in nature. An Island somewhere has too many of one kind of non indigenous animal, an invasive species that may have got there aboard a merchant ship. So we decide to correct the problem by introducing another species that will prey on the one that shouldn't have been there to begin with. But now the predatory species has taken over the Island, and is creating unforeseen problems as bad as or maybe worse than the species we were trying to control. Overreaching governments are notorious at doing the same thing, interjecting themselves into a natural process in an effort to control it.

Artful Dodger: But that would be classed by many in the USA as government interference... wouldn't it!!

"I suspect that hidden in the secrets of science are a vast number of ways to produce clean energy (or cleaner energy) and we ought to be exploring some of these claims on a grand scale."

Grand scale manure batteries supplying cheap energy to remote towns who have lots of cattle near. :P

They do work, but I think the thought of it for some is toooo retro.

Iamon lyme: Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?

"Government interferes in this process in an effort to speed up what would naturally occur anyway, and in effect can (unintentionally) cause technological advancement to slow down."

... yes.... can. Sometimes not though. Concorde was a government run project.

(V): "Like the 12V system used to run the lights, stereo, air con, etc that's attached to the car battery?"

We've learned how to tap into the cars own inertia and convert that back into electricity, but it's not like a perpetual motion machine... inertia can only give back a small part of the energy used to run the car.

I was talking about the power needed to get the fuel for running the car. These cars don't run on water, they run on the hydrogen we get from water. It takes power to separate the hydrogen from water, that's how we get the fuel for powering the car. The cars engine causes hydrogen to bond to oxygen (converting it back into water) which creates enough energy for powering the car. In a worse case scenario you would need to burn coal to power the turbines that make the electricity used to extract the hydrogen from water. Getting the juice from a hydroelectric plant is more environmentally friendly, but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free... people who work for the power companies need to eat too.

My point is we don't need to use energy to create fossil fuels because they already exist. It's less expensive to get that fuel and process it than to create a fuel like hydrogen. In the future, if technology is allowed to progress naturally, I don't doubt we will have sources of energy that make fossil fuels obsolete. But we don't live in the future... not yet. <(:op

Iamon lyme: .... The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!

"but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places.

... you could use a manure powered battery to charge your cars battery.
... Dynamo attached to a bike can charge.
... small windmill (same as used to pump water on farms) could generate power.
... focused reflector system..
... etc.

;P

(V): Well I'd want to find out the truth behind the technology and if it proved true, I'd urge congress to pass some regulations OR I'd have the Regulatory agency pass something AND I'd offer financial incentives for car manufactures to create the technology in their cars. Money talks.

Remember Solyndra.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

This petition calls for Iain Duncan Smith, the current Work and Pensions Secretary, to prove his claim of being able to live on £7.57 a day, or £53 a week.

On Monday's Today Programme David Bennett, a market trader, said that after his housing benefit had been cut, he lives on £53 per week. The next interviewee was Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who was defending the changes. The interviewer then asked him if he could live on this amount. He replied: "If I had to, I would."

This petition calls on Iain Duncan Smith to live on this budget for at least one year. This would help realise the conservative party`s current mantra that "We are all in this together".

This would mean a 97% reduction in his current income, which is £1,581.02 a week or £225 a day after tax* [Source: The Telegraph]

Please join me.

>>>>>> Currently over 427,000 signatures with only 500,000 needed.

Artful Dodger: So would I. If police officials are stating it works......

But... imo, it'd just turn into "lets bring up Al Gore time" :/

(V): Well Al is an idiot.

(V): "but last time I checked you have to pay for that power. No one is going to give it away for free"

[ Some are. New solar powered charging stations for electric cars are popping up in various places. ]

I stand corrected. Solar powered charging stations cost nothing to build or install and maintain. It's all free. And taxes go down instead of up to not pay for those stations.

"The cars carried the water in jars with the necessary electricity coming from the cars own power system to create HHO. No need for a tank to carry the gases.. it's an on demand system.... the videos showed that!!"

When I have time I'll look at those videos and then do a little research of my own. But I suspect having an onboard system for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system. If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply, without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine.

But even if we are only a few years away from a practical self sustaining hydrogen car, how do you propose we keep any of our aircraft in the air using only hydrogen power? Maybe we could convince the entire world to give up air travel. Also, there are products we use every day made from oil that have nothing to do with burning fossil fuels. I suppose we could live without those too. And when global warming finally kicks in, we can give up wearing clothes... we can use parasols for when we're out in the hot scorching sun.

(V): Wow, it's legit! And it's catching on quick. By this summer some HHO water converters will be on the market in someplace called Bear County... I didn't pay attention to the state this is in, so I'll go back to find the video again. They'll sell for about 1,500 hundred dollars, but there are much cheaper ones you can put together on your own. I suspect the homemade ones will be cropping up all over the place.

