Nature pans Gore’s 24 Hours of ‘Climate Reality’

From the Hockey Schtick: The November 2011 edition of Nature Climate Change pans Al Gore’s 24 Hours of ‘Reality’, disputing Gore’s suggestion that global warming is responsible for all extreme weather and noting:

“Gore may have briefly pumped up his disillusioned environmental base, but it’s hard to imagine such a polarizing figure convincing anybody who has honest doubts about the severity of the problem, let alone the diehard skeptics.”

Here’s the article:

And, let’s not forget that Gore and Bill Nye faked the infamous “Climate 101″ video:

Replicating Al Gore’s Climate 101 video experiment shows that his “high school physics” could never work as advertised

About these ads
This entry was posted in Gore-a-thon 2011 and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Nature pans Gore’s 24 Hours of ‘Climate Reality’

  1. The Politburo is experiencing some Perestroika.

  2. To,
    IPCC, UNFCCC, GREEN PEACE, NSF, CARNEGIE Instituion of science and others; looking forward to hearing from all of you!!!!
    Chair person IPPAN, Kathmandu
    Copy to the director ICIMOD, Nepal.
    Dear Dr. Pachauri and Mr. Algore,

    Challenge to IPCC / UNFCCC, SHAME ON YOU
    Solution to CC and Power Crisis

    Please give me either one scientific reason/ theory that justifies CC is due to gases OR STOP ACCUSING GASES for CC. Just accusation is not science. CC by gases is impossible. Man has disturbed the ‘rain cycle’ causing the ‘climate change.’ No gas can be ‘green house gas.’
    I have also explained that applying the property / theory of standing still water column to the running water condition is the blunder being done in the ‘Hydropower Engineering’ and, its correction can give us unlimited hydropower.
    Please visit devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com for solutions to ‘CC and power Crisis.’
    Summary is attached for your convenience.

    Challenger,
    Dr. Dev
    Email: dev.dangol@yahoo.co.uk

    “Already sent to the addressees, green peace and many others throughout the world”

  3. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Preview link:
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n8/full/nclimate1260.html

    Webcast: Rather too much reality

    Jeff Tollefson

    Nature Climate Change 1, 385 (2011) | doi:10.1038/nclimate1260
    Published online 16 October 2011

    $32 for instant access to that? I’d ask “what are they smoking?” but due to their obvious worry about the releases of carbon-containing gaseous combustion products, the more-proper question would be What are they snorting?

    This journal is printed on recycled paper

    Toilet paper, only used once.

  4. David Falkner says:

    They used the words ‘honest doubts’?! That certainly represents a step. Maybe the rhetoric will back down from the ‘you want to destroy the world for corporate profit’ crap? Well, one can only hope.

  5. KnR says:

    Frankly if they think throwing St Gore to the wolves will save them they dead wrong , always be careful of who you make gods for they usual turn out to be nothing but men after-all.

  6. Nick says:

    Gore didn’t suggest that GW is “responsible for all extreme weather”…that was Tollefson’s construct.

  7. edbarbar says:

    I wonder if Jeff Tollefson now regrets his presumed Gore vote for president. Maybe he learned something? I doubt it.

  8. charles nelson says:

    Repositioning.

  9. wayne Job says:

    Useful idiots wear out their welcome if they are seen to be no longer useful.

    Fading into history for Al will be a traumatic experience for the ego, as is the odd no from a woman. Poor Al.

  10. UK Sceptic says:

    Gore didn’t need to convince me. I already knew he was an idiot.

  11. LevelGaze says:

    Nature? Printed this???
    I’m now gazing to the east looking for three wise man.

  12. ZZZ says:

    Political movements that get into trouble always end up blaming the messenger rather than the message.

  13. Anyone who is still skeptical about human industrial-age influence on the earth’s climate is either on big-oil payroll or is unconscious. Wake up! The detrimental effects of CO2 emissions are evidenced globally. The ice is melting, sea-level is rising, and more adverse weather has become commonplace.

    Clearly, natural climate change has been exacerbated by the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power plants (as well as nuclear testing). In addition, we have already entered an extinction phase, and the climate-change deniers ought to put the welfare of their children ahead of the interests of those who put financial profit before the lives of people.

    Business and politics as usual will end the human race. Make no mistake, the writing has been on the wall for decades, and if you can’t see it yet, our children’s generation is well aware of it. Many of them are wondering why we appear to be passing the buck to them. They’ve already learned the science that proves additional water vapor in the atmosphere will continue to create inclement weather that is going to increase to biblical proportions if we don’t effect a rapid shift to clean energy technology while simultaneously implementing climate engineering to undo the damage we have done to our planet’s atmosphere.

    EVEN IF we weren’t experiencing severe climate change, we cannot survive if we continue to pollute the air, water, and soil. Fossil Fuels & Nuclear (Radiation) = Death for Humanity! It is a no brainer!

    Finally, the reality is Al Gore’s Climate Reality played down the reality of the situation that we face. They thought the full truth would be too much for most people to handle. The fact is that anyone who will live another 10 or 20 years will see an increase in the frequency and severity of storms as well as in severe droughts. We’ve already seen it happening in recent years. Massive amounts of precipitation – tropical storms, and severe droughts are all a product of a warming atmosphere.

