“Would those who are skeptics look at the scientific evidence and understand it all before making sweeping statements of denial. You could do worse than start at the International Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch) for some up-to-date, real information. Please remember that scientists do not warn about climate change for some attention-seeking self-serving gratification. They are reporting what the find out there in the real world.”

Be careful with that last statement. It’s not really the scientists, but the non-scientist like Al Gore and other Big Enviroment groups who take the data from the scientist that may or may not indicate anything concrete, and then spin it to come to the conclusions they want.
But you have to follow the money. If a group of scientist do a study that was funed in part by Exxon Mobile, aren’t they immediately smeared and discredited by the Alarmists despite how solid their credentials might be?
Why would it be any different if the money behind the studies and scientists is either government grant money, or money from Big Green? Their funding runs out about the time they produce results other than what their money suppliers want.
In the case of Big Green, their motives are as skewed as anything Big Oil might be. Money from the government is equially suspicous because no one ever got a grant saying, “I believe this is part of a natural solar and climate cycle, and there is no eminent danger to mankind”.
If they want the money, they have to say, “OMG!! WE are ont he verge of a cataclysm! The seas will rise and the land will burn. Dogs and Cats living together…mass hysteria!”
If you were shelling out some grant money for a study, which seems like it’s more urgent?
Bingo! And so the scientists suspecting catestrophic peril gets all of that government money.
That’s how the grant process works. reserachers put together synopses of studies they are applying for funding for, and then the EPA or whatever beurocratics agency is dolling out our tax dollars reveiw the proposals to see which gets the money.

And of course, Big Green, Big Media, and Big Hollywood pump lots of money into funding studies. But somehow those researchers and scientists aren’t questioned, but good Lord, a study that Big Oil helped fund, and suddenly nothing from that study is legitimate.

Can’t have it both ways…

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10456

I am so happy about that news I live in Vernon British Columbia, which is usually Canada’ s warm spot.. It was only 5 above at 10.30 am with a gusty cold wind. Time for a winter coat.

I posted on another story before, because I did not know about this one

Between 1994 and 2004 the average male BMI in England increased from 26 to 27.3, with the average female BMI rising from 25.8 to 26.9 (about 3 kg – or half a stone – heavier). Humankind – be it Australian, Argentinian, Belgian or Canadian – is getting steadily fatter.
The article itself is written somewhat tongue in cheek but also draws on other data to argue against the case made by the scientists for the starve and solve solution. Not sure that the quote of a population of one billion implies some ideal size…

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/20/more_bmi_foolery/

http://italianopinionist.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/antarctic-peninsula-and-global-warming-which-is-the-truth/

What has caused global cooling?
What has caused the absolute, perfect, stability and invariability of global temperatures since the beginning of time?
What has caused the moon to be made of green cheese?
What has caused Obama to be perfect, infallible, and, indeed, divine?
What caused you to cheat on your last chemistry test?

would probably read a bit better if I had said “approximately 1/70th of 87 octane gasoline.” :) L-A batteries, at 30-40, are 20%-25% of that.

Mark

Also we all know that battery technology is not too effective dispite the years and years of research and dollars expended by the government and private industry.

Lithium-ion batteries are about the highest efficiency available coming in between 80%-90%. The most common battery used in an EV, however, is the lead-acid battery with a mere 70%-75% efficiency that also drops in lower temperatures making them less attractive in places with cold winters).

Assuming somehow that Li-I batteries are all the rage in the future, that knocks the 37%-41% number offered by _jim down to 29.6%-36.9% before transmission line losses (I don’t know the legitimacy of _jim’s numbers though they seem reasonable). Transmission line losses are estimated in the 7.5% neighborhood, dropping the EV to 22.1%-29.4% efficient, or an average of 25.75% efficient before considering their abysmal energy density: it is a stunning 160 Wh/kg, approximately 70 times less than 87 octane gasoline.

Using the most common L-A battery at 70%, and forgetting the reduction due to cold, the final efficiency of most EV cars on the road is only 18.4%-21.2% or an average of 19.8%, not much different than an ICE vehicle. This does not even take into consideration the fact that due to their extremely low energy density, 30-40 Wh/kg, any where from 25% to 50% of the total mass of the car is due to the batteries themselves.

Li-I batteries suffer from extremely short life-cycles, and the other options (Nimh, sodium) suffer from even lower efficiencies than Li-I and L-A, as well as other problems. We have a ways to go before EVs are feasible.

Mark

And at last report, mice unanimously assert cats are a pernicious evil and must be stopped.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/968-Bend-Over-Here-It-Comes-Carbon-Taxes.html
He raises the possibility of a higher carbon tax on beans because you know what they produce……..

“fake web site”

And strangely it is the skeptics that are called conspiracy nuts. LOL.

“Not bright enough” and “I hope name calling will prevent runaway greenhouse”

Me confused.

You accuse others of not reading through your posts and references. From your replies I think its pretty clear this applies to you also.

hotrod (11:36:19) :

All electric cars do is move the source of the pollution to a fixed site, they have very little impact on actual energy usage, and actually increase CO2 production/energy unit used.

Really … I didn’t see a reference in your post, so, maybe I missed it. Sure would like see something, ahhhh, authoratative, based on some science, because, the numbers I’ve seen don’t bear that out.
.
.