Artful Dodger: I think he was an idiot well before he became a democrat!! lol

Iamon lyme: Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them? Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point.

"If a car could run only on the hydrogen from it's own water supply, and channel the water by product back into that water supply"

I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device.

"for gathering hydrogen from water is about as effective as extracting a little bit of power from the cars own intertia and feeding that back into the electrical system."

No, the gasses fed to the engine are changed. Our atmosphere is mainly nitrogen and does not burn. HHO being two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen means the gasses are more reactive, hence more power for the same amount of fuel.

"without ever having to fill a hydrogen tank from time to time, then you would essentially have a perpetual motion machine."

No, the water would need topping up and the electrodes will only last so long.

"Wow, it's legit!"

.... Just say I believe you V ;P

(V): "Your saying no private business is willing to entertain financing them?"

Not only just willing, it's already starting to happen.

"Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Who is not free to build what? You can't mean not free to build and market HHO converters, because it's already happening. Some will be on the market this summer. Who can stop them?

"I'm not sure that is possible yet as a street level device."

If you mean running a car on only water, that's already happened as well. Saw a video where someone was able to run a pick up truck with no gas in the tank. It was even able to accelerate going uphill without losing pressure. It used a much larger converter of course, but it fit in the back of the truck with no problem.

"Wow, it's legit!"

[ .... Just say I believe you V ;P ]

I do now... I'm a believer in trust but verify. When I saw water in glass jars my first thought was the cold fusion hoax a few years back... cold fusion supposedly taking place in glass jars.

You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda.

Iamon lyme: "Yes, they are not free to build.. but that was not the point."

Okay, you meant solar powered charging stations are not free. Not only that, but it's doubtful they could pay for themselves and make a profit without tax payer "contributions". That was MY point. Solyndra was given a big government subsidy to get started, but it all ended very quickly with the CEO and top brass giving themselves big retirement packages. How long was Solyndra in business?

Yeah, solar powered charging stations costing someone a pretty dime (if not the people using it) wasn't your point, I got that.

So what WAS your point? That even if an enterprise can't sustain itself in a free market it can still do what it was designed to do?

Iamon lyme: No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work. It's like the difference between Amazon (big tax dodger) and a UK based business who pays their way.

"....It used a much larger converter of course..."

So it looks like a many smaller cell conversion system being fed by a main water tank could work for a standard sized vehicle. ;P

"You do realise the downside to this though, don't you? Now we will be fighting wars for distilled water and baking soda."

Not for the water at least.. it's not hard to do at home. Moonshiner's have been doing it for... well, a long time.

Iamon lyme: But we don't have a 'free' market.

(V): "No... to the cost of manufacture of solar charging points and the installation of them. One bad corporation does not mean they are all bad and can't work."

Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies? I'm not talking about good vs bad companies here, I'm talking about the economic feasibility of a wind/solar power company working soley within the confines of the free enterprise system. Solyndra was going to fail whether they tried to make it work or not, because even with a hefty start up subsidy the company wouldn't be able to sustain their operation for very long. The top brass at Solyndra knew this, so they didn't bother to tough it out until their company failed... they did the only sensible thing, they took the money and ran. It may not have been the honorable thing to do, but when you have a president as naive as Obama this sort of thing is bound to happen.

By the way, if you want to quibble over what 'free' means in the context of free enterprise, I leave it to you to figure that out.

(V): no doubt!

Iamon lyme: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_19/b4177022147138.htm

"..... Since 2002, Germany has doubled its capacity to generate wind power and has 21,000 turbines producing 7.5% of the nation's electricity. That compares with only about 1% in the U.S. The use of wind has lowered wholesale electricity prices in Germany by as much as 5 billion euros some years, says a study by Poeyry, a Helsinki-based consultant. Spanish prices fell at an annualized rate of 26% in the first quarter due to surging wind and hydroelectric production.

Since October 2008, the abundance of wind power has led to periods where German customers were paid rates that sometimes reached 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, or about as much power as used by a small factory or 1,000 homes in 60 minutes.

One solution: Tying power markets together, allowing temporary surpluses in one area to flow toward electricity-poor zones. That's now done between the Netherlands, France, and Belgium; Germany plans to join them on Sept. 7.

Storing electricity may be another fix. In Scandinavia, Danish wind power pumps water into Norwegian and Swedish reservoirs; the water is later released to drive hydroelectric plants. Until there's more integration like that and better transmission grids, expect more Germans to sleep with the lights on... ."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18979330
"The measures should also reduce the impact on household energy bills, it said, saving £5-£6 a year on average. Under the current arrangements £44 of the average household bill would go towards renewables in 2013-14, rising to £50 in 2016-17. Under the new subsidy levels, that will be £6 less in 2013-4, £5 less in 2014-5, but will be £1 higher in 2015-6 and £3 higher in 2016-7.

