5 ms·

The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy".

by 7952 11y ago

graycat 11y ago
> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. Flatly wrong. Exactly wrong. Literally wrong. The article does very much use the word energy. E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, clearly enough, the article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". It's propaganda for the global warming and climate change alarmists, e.g., solar panel and wind turbine salesmen. I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. All I did was just read the article. Apparently there are lot of really sensitive Greenies here all desperately pulling, pushing, pleading for renewable energy and very much against evil fossil fuels because they will overheat the planet, melt all the ice caps, cause the sea levels to rise to flood NYC, cause massive, destructive climate change that will make forests into deserts, all due to evil, greedy, ignorant people stealing from everyone else from ignoring the costs of the commons. Sorry 'bout that. So, in case you are worried or gave even $0.01 of credibility to Al Gore's big movie, I have some very, very good news. No worries, mate. Gore is wrong, 100% totally wrong. All the emphasis on reducing CO2 is silly, wasteful, foolish, uninformed, ill-informed, misinformed, dangerous, just plain wrong, as wacko as some primitive tribe worshiping the moon or the Mayans killing people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky, literally. No joke. Gore is pushing a quasi-religion, taking something really important that people need to do and calling it sin and, then, trying to control it. Read and learn: Here in just a few lines I take the entire, global, IPCC, Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, etc., EPA, NOAA, Obama, carbon footprint movement and totally destroy it. It's, to use a word, "settled". Sure, can strike a match and, thus, warm the planet, but that warming is not significant. For anything significant, for anything reasonable, CO2 and methane have zip, zilch, and zero to do with the climate. Even a factor of 10 times the present concentration of CO2 will do essentially nothing to the climate. Same for CFC's. Same for men not shaving and drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. Yes, CO2 and methane have to be counted as greenhouse gasses, but their effects are just insignificant for earth in the past, the present, and any reasonable future, no matter what the heck is going on on Venus. And, so far human activity has had nothing, nichts, nil, nada to do with the climate. Instead, here is what the heck has been driving climate change so far, back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years and right to the present as in year 2015: More clouds have a cooling effect. The rate of cloud formation varies with the rate of water droplet formation (caused by cosmic rays) which varies with the rate of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere which varies with the amount of solar wind blocking the cosmic rays which varies with the rate of sun spots which varies with the activity level of the sun which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything on earth, not CO2, not methane, not humans, not even Al Gore or the IPCC or the Paris conference or international treaties. Good news unless you are selling solar panels or wind turbines. References: A very nicely done BBC video: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg Besides, as in Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html as far as we can tell, the temperature in 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000 well before any human industrialization. As in the BBC piece, in the last 100 years, temperature has varied with the solar wind and not with CO2. Greenies, I've done you the very best favor -- now you can stop worrying. Why'd you ever take Al Gore seriously anyway? Heck his graph of CO2 and temperature of the past several hundred thousand years from the Vostok ice cores clearly showed that he is a doofus; didn't you notice, the CO2 levels went up about 800 years after the temperature went up. So, clearly the CO2 increases did not cause the temperature increases and, instead, the temperature increases, from whatever source, caused the CO2 increases. Right: More temperature resulted in more biological activity which is a major source of CO2. Also, for a total nail in the coffin of Gore's candidate science, the climate scientists made some temperature predictions which have now, just from careful temperature measurements, been shown to be wildly wrong. In science, when there are wildly wrong predictions, we junk the science. Net the climate science arguing about the effects of CO2 on the climate no longer has even a square nanometer to stand on. That candidate science is done, "settled", stick a fork in it, flush it, f'get about it. Here, for asking a very appropriate question challenging some outrageous propaganda, I've been attacked by angry Greenies and am due sincere, public apologies. Let's keep the paid alarmist, wind/solar salesmen propagandists out of HN. Enough of this Al Gore flim-flam, fraud scam.
graycat 11y ago
> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, tough not to guess: The article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. It it crystal clear that this article is solidly in the center of the community of global warming and climate change alarmists. Okay, let's look at that subject. Surprisingly, we now have some quite good ways to do that. We look in two parts, (1) the predictions of warming and (2) the real science. (1) THE PREDICTIONS So, the claims of human caused global warming claimed to be science and made some predictions. Good: The predictions were for a lot of global warming. At http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg is a comparison of actual temperatures and temperatures predicted from the global warming community. Immediately from the graph, the predictions are way too high. Then, net, according to science, we regard the candidate science as failed, as junk. Really, right there is the end of the global warming science. Done. But, maybe that devastating refutation is too succinct. So, for more, below I include three chunks of evidence, (A) -- (C): (A) A WSJ DISCUSSION AND GRAPH There is a lot of expert overview discussion, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop# http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717... with "Commentary No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. January 27, 2012 Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:" See also the graph there that compares actual temperatures with measured temperatures. (B) THE US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE REPORT There is the report: Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html From that report, if only from just the graph on page 2, as far as we can tell, the temperature in 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000 well before any human industrialization. (C) THE VOSTOK DATA USED BY AL GORE In his movie, Al Gore showed a graph of data from the ice core samples from the Vostok station in the Antarctic. The graph covered several hundred thousand years and showed both temperature and CO2 concentrations rising and falling together. That graph was Gore's main evidence that more CO2 causes global warming. But, just looking at the graph shows that the CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the temperature rose. So, clearly the higher CO2 levels did not cause the higher temperatures. The higher temperatures were caused by something but not CO2 levels. That situation was clear right in Gore's movie for anyone who just looked at it. Net, Gore's evidence was really solid evidence that CO2 did not cause global warming -- just read the graph. SUMMARY OF PART (1) For the science, pictures of arctic sea ice in the summer, polar bears, glaciers falling into the ocean, stories about the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, other anecdotal evidence, etc. are just irrelevant and not at all convincing otherwise. Instead, we need just a simple comparison of real temperatures and predicted ones. Since the predictions of the candidate science were badly wrong, we reject the candidate science. In science, it really is just that simple. (2) THE REAL SCIENCE But we do have some real science that explains temperatures quite accurately back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years. Here in just a few lines I take the entire, global, IPCC, Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, etc., EPA, NOAA, Obama, carbon footprint movement and totally destroy it. It's, to use a word, "settled". Sure, can strike a match and, thus, warm the planet, but that warming is not significant. For anything significant, for anything reasonable, CO2 and methane have nothing to do with the climate. Even a factor of 10 times the present concentration of CO2 will do essentially nothing to the climate. Same for CFC's. Same for men not shaving and drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. Yes, CO2 and methane have to be counted as greenhouse gasses, but their effects are just insignificant for earth in the past, the present, and any reasonable future, no matter what is going on on Venus (has a lot of CO2 and is really hot). And, so far human activity has had nothing to do with the climate. Instead, here is what the heck has been driving climate change so far, back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years and right to the present as in year 2015: More clouds have a cooling effect. The rate of cloud formation varies with the rate of water droplet formation, which varies with the rate of cosmic rays (a significant cause of water droplet formation) hitting the atmosphere which varies with the amount of solar wind blocking the cosmic rays which varies with the rate of sun spots which varies with the activity level of the sun which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything on earth, not CO2, not methane, not humans or human activity. Reference: A very nicely done BBC video: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg As in the BBC piece, in the last 100 years, temperature has varied with the solar wind and not with CO2. Net the climate science arguing about the effects of CO2 on the climate no longer has even a square nanometer to stand on. That candidate science is done, "settled", forget about it. Here, for asking a very appropriate question challenging some outrageous propaganda, I've been attacked and am due sincere, public apologies.