    Think about your children and grandchildren before parroting a climate-deniers words or allowing yourself to conform to points of view that are out of touch with the facts. The majority of the rest of the World, including the United Nations, already know Climate Reality is the Truth. The United States is way behind even China in taking action to effect the critically needed shift to a sustainable-energy infrastructure. In the U.S., we allow corporations to run our government. Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear put their profits ahead of our lives. It is a harsh reality, and we must face it head on. It’s a not about politics! Nature is unbiased that way. She’ll take all of us out!

  14. petermue says:

    @Gravity Dynamic

    You forgot the /sarc tag at the end.

  15. geronimo says:

    In my working life I always suppressed optimism, because if your wandered into that strange land, optimism, you’d invariably have something rise up and bite you on the bum. Having said that, am I detecting, if not surrender, a level of rapproachement emanating from the warmist camp? Every day a warmist/alarmist scientist seems to pop out of the wordwork with a more cautious statement . The climate scientists at the centre of this farce appear to be, ever so slightly, engaging with the sceptics, and indeed occasionally tossing about sceptical views as though they may, just may, be legitimate. Even Gavin is engaging on climate audit in an unusually humble, if not cordial, fashion about his recent rebuttal of the Klotzbach et al article.

    Of course it could be that as none of the predicitions associated with their hypothesis appear to have come to fruition, indeed the opposite seems to be happening while the CO2 rises inexorably, they are beginning to feel a little “out there in no man’s land”, and trying to cover their tracks.

    Having said that when the full horror of what they’ve tried to do dawns on the politicians and the people, all scientists will pay the price for their hubris, and so they should, with certain honourable exceptions, the scienctific community has supported them blindly, even saying that questioning their prognostications, and noting that the outputs of their models aren’t coming to fruition is an “attack on science” by unspecified right wing pressure groups and big oil.

    The first few to turn state’s evidence might survive the wrath of the politicians, but I believe these oicks have set back climate science and possibly science in general a generation.

  16. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) on November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am:

    Please, feel free to include the link to your Facebook page, where the “About” part says this about your company:

    To help make the world a better and safer place, we will be selling environmentally-compatible energy technology beginning with our U.S. launch in 2012.

    Also says there “Page Owner” is Jeff Jennings.

    Yup, the situation is dire, Al Gore is dramatically understating the problem, the time to act was yesterday.

    But your company will do everything possible to minimize the crisis by profitably selling exactly the sort of products that are desperately needed by a world that would otherwise be hurtling inevitably irreversibly full-speed over the edge of the cliff without your products, right?

  17. Chuck Nolan says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am
    Anyone who is still skeptical about human industrial-age influence on the earth’s climate is either on big-oil payroll or is unconscious.
    ————————————
    So, which is Anthony….Bob T? “big-oil payroll or unconscious.”
    GD, your teachers must have missed the “dust bowl” of the 30′s and the Johnstown flood in 1889.
    I believe both of these were MAJOR disasters with a significant number of lives lost and loads of property damage. Though the dust bowl was long term It took only days to kill over 2200 people and wipe out Johnstown.
    I guess those in control of the weather didn’t get the memo to wait for CO2 to increase to CAGW levels.

  18. Bob Ryan says:

    Gravity Dynamic: what Gore and you fail to realise is the distinction between rhetoric and reason. The first drives language designed to impress, the second drives language designed to persuade. Preaching hell-fire and damnation in the end achieves nothing and given the scientific, political and social issues involved in this debate is quite dysfunctional.

  19. Dire Wolf says:

    Great satire, Gravity Dynamic, LLC

  20. Ken Coffman says:

    Hey GravityDynamic, you forgot the /sarc tag…

  21. EternalOptimist says:

    Ignore them Dynamic, the philistines.

    I’ll take two tin-foil helmets, a biscuit tin with a string chinstrap, and two cabon credit indulgences please

  22. Well, Nature could watch its language

  23. JohnWho says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am
    Anyone who is still skeptical about human industrial-age influence on the earth’s climate is either on big-oil payroll or is unconscious

    Anyone who would make such a statement is either heavily invested in the AGW concept or delusional.

    Wait, that should be “either…or…or both”.

    “we have already entered an extinction phase…”

    “Death for Humanity! It is a no brainer!”

    “Nature is unbiased that way. She’ll take all of us out!”

    Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

    You’re our only hope.

  24. Rick K says:

    Gravity Dynamic, please get help…

  25. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Heh. I found this comment by “Jeff Jennings” at the “Climate Reality Project” site, dated September 2nd:
    http://climaterealityproject.org/2011/09/02/courageous-protests-oppose-a-carbon-polluting-pipeline/

    Let’s hold on a little bit longer. Some new technology is going to be released soon. It will offer the general population an affordable alternative to fossil fuels. I’m talking about gravity-powered electrical generators. In addition, an old patent has been resurrected…to increase gas mileage by up to 10 times the big-oil-imposed low fuel efficiency of modern automobiles and light trucks. The fact of the matter is we don’t need more oil; we will need a lot less. I’ve been working on the gravity solution for almost 19 years. The higher gas mileage modification to vehicles fell into my lap in just the last couple of months, but it is so simple and easy to implement that it blew my mind. It was actually used during World War II, in North Africa, because of the difficulty in getting enough fuel to the tanks on the front lines. We’re gonna make it! It is time to choose life, and to make our Creator proud! My heart goes out to all of you who are taking a stand and choosing LIFE for the human species!!!