Energy firms pass on the cost of investing in new cleaner generation to consumers, and MPs on the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee warned earlier this month that cutting subsidies too fast could increase bills. "

Our government is subsidising the energy firms to keep them from passing on the costs to bill payers as, a cut in stock prices is too much for them to handle???

Or...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/20/coalition-u-turn-nuclear-energy-subsidies

".....The government is already facing a crisis over its hopes for a fleet of new reactors to replace ageing generators. This week French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide, to go ahead with its building plans. This followed the shock cancellation by German companies E.ON and RWE npower, partners in the Horizon consortium, of their plans to build new plants at Wylfa, Wales and Oldbury, Gloucestershire.

Ministers apparently plan to argue that the proposed support system is not a direct subsidy and does not favour nuclear but puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy – chiefly renewables, which will also receive a feed-in tariff. A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total. This is not a subsidy for nuclear power."

But the plans are likely to come under severe attack in the European parliament. The Guardian understands that the Greens in Europe are preparing to take legal action against the government, arguing that the plans amount to state aid for nuclear...."

Nuclear is being subsidised by renewable energy... sorry, "low carbon".

My point from the Guardian story. There are no clear figures.

"A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies."

We don't have that. Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors.

Artful Dodger: Such as Iain Duncan Smith are finding out not to be an idiot while being recorded.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

Just over 35,000 more people need to sign it. ;P

(V): haha where do I sign! I'd love to see him put his money where his mouth is!

Artful Dodger: Just follow the instructions.

I like this system. Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

Looking back at some one the 'wins' it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

should have read...

Looking back at some of the 'wins', it's a good way to get some 'weight' behind a petition.

(V): "Even if governments were not involved... we'd still have monopolies, as we do now manipulating the market, bribing suppliers to reject competitors."

You can't stop monopolies from occurring, they will happen. Competitors always manage to overcome a monopolies stranglehold over a particular industry, unless government partners with that monopoly. A powerful business monopolising an inudstry always attracts the attention of a powerful government intent on holding onto its own power... they will either support the monopoly or oppose it.

I suppose in a perfect world there would be no monopolies. In a perfect world I would also win as many games of chess as I lose, but then I could also forget about any ambition about rising to the top. Fantazising over what life would be like in a perfect world has never improved my game.

Iamon lyme: Do they.... Not always I have to say has to be held up as being as true as 'they do'.

(V): "Do they..."

Yes. When automobiles were a new thing did the government need to step in so Ford couldn't monopolise the automotive industry? Competition is what prevents monopolies, or breaks them up when someone provides a better choice... that could mean better quality or lower price or more useful features or a combination of those things. That's not a bad thing for the consumer, it's a good thing.


I asked you "Can you give me an example of a large scale solar or wind power plant that is able to supply power to the general public, and survive without ongoing government subsidies?"

You gave some examples but it's not clear if they are or were subsidized or not. And in case there is any misunderstanding, I'm talking about government subsidies... not investors capital. Investors risk losing their investment. But that's okay with me because it's their money being risked, not the taxpayers.

(V): (V): [[ "French company GDF Suez warned it would need increased financial incentives, including a strengthened price on carbon dioxide...

...puts it on the same footing as other forms of low-carbon energy...

A top official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) told the Guardian: "We have made it very clear that this is about low-carbon energy in total." ]]


There's that word 'carbon' again. That word is key for supporting wind/solar and even nuclear energy. It's too bad so many people are unaware of what carbon in the atmosphere actually does. Al Gore wouldn't have dared trying to bamboozle the public with his scare for profit scheme if the junk science behind global warming wasn't king. When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming.

Iamon lyme: Without going through tons of reports and stats... I can make this general statement.

... Every new power development in the UK is getting help from HM Gov. Nuclear, renewable, etc.. they all are. Plus various universities are through mixed investment looking into developing more tech and improving on what is already known.

"When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.

In memory of Maggie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g9ysArxCdk

Some in the UK are sad she's gone.. others have held street parties.

(V): "When are scientists going to stand up and admit carbon is good for the planet? And 'too much' of it in the atmosphere would actually cause global cooling, not global warming."

[[ ?? are you sure? I know the sulphur gasses given out by volcano's 'reflects' sunlight.]]

If that's true then those sulphur gasses would be reflecting sunlight away from earth, not reflecting the radiant energy back, which I presume is what some scientists are saying CO2 does.

The earth is a very complex system, and comparing water vapor and other gasses in the atmosphere to a greenhouse as the main or only cause of weather change is an oversimplification. And yes, when Ice core samples were taken they concluded carbon dioxide in the atmosphere preceded global warming. Later tests revealed the opposite, higher concentrations of CO2 followed periods of global warming. This makes sense, because during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas.