The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy".

by 7952 11y ago

The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy".

> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. Flatly wrong. Exactly wrong. Literally wrong. The article does very much use the word energy. E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, clearly enough, the article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". It's propaganda for the global warming and climate change alarmists, e.g., solar panel and wind turbine salesmen. I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. All I did was just read the article. Apparently there are lot of really sensitive Greenies here all desperately pulling, pushing, pleading for renewable energy and very much against evil fossil fuels because they will overheat the planet, melt all the ice caps, cause the sea levels to rise to flood NYC, cause massive, destructive climate change that will make forests into deserts, all due to evil, greedy, ignorant people stealing from everyone else from ignoring the costs of the commons. Sorry 'bout that. So, in case you are worried or gave even $0.01 of credibility to Al Gore's big movie, I have some very, very good news. No worries, mate. Gore is wrong, 100% totally wrong. All the emphasis on reducing CO2 is silly, wasteful, foolish, uninformed, ill-informed, misinformed, dangerous, just plain wrong, as wacko as some primitive tribe worshiping the moon or the Mayans killing people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky, literally. No joke. Gore is pushing a quasi-religion, taking something really important that people need to do and calling it sin and, then, trying to control it. Read and learn: Here in just a few lines I take the entire, global, IPCC, Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, etc., EPA, NOAA, Obama, carbon footprint movement and totally destroy it. It's, to use a word, "settled". Sure, can strike a match and, thus, warm the planet, but that warming is not significant. For anything significant, for anything reasonable, CO2 and methane have zip, zilch, and zero to do with the climate. Even a factor of 10 times the present concentration of CO2 will do essentially nothing to the climate. Same for CFC's. Same for men not shaving and drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. Yes, CO2 and methane have to be counted as greenhouse gasses, but their effects are just insignificant for earth in the past, the present, and any reasonable future, no matter what the heck is going on on Venus. And, so far human activity has had nothing, nichts, nil, nada to do with the climate. Instead, here is what the heck has been driving climate change so far, back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years and right to the present as in year 2015: More clouds have a cooling effect. The rate of cloud formation varies with the rate of water droplet formation (caused by cosmic rays) which varies with the rate of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere which varies with the amount of solar wind blocking the cosmic rays which varies with the rate of sun spots which varies with the activity level of the sun which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything on earth, not CO2, not methane, not humans, not even Al Gore or the IPCC or the Paris conference or international treaties. Good news unless you are selling solar panels or wind turbines. References: A very nicely done BBC video: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg Besides, as in Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html as far as we can tell, the temperature in 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000 well before any human industrialization. As in the BBC piece, in the last 100 years, temperature has varied with the solar wind and not with CO2. Greenies, I've done you the very best favor -- now you can stop worrying. Why'd you ever take Al Gore seriously anyway? Heck his graph of CO2 and temperature of the past several hundred thousand years from the Vostok ice cores clearly showed that he is a doofus; didn't you notice, the CO2 levels went up about 800 years after the temperature went up. So, clearly the CO2 increases did not cause the temperature increases and, instead, the temperature increases, from whatever source, caused the CO2 increases. Right: More temperature resulted in more biological activity which is a major source of CO2. Also, for a total nail in the coffin of Gore's candidate science, the climate scientists made some temperature predictions which have now, just from careful temperature measurements, been shown to be wildly wrong. In science, when there are wildly wrong predictions, we junk the science. Net the climate science arguing about the effects of CO2 on the climate no longer has even a square nanometer to stand on. That candidate science is done, "settled", stick a fork in it, flush it, f'get about it. Here, for asking a very appropriate question challenging some outrageous propaganda, I've been attacked by angry Greenies and am due sincere, public apologies. Let's keep the paid alarmist, wind/solar salesmen propagandists out of HN. Enough of this Al Gore flim-flam, fraud scam.