    An old patent, whose info just fell in his lap, which will increase gas mileage “up to” 10x the current “big-oil-imposed low fuel efficiency”? And “gravity-powered electrical generators” as well?

    Jeff Jennings, the CAGW prophesiers shall welcome you as a brother-in-arms. You think like them, and are as totally believable as well!

  26. JohnWho says:

    Seriously, in Gravity Dynamics post above, other than,

    “In the U.S., we allow corporations to run our government.”

    did he/she get anything right?

    Even then, is Gravity Dynamics, LLC one of those corporations?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  27. DirkH says:

    Jeff Gravity Dynamic…
    http://tumblr.gravitydynamic.com/post/12552931974/we-are-running-out-of-time-act-now-before-its
    “An alternative to oil, natural gas, coal, & nuclear power: gravity-powered electrical generators for residential and commercial buildings!”

    …ever heard of hydropower? Well, but anyhow, keep us informed how the scam’s going… and how many gullible idiots you find.

  28. corporate message says:

    This just in:

    Gravity Dynamic sinks under it’s own weight of blather.

  29. Max Hugoson says:

    Dear “Gravity Dynamic”.

    Ah, the wonders of the internet:

    “Gravity Dynamic, LLC

    @GravityDynamic Boulder, Colorado

    Sustainable Renewable Alternative Green Clean Energy | Yes: Gravity Solar Wind & Geothermal Power | No: Oil/Gas Coal Nuclear | Get$Out OWS HumanRights NoKXL”

    Now, I know Trolls are usually SMALL. I know they threaten bridge builders. But, aside from spouting inane platitudes and being an “activist” have you ever really done ANYTHING worthwhile in your life?

  30. ImranCan says:

    Last sentence of the article on Climate Reality 24 … “I’m bored, are u ?”

    Sums it up.

  31. Francis X. FArley says:

    The weather is “warm air rising”, nature’s release of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the winds of weather. Man’s release of carbon dioxide is also warm air rising. See convection and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Global warming is the weather, extreme weathef

  32. G. Karst says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am

    Think about your children and grandchildren before parroting a climate-deniers words or allowing yourself to conform to points of view that are out of touch with the facts.

    Since you give no facts… how can we know what we are out of touch with. If climate change is approaching an anthro extinction event… Do you not think it would have been compassionate and humane, to provide us we at least some evidence of Doom. After-all, we want to survive too. Our children and grandchildren want to live, please send us the evidence, that has completely brainwashed convinced you.

    Our children and grandchildren, (like all previous children ever born in history) will have to cope with the world they are born into. My great, great grandfather, did not waste one second despairing over my possible hardships with weather (he had his own tornado, hurricaine, flood, freezing, drought, crop failures, to despair about).

    Thank-you for your concern regarding my offspring. My genetic inheritance, seem to have survived for a million years or so. This probably means a piece of me will be around for a little longer. I am so sorry – you can’t say the same thing, about your genes, that will soon be extinct. Some sperm can swim and some can’t. My sympathies, perhaps the gubmint will help you? GK

  33. jorgekafkazar says:

    I knew as soon as I saw the grandiose LLC name we’d received a visitation from a Gorite with an agenda.

  34. Interstellar Bill says:

    A few AGW-believers are now using the cautious phrase “pause in global warming”.
    Calling the last 13 years a ‘pause’ shows their talent for propagandizing.
    They’re conducting a retreat they earnestly hope is temporary,
    but after 20 more years of ‘pausing’ I wonder what new label they’ll try,
    in Leftism’s fanatic war on truth.
    They’re already so desparate they’re claiming AGW causes more snow!

  35. Dave says:

    Al Gore – Is paned in the more of the warmist gloom and doom publications.

    Al Gore’s underwhelming 24 hours
    10:11 19 September 2011
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/09/al-gores-underwhelming-24-hours.html

    It was cringe-worthy, quite dull, and sadly not very compelling.

    It was an excruciating few minutes while the London moderators tried to keep the audience of about 100 in the small LSE auditorium busy with impromptu stand-up.

    We would hear a telephone ring, they said, and it would be Al.

    So what of the presentation itself? An Inconvenient Truth was heavy on graphs and data. Things that looked, well, scientific. Intelligent. Informed. Its successor consists mainly of a series of aesthetic, dramatic photographs showing catastrophic weather events from the past decade or so. Floods in Autralia earlier this year, in China in 2010, in India, Columbia, South Korea, and the US. Droughts in the UK, droughts in Brazil that led to blazing forest fires, the enormous Russian forest fires of 2010. A visual onslaught of disaster after disaster, complemented by videos of people hauling themselves off their roofs just in time to escape a muddy wave.

    But more to the point: research shows this kind of activism does not work. Telling people what they must think does not work. Offering scientific fact does not work. Presenting climate change as an irrefutable, global scientific consensus does not work.

    People want to hear from those they trust, from their neighbours, from their own role models – not from a former US vice-president with a briefcase full of academic honours and a clear agenda.
    But I’m still left with the overwhelming feeling that Gore’s time is over. As Mike Shanahan of the International Institute for Environment and Development puts it: “climate change needs a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King or a Mandela, and Al Gore is none of those”.