"...during periods of warming there is more plant activity and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

I should probably explain how this could happen, seeing as how vegetation takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen. Vegetation actually does both... when photosynthesis is happening it takes in CO2 and gives off oxygen, when photosynthesis isn't happening (primarily at night) then it takes in oxygen and gives off CO2. When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out. But an increase of vegetation also means an increase of animal and insect life because of more available food. Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2, so that's how the ballance tips in favor of an increased level of CO2.

"When I first learned this I didn't know how there could be more of the CO2 being made... if it's a back and forth process then production of both should ballance out."

Assuming it does all ballance out and as much oxygen as CO2 enters the atmosphere, then you would still see an increase of CO2. If the ratio of oxygen to CO2 remained the same it wouldn't matter to environmentalists, since all of their focus has been on how much carbon is there.

See how this works? Environmentalists focus all of their attention on one little element and convince us it is an evil byproduct produced by the burning of oil procured by evil oil companies.

I thought I was supposed to be the ignorant religious nut here because I believe in God. So what's up with environmentalists trying to scare people by getting them to believe in the evil oil monster?

Iamon lyme: Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are. For decades they have been fighting against deforestation. The removal of great areas of the likes of the Amazon Rain Forest.. Such is, that toilet paper makers proudly present that they plant new trees.

CO2 is just one of the gases. The real nasty ones will start to 'melt' from perma frost if temps keep rising.

"and more vegetation gives off more of the CO2 gas."

CO2 they absorb during daylight and give off O. At night they absorb O and give off CO2.

Two parts to the photosynthesis equation... apart from sunlight, nitrogen and other bits.

.... never eat vegetation near a radioactive leak, it absorbs the heavy elements easily.

"Animals and insects only take in oxygen and give off CO2"

A certain percentage of oxygen. We don't absorb it all, that's why CPR works. ;P

(V): "Uhhhh no. Just you've been told they are."

Uhhhhh, no. No one needed to tell me. I'd have to be pretty stupid not to notice that it's almost all you ever hear about in the news. Carbon this and carbon that, CO2 here and CO2 there and everywhere, the evil carbon will kill you and your children... be afraid, be very afraid. Bwa ha ha ha ha...

"For decades they have been fighting against deforestation."

And for decades I would hear about that almost every day as well. So, is the fuel used to burn those forests down the problem or is it something else?
(just kidding)


You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2?"

[ Okay Lemon Lime, assuming an abundance of CO2 always follows global warming instead of preceding it, why ARE they still saying CO2 causes global warming? ]

Because it wouldn't look good to change their story now, after years of beating it into our heads about an upcoming global warming crisis.

[ So what? Science is about learning the truth. What could they gain by not telling us the truth? ]

Nothing, but that's the point. It's what they risk losing by telling us the truth that has them worried. All of the time and effort to make us afraid of global warming would go down the drain.

[ Again, so what? ]

So they would have to switch gears and then tell us all about the horrors of global cooling.

[ Why would they do that? ]

To keep the fear factor in place. Remember, it doesn't matter if the earth is warming or cooling, all that matters is to make people afraid of CO2 so they will reject oil and and coal and throw their money into renewable resources. They can't afford to start telling the truth now, because it would cause many of the people who fell for the global warming hoax to begin doubting environmental scientists... environmental scientists like Al Gore for instance. If an environmental scientist like Al Gore was wrong about global warming, then who is to say he can't be wrong again?

[ I don't believe you! Al Gore is NOT an environmental scientist! ]

You got me on that one. By the way, who are you?

[ I'm your alter ego. ]

Impossible! You can't be MY alter ego, because I'm ADs alter ego... well, at least I was for awhile.

[ That's right, you were... but not anymore. Now I am. ]

NoooooOooOOooooOoooo... okay, yes.

(V): I think she was a great leader and stats showed she made some positive differences.

Iamon lyme: More or less than when when you keep on going on about how democrats and liberals are destroying the USA?

Seriously, CO2 is just one of the gasses as I have stated. It is a relatively easy one for us to control the output off by man... that's all.

"You want to know why the global warming chant is still touted as a threat, even though we are more likely to endure global cooling as a result of CO2? No one needed to tell me this either because it's kind of obvious. Care to guess?"

No. Just who is stating it's gonna happen apart from some wrong scientists from the 80's... or about that time who's views were used by the press to sell papers.

Artful Dodger: She was so great her party dumped her, as her popularity within the UK had dropped to a level where she could not be a PM to lead her party through another General election.

She destroyed communities and helped the police cover up the Hillsborough mess. Plus many suspect she knew about Jimmy Saville and how much of a paedophile he was. It's very unlikely that all the rumours about him did not reach her.

... but he was a 'hero' at the time.

"Ding Dong the Witch is dead" got to number two in the charts yesterday!!