graycat 11y ago

> The article uses the word "electricity" not "energy". Wrong. E.g., one of the statements in the article is, and I saw and responded to, was: > The country has recently made headlines by operating 100% on renewable energy for 285 days. So it's the "country", presumably the whole "country", including electricity, cars, trucks, home heating, airplanes, etc. And that statement said "energy" and not just "electricity". Sure, in the article, the pictures I saw were for solar panels and wind turbines. I saw mention of their hydroelectric facility but no picture. So, tough not to guess: The article is propaganda for electric energy via wind and solar and, then, wants to jump to say "energy" for the whole "country". I responded very calmly to the misleading propaganda. It it crystal clear that this article is solidly in the center of the community of global warming and climate change alarmists. Okay, let's look at that subject. Surprisingly, we now have some quite good ways to do that. We look in two parts, (1) the predictions of warming and (2) the real science. (1) THE PREDICTIONS So, the claims of human caused global warming claimed to be science and made some predictions. Good: The predictions were for a lot of global warming. At http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg is a comparison of actual temperatures and temperatures predicted from the global warming community. Immediately from the graph, the predictions are way too high. Then, net, according to science, we regard the candidate science as failed, as junk. Really, right there is the end of the global warming science. Done. But, maybe that devastating refutation is too succinct. So, for more, below I include three chunks of evidence, (A) -- (C): (A) A WSJ DISCUSSION AND GRAPH There is a lot of expert overview discussion, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop# http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717... with "Commentary No Need to Panic About Global Warming There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. January 27, 2012 Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:" See also the graph there that compares actual temperatures with measured temperatures. (B) THE US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE REPORT There is the report: Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, ISBN 0-309-66264-8, 196 pages, National Academies Press, 2006, available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html From that report, if only from just the graph on page 2, as far as we can tell, the temperature in 2006 was exactly the same as in year 1000 well before any human industrialization. (C) THE VOSTOK DATA USED BY AL GORE In his movie, Al Gore showed a graph of data from the ice core samples from the Vostok station in the Antarctic. The graph covered several hundred thousand years and showed both temperature and CO2 concentrations rising and falling together. That graph was Gore's main evidence that more CO2 causes global warming. But, just looking at the graph shows that the CO2 levels rose about 800 years after the temperature rose. So, clearly the higher CO2 levels did not cause the higher temperatures. The higher temperatures were caused by something but not CO2 levels. That situation was clear right in Gore's movie for anyone who just looked at it. Net, Gore's evidence was really solid evidence that CO2 did not cause global warming -- just read the graph. SUMMARY OF PART (1) For the science, pictures of arctic sea ice in the summer, polar bears, glaciers falling into the ocean, stories about the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, other anecdotal evidence, etc. are just irrelevant and not at all convincing otherwise. Instead, we need just a simple comparison of real temperatures and predicted ones. Since the predictions of the candidate science were badly wrong, we reject the candidate science. In science, it really is just that simple. (2) THE REAL SCIENCE But we do have some real science that explains temperatures quite accurately back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years. Here in just a few lines I take the entire, global, IPCC, Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, etc., EPA, NOAA, Obama, carbon footprint movement and totally destroy it. It's, to use a word, "settled". Sure, can strike a match and, thus, warm the planet, but that warming is not significant. For anything significant, for anything reasonable, CO2 and methane have nothing to do with the climate. Even a factor of 10 times the present concentration of CO2 will do essentially nothing to the climate. Same for CFC's. Same for men not shaving and drinking Coke instead of Pepsi. Yes, CO2 and methane have to be counted as greenhouse gasses, but their effects are just insignificant for earth in the past, the present, and any reasonable future, no matter what is going on on Venus (has a lot of CO2 and is really hot). And, so far human activity has had nothing to do with the climate. Instead, here is what the heck has been driving climate change so far, back at least for some hundreds of thousands of years and right to the present as in year 2015: More clouds have a cooling effect. The rate of cloud formation varies with the rate of water droplet formation, which varies with the rate of cosmic rays (a significant cause of water droplet formation) hitting the atmosphere which varies with the amount of solar wind blocking the cosmic rays which varies with the rate of sun spots which varies with the activity level of the sun which has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything on earth, not CO2, not methane, not humans or human activity. Reference: A very nicely done BBC video: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg As in the BBC piece, in the last 100 years, temperature has varied with the solar wind and not with CO2. Net the climate science arguing about the effects of CO2 on the climate no longer has even a square nanometer to stand on. That candidate science is done, "settled", forget about it. Here, for asking a very appropriate question challenging some outrageous propaganda, I've been attacked and am due sincere, public apologies.