  36. timg56 says:

    To Jeff Jennings (aka Gravity Dynamics),

    Dude, you need to come in out of the sun. (It’s that big nuclear reactor in the sky.)

    Seriously, nuclear power plants cause global warming? Next you will telling us global warming causes earthquakes. No, wait, someone beat you to that one.

    If you have developed a new method to generate electricity, great. What I don’t get is why you have to trash every other method. What is wrong with letting it stand on its own merits? Unless it can’t.

    To everyone else,

    I can’t decide whether to be entertained by Jeff or to despair that anyone can be so f..ing clueless.

  37. Robert says:

    I emailed Bill Nye twice. I liked his show when I was a kid…no response. His site hasn’t been updated since August. He seem to have dropped of the face of the Gaia since the “Reality” debacle.

  38. JohnWho says:

    “Gore may have briefly pumped up his disillusioned environmental base, but it’s hard to imagine such a polarizing figure convincing anybody who has honest doubts about the severity of the problem, let alone the diehard skeptics.”

    Yeah, but the weak-minded are still sucking it up.

  39. DirkH says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am
    “[...]”

    Electricity through gravity? How about rain?

    http://www.physorg.com/news120216714.html

    It ain’t Green Energy if it doesn’t have a really small energy density.

  40. Raymond L. Wagner says:

    In Colorado, LLC = Liability Limited Company – not corporation, and issued by the State. Anyone can form a LLC with a simple form online: http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/FileDocNameAvailCriteria.do?transTyp=ARTORG_LLC
    You can set up your own rules of operation or use the default set.

  41. john says:

    UPC/First Wind operates under the guise of about 80 of them. REPO 105 is used to hide losses and you wouldn’t believe how much DOE money they got…

  42. Marian says:

    “Interstellar Bill says:
    November 9, 2011 at 9:12 am
    A few AGW-believers are now using the cautious phrase “pause in global warming”.
    Calling the last 13 years a ‘pause’ shows their talent for propagandizing.
    They’re conducting a retreat they earnestly hope is temporary”

    The activist type AGW-believers a few further years down the track if the pause continues.Will probably do what many deluded activists do regardless of the cause. Claim they’ve saved the World.

    The AGW lot will be jumping up and down deluding themselves,. Claiming they saved the world from runaway Global Warming!

  43. Kip Hansen says:

    Anthony

    Has anyone (media) picked up the faked Climate 101 story? I haven’t run across it.

    REPLY: Fox new was looking at it, but I hadn’t yet done the climate experiment replication, so no, nobody picked it up. (sigh) -A

  44. petermue: In the future, I’ll remember the tag. Thank you.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel): Our FB page: http://www.facebook.com/GravityDynamicLLC We’re not here to promote our business. We believe that existing solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro power are in a position to supply the energy needs for our world. Standalone gravity power will be a mere footnote when measured against the big players in clean energy.

    Chuck Nolan: There is no shortage of scientific evidence to support global warming/severe climate change. For example, Arctic sea ice continues to melt and shipping companies will increasingly take advantage of open Arctic shipping routes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14670433 No doubt our planet has experienced severe weather prior to the Industrial Age, but it is becoming more severe. We can watch the progress of melting Arctic ice as well as the Antarctic ice sheet via satellite photos. How can we deny the reality of this? Shouldn’t we do everything humanly possible to mitigate adverse human influence on the environment? In addition, wouldn’t it be wise to implement climate engineering to ensure the long term survival of our species on this planet?

    Bob Ryan: Given the reality of the situation, being stuck in a perpetual debate about climate change is what seems dysfunctional. The only entities “winning” by perpetuating the debate are Big Oil/Gas, Coal, and Nuclear power. It is time to take action on a global scale. It will take decades (at best) to reverse the damage caused/being caused by polluting our environment. It has become a Human Rights issue affecting 7 billion people. Why are we debating…? Isn’t it a good idea to do everything possible to have clean air, water, and soil?

    Dire Wolf: Great satire? Perhaps we take no action, and wait until every city is enveloped in a dark toxic cloud, like when flying into LAX.

    Ken Coffman: Duly noted. Corrective action will be implemented beginning w/ this comment.

    EternalOptimist: :)

    Berényi Péter: I was surprised to see that type of language as well as a personal attack being incorporated there.

    JohnWho: I am just one of 7 billion people. No one special. Any effective solution relies on a team effort. However, it is time for each of us to examine contrary points of view and to decide what seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. Supporting only left or only right wing viewpoints will cause us to miss the obvious solutions in the middle.

    Rick K: It’s not about me, Rick. It’s about what is best for 7 billion people.

    kadaka (KD Knoebel): There are even older patents, even back to the 1930′s. Vapor carb technology has been around for a long time. Obviously, any business selling fuel for vehicles has painted such technologies as fallacy; however, it does work. Liquid gasoline does not ignite in an internal combustion engine; the vapor (fumes) are what ignite. By introducing only vapor into the cylinders, there is less waste. Therefore, 100mpg is a realistic outcome. There is a documentary: GasHole. It provides a lot of accurate information. It is proven technology, but is another example of how Big Oil continues to monopolize the market, focused only on financial profit. Human life does not appear to be factored into their business plan.

    JohnWho: Our focus is on helping to save the environment. Placing people before profit is our viewpoint… Maybe Big Oil will see that they can make even more profit by effecting a rapid shift to clean energy. It makes sound business sense since Zero People = Zero Profit. Finally, we’re just a small business. The kind that get run over by the monopolies. Anyway, we prefer to go direct to the People because they can decide what is in their best interest. Manipulating an entire population for financial profit is amoral, in our opinion.

    DirkH: Yes, we like Hydro Power! A gravity-driven energy source. Our technology is standalone gravity power. We don’t need a downhill slope. Also, we’re not looking for gullible customers. In 2012, we’ll put the proof on the table for all to see. We’re not among the countless thousands who try to trick people into sending money for “plans” on how to build your own device. It is totally understandable that the vast majority of people will not believe it until they can see it with their own eyes.

    corporate message: We’re not sinking. On the contrary…we are excelling in a world full of justifiably skeptical people.

    Max Hugoson: Personal attacks are commonplace in this world. After over 19 years of being a target of them, they don’t hurt my feelings anymore. Next year you’ll know how it works, too.

    ImranCan: Bored? I can’t imagine anyone being bored in this world. There is always something new to learn and to experience.

    G. Karst: I prefer to focus on the positives when put in a negative situation. The way out of this mess is to effect a rapid shift to clean energy, build seawater desalination plants to be able to pump massive amounts of fresh water inland for potable and agricultural purposes, and to implement climate engineering to counteract human and natural planetary forces threatening the delicate balance of nature needed to survive as a species.

    jorgekafkazar: Yes, we have an agenda. Everyone does… Our agenda is to help effect a rapid shift to clean energy in order to prevent our civilization from continuing to destroy the quality of our planet’s air, water, and soil.

    john: An except from the article: But, explaining the ad, he said, “I do think it’s important for conservatives to be in the middle of the debate over the environment,” and said his comments in the ad were an endorsement of finding “innovative” ways to get clean energy.

    Interstellar Bill: There has been no pause in the overall warming. It is just that the air temperature is not skyrocketing yet… A lot of the heat is being captured by the oceans, and it is predicted that the air temperature will begin increasing (again) at a alarming rate in ten years, based on data collected from previous global-warming events.

    Dave: Al Gore takes action to inform people of the climate reality. Redirecting people’s focus onto him as an individual is only to divert attention from the reality of nature we all face. I commend his courage and his actions. If each of us followed his example, the world would be a better place.

    timg56: Of course nuclear power plants add heat to the atmosphere. The need to have cooling towers are the obvious proof of that claim. Also, nuclear testing is often not mentioned when discussing global warming, but from what I’ve seen and read, nuclear “bombs” burn several times hotter than our Sun. Also, I’m only trashing energy-producing methods that are harmful to life on our planet. Given a choice between energy production that does not adversely affect the quality of the air, water, and soil; and the types that are life threatening, why would/do we choose the latter?

    Robert: I know Bill Nye by name only. I do know that anyone who speaks out in favor of the environment gets a lot of hate directed at him/her. My comment on this site if proof of that unpleasant aspect of actively caring about Life. Perhaps he doesn’t have the stomach for inevitable attacks on his belief system…but I don’t know what are his reason(s).

    DirkH: Electricity through gravity? How about rain? http://www.physorg.com/news120216714.html
    This is a very cool article! There are so many “green” alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy. I hope that Big Oil/Gas, Coal, and Nuclear see the benefits of moving their energy monopolies to the clean-energy sector.

    Raymond L. Wagner: That’s true. It takes approximately 5 minutes and $50 to set up an LLC here. However, as you know, running a successful business will require a lot more time and a lot more capital expenditure.

    john: I’ve worked for companies that received huge amounts of money from the gov’t. Some of the technology goes mainstream and some sits on a shelf, never to see the light of day. For sure there is a huge amount of money wasted… The point is whether we want to support R&D for things that allow us to survive as a species, or not. Many businesses fail due to poor management and a variety of other reasons, and focusing specifically on clean-energy failures is usually done by those who have an interest in dirty-energy technologies. There is no mystery there.

    Marian: Environmental Activists are people who care about life in general. Why throw darts at someone who advocates for clean air, water, and soil? Why do you put down people who are doing something positive in a world full of so much negativity?

    Finally, if you don’t receive your paycheck in some way from dirty-energy producers, and you are conscious, maybe you’re like many of us who want to believe what our elected officials tell us, or what we see on the news. Of course, you know there is a spin on everything depending on the viewpoint(s) of the owners. Personally, I’m betting my cards on those who spin it in a way favoring clean air, water, and soil. It is better to err on the side of Life than on the side of Death.

  45. Hu McCulloch says:

    Thanks for reminding us about your “climate 101″ post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

    I didn’t realize what a charlatan this Bill Nye is! It’s one thing to dramatize a valid experiment with staged results (obviously you don’t have to balance the thermometers on toy globes and wouldn’t leave the CO2 hose running and the lid ajar during such an experiment), but quite another to make up fictitious results!

  46. RockyRoad says:

    Rick K: It’s not about me, Rick. It’s about what is best for 7 billion people.”

    So what makes you the expert for “7 billion people” is my question? You think some warming and storms gives you the right to determine the destiny of 7 billion people when you rely on scientists that are fed from the grant trough and would be flippin’ burgers if they weren’t?

    Sounds like they’ve got a deep conflict of interest, and I believe you’ve got one too. So rather than position yourself as spokesman for “7 billion people”, why don’t you just represent yourself–I doubt you’ve been elected “world climate rep” because nobody even knows your name and I know there’s no such elected position. Then we can let Mother Nature take its course and see where this all goes, ’cause so far the causation factors touted by the CAGW cabal aren’t looking real strong.

  47. Rosco says:

    I have never been able to link to
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/

    Watts up with that ?

    Am I being prevented by our Government’s interent filter ?? Or just paranoid ?

    Cannot link to this no matter what I try.

    [REPLY: Probably not a government conspiracy. I just clicked on your link and got the page. Try a different browser. If anyone else has suggestions... -REP]

  48. RockyRoad says:

    Dave: Al Gore takes action to inform people of the climate reality. Redirecting people’s focus onto him as an individual is only to divert attention from the reality of nature we all face. I commend his courage and his actions. If each of us followed his example, the world would be a better place.

    That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read on this blog for a long, long time. You’d do yourself a favor to look into Gore’s delusional approach to testifying about the woes our planet faces while he’s got one of the biggest carbon footprints of anybody I know. He’s a liar and a thief, and I’d call him that to his face, but then he’d never admit anything that didn’t fatten his pocketbook. (Talk about a conflict of interest–Gore’s the absolute poster child for one.)

    Do you really think anybody is going to believe you on this that isn’t already drinking deep from the CAGW Kool Aide well? You have a few good points, admittedly, but you’re so far off base on others you’re not even on the same continent.

  49. RockyRoad says:

    Marian: Environmental Activists are people who care about life in general. Why throw darts at someone who advocates for clean air, water, and soil? Why do you put down people who are doing something positive in a world full of so much negativity?

    My investigation into organizaitons that are headed by “Environmental Activists” has found that the vast majority are communists, Fabian socialists, or clueless and are just “useful tools” for other C/FS groups to manipulate. They are known as “watermelons”–green on the outside and red on the inside. They, apparently like you, tout their love of “clean air, water, and soil” as a means of denigrating others while all the time their objective is anything other than what they preach. Beware of these people is what I loudly state. And this may come as a surprise to you, but that vast majority of people on this site love “clean air, water and soil” too. To accuse them of not doing so just because they don’t align with these C/FS groups is being dishonest (Saul Alinsky, anybody?).

  50. Frizzy says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:08 am
    November 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    “Fossil Fuels & Nuclear (Radiation) = Death for Humanity! It is a no brainer!”

    Well that’s the one thing on which I can agree with you. Yes, it’s true, you clearly have to have no brain to believe that FF&N(R)=DfH.

    “Of course nuclear power plants add heat to the atmosphere….”

    And this a problem…..how? Relax. The heat from a nuke plant is more than offset by all the air conditioners that run on their electricity.

    “Given a choice between energy production that does not adversely affect the quality of the air, water, and soil; and the types that are life threatening, why would/do we choose the latter?”

    Uuhhhhh…..because we can’t afford the former? And besides, gravity is life threatening too. It would kill me if my parachute didn’t open.

    “The United States is way behind even China in taking action to effect the critically needed shift to a sustainable-energy infrastructure.”

    I agree. China is building coal plants as fast as they can. Coal will be able to sustain their energy infrastructure for a hundred years. We in the U.S. desperately need to catch up.

    “…we have already entered an extinction phase,”

    Could you share the source of your information that the global population is declining? I hadn’t seen that.

    “Big Oil, Coal, and Nuclear put their profits ahead of our lives.”

    That’s certainly not true, but if it was, and they were raking in the money, may I suggest you buy stock in them and cash in on the bonanza.

    “Perhaps we take no action, and wait until every city is enveloped in a dark toxic cloud, like when flying into LAX.”

    Well you must be a youngster then. Flying into LAX now is nothing compared to flying there in the 70s prior to the Clear Air Act. I’m curious, what would the components of a dark toxic cloud be?

    Oh, and by the way, congratulations on hijacking this thread.

  51. RockyRoad says:

    Finally, if you don’t receive your paycheck in some way from dirty-energy producers, and you are conscious, maybe you’re like many of us who want to believe what our elected officials tell us, or what we see on the news. Of course, you know there is a spin on everything depending on the viewpoint(s) of the owners. Personally, I’m betting my cards on those who spin it in a way favoring clean air, water, and soil. It is better to err on the side of Life than on the side of Death.

    That a pretty sad analogy, because it’s the use of fossil fuels and the higher standard of living obtained from such that has greatly increased our average lifespan and our literacy rate. You’re equating Death with the use of carbon-based fuels is particularly egregious, since CO2 is the substance of life. Nobody here is for wanton disregard of pollution of any kind, but to link Death with CO2 is unconscionable and downright false. It should be against a good conscience to do so. Besides, it shouldn’t be based on who does the better job of spinning (i.e. lying), it should be based on facts and data, which isn’t terribly supportive of the CAGW side and hasn’t been for some time now.

  52. RockyRoad says:

    Robert: I know Bill Nye by name only. I do know that anyone who speaks out in favor of the environment gets a lot of hate directed at him/her. My comment on this site if proof of that unpleasant aspect of actively caring about Life. Perhaps he doesn’t have the stomach for inevitable attacks on his belief system…but I don’t know what are his reason(s).

    The problem with BIll Nye is that his “belief system” isn’t based on a foundation of verifiable facts. He’s known as a loose canon–willing to say just about anything either for attention (because there aren’t too many who agree with his “belief system” and he’s losing converts by the day) or because what he says is false or misleading. If he doesn’t have the stomach for inevitable atackes on his belief system (because so much of what he believes is wrong), maybe he’d best change from a “belief system” to one of real science, because science really doesn’t foster a “belief system”; science is just unadulterated science.

  53. RockyRoad says:

    timg56: Of course nuclear power plants add heat to the atmosphere. The need to have cooling towers are the obvious proof of that claim. Also, nuclear testing is often not mentioned when discussing global warming, but from what I’ve seen and read, nuclear “bombs” burn several times hotter than our Sun. Also, I’m only trashing energy-producing methods that are harmful to life on our planet. Given a choice between energy production that does not adversely affect the quality of the air, water, and soil; and the types that are life threatening, why would/do we choose the latter?

    Have you investigate what windmills do to birds? Wholesale slaughter. Enough said about “types that are life threatening”, for I would not choose windmills anyday. You definitely need to look at the pros and (definitely) the cons of wind power, for you are not an unbiased observer. Besides, practically none of the “Green” technologies can be considered “base load”, so when, for example, arctic highs hang over continents during the winter, there is absolutely no wind for days at a time when the energy from these contraptions is needed the most. And obviously the same goes for solar, unless you want to do irreparable damage mining deposits for the materials needed to make them and the energy-storing facilities they require. Even then, the Sun isn’t very bright or stays long in the wintertime when it’s needed the most.

  54. RockyRoad says:

    Interstellar Bill: There has been no pause in the overall warming. It is just that the air temperature is not skyrocketing yet… A lot of the heat is being captured by the oceans, and it is predicted that the air temperature will begin increasing (again) at a alarming rate in ten years, based on data collected from previous global-warming events. You can believe those two assertions if you want, but the nice thing about visiting this site is we get, let’s just say, another side of the story–there is a definite pause in the overall warming of the globe (which I’m sad to see, by the way), and the oceans are not capturing this heat you keep claiming. There–refuted. Besides, those that are predicting the air temperature will begin increasing at an alarming rate in ten years have grant funding for another 10 until even that bogus claim is uncovered (besides, they base their predictions on models that can’t even hindcast, so you think they’re accurate in forecasting? Nope.)

  55. RockyRoad says:

    jorgekafkazar: Yes, we have an agenda. Everyone does… Our agenda is to help effect a rapid shift to clean energy in order to prevent our civilization from continuing to destroy the quality of our planet’s air, water, and soil.

    Laughable assertion–according to the EPA, our nation’s air, water and soil is in better shape than it was, say, back in 1970. The problem with your approach is that it isn’t an “engineered solution”. By that I mean you don’t care how much it costs and who pays for it. But on top of that, if it isn’t “engineered”, there’s no reliability that what you’re proposing is going to work. As an engineer myself, I look at most of these proposals and just laugh. It isn’t hard to see that many of these “solutions” are by Ivory-Tower people that have had no real world experience.

  56. RockyRoad says:

    G. Karst: I prefer to focus on the positives when put in a negative situation. The way out of this mess is to effect a rapid shift to clean energy, build seawater desalination plants to be able to pump massive amounts of fresh water inland for potable and agricultural purposes, and to implement climate engineering to counteract human and natural planetary forces threatening the delicate balance of nature needed to survive as a species.

    Could you please list a few of your “climate engineering” solutions? Thanks. (I need more material.)

  57. Rosco says:

    Very strange – I cannot link to the page on my Windows machines – I now suspect Kaspersky Internet Security which I set to block all ad links so that is probably the reason.

    Switched to my Mac and had no difficulty.

    Why didn’t/don’t you try using a lower wattage bulb and sealing the lamps over the jar instead of the lid ?

    That way the infrared would be heating the gases directly – would be interesting to see any difference. It probably would be too hot even with a low watt bulb.

    Anyway convection is the main driver of energy transport in an atmosphere and I really cannot understand why these guys devalue the latent heat of water. CO2 just doesn’t have the physical properties to be a climate driver. Water has the properties with its phase changes and even the specific heat is 4 times that of CO2 but insignificant compared to latent heat of evaporation.

    You only have to look at the power of hurricanes to appreciate the energy and power of convective forces combined with water’s ability to transport energy. There is no radiative driven effect that even comes close IMHO.

    The other thing I don’t get is energy must be lost in Earth’s atmosphere/ biosphere and oceans – wind, heating, plant growth, ocean currents etc etc – it can’t just keep bouncing around.

    Or am I wrong and perpetual motion is possible ?

  58. G. Karst says:

    Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) says:
    November 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    …It is better to err on the side of Life than on the side of Death…

    All of your replies suffer mainly from perspective. You are taking slight perturbations and exaggerating their net effects to alarming levels.

    To “err on the side of Life than on the side of Death” is to endorse higher, enhanced CO2 levels and additional GW. All indications are that biomass has responded thru increase. This is why we are able to feed 7 billion.

    In the real world, to take action before identifying cause and understanding the dynamics (aka panic), will cause death. Food crop acreage diversion into fuel crops is a good example. To leap out of the way of a tricycle into the path of a tractor trailer, will get you dead. If you are going to serve up the precautionary principle, at least do it in the real physical universe.

    The climate signal over the last 10,000 years indicates absolutely nothing unusual happening to weather or climate. Where is the crisis, in climate, requiring drastic EMERGENCY actions, endangering lives?

    My conclusion is: You are animated by ideological motivations not scientific principles. As all such people – the end justifies the means, and you will sacrifice billions of lives and dollars, in order to achieve some personal utopian society. Chanting much heard dogma confirms it. GK

  59. barry says:

    Nature pans Gore? What happened to the conspiracy? Does this mean pal-review is over at Nature, or are there nuances I need to think about?

  60. Gail Combs says:

    barry says:
    November 9, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    Nature pans Gore? What happened to the conspiracy? Does this mean pal-review is over at Nature, or are there nuances I need to think about?
    __________________________

    It means Al Gore has become an embarrassment and not an asset.

  61. James Griffin says:

    CAGW failed the test in 2002 when the Aqua satellite failed to find hot spots in the Troposphere and there has been no warming since, slowly but surely we are cooling and the reason for this is the change in the sun cycle in 2007.
    The solar physicists are predicting a substantially colder climate by the middle of the century and it could go as far a a Maunder Minimum.
    The sun may be giving us less solar irradience but its affect on us is still very strong and the stresses and strains the earth’s crust is currently experiencing is an underlying factor in the increase in earth quakes.
    The self righteous panic on CAGW from some of the contributors above is a testament to their belief in Al Gore and the kind of nonsense peddled in newspapers like the UK’s Gaurdian and The Independent….and of course the BBC.
    They can’t quite get their minds around the fact that they have been led astray.
    With food production at 94% of where it should be and an ever increasing population we face a humanitarian disaster as and when the real cooling starts.

  62. Dev Bahadur Dongol says:
    November 9, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Your scheme of gaining “unlimited hydropower” by installing turbines in tandem will work as well as gaining unlimited electric power by hooking up all light bulbs in your house in series.

  63. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Gravity Dynamic, LLC (@GravityDynamic) on November 9, 2011 at 4:58 pm:

    There is a documentary: GasHole. It provides a lot of accurate information.

    GasHole was released in 2010 after winning an award in 2009, went to DVD, can now be viewed for free online. With an estimated budget of $495,000, I wonder who paid for the production, especially given that it seems unlikely to me they’ll make it up from sales. Since I’m on dial-up, I’m going by the write-up at HuffPo.

    BTW, there’s a glaring flaw in the following that indicates HuffPo could use better editing.

    For [writer, producer, co-director] Roberts, the questions started when he read a letter in a Northern Californian town newspaper. It was written by Ken Kunde, who claimed to have witnessed a water-injected carburetor that gave drivers 100 miles per gallon. On screen, Kunde relates the tale of a man who developed the concept and sold the Kunde becomes an onscreen presence relating a tale of the man who developed the concept and sold the patent to Shell Oil, making him a millionaire. However, the sale came with a condition. He could use the one that he had invented for his own use, but he could not produce any others.

    Water injection has been tried for many decades to improve efficiency and performance. One benefit previously cited was cooler combustion chamber temperatures. But as basic thermodynamics goes, hotter engines are more efficient. Increased cylinder lubrication is mentioned, however the problem is valve rings and other engine seals are not perfect and do leak, that’s why there are crankcase ventilation systems, to release the build-up of escaped combustion gases. More water vapor in the combustion chamber yields more water in the oil, yielding premature engine death.

    This information sent Roberts and Wagener on a three-year exploration of other technologies that were also suppressed under suspect circumstances. Prominent among them was Tom Ogle and his fuel-system invention, the “vapor engine,” where two gallons of gas yielded 200 miles per gallon. Ogle died mysteriously, and his “Oglemobile” disappeared. But the question remained, why would oil companies want to suppress these innovations?

    That part matches what you say:

    Vapor carb technology has been around for a long time. Obviously, any business selling fuel for vehicles has painted such technologies as fallacy; however, it does work. Liquid gasoline does not ignite in an internal combustion engine; the vapor (fumes) are what ignite. By introducing only vapor into the cylinders, there is less waste. Therefore, 100mpg is a realistic outcome.

    I found mention of Ogle’s work here:

    Tom Ogle, an El Paso, Texas auto mechanic did away with the carburetor and fuel pump and replaced them with a secret black box he called a filter. The black box was claimed to deliver huge distances on a teaspoon of fuel.

    The abstract to his patent (4,177,779, filed in 1979) reads, “A fuel economy system for an internal combustion engine which, when installed in a motor vehicle, obviates the need for a conventional carburetor, fuel pump, and gasoline tank. The system operates by using the engine vacuum to draw fuel vapours from a vapour tank through a vapour conduit to a vapour equalizer which is positioned directly over the intake manifold of the engine.”

    As with Charles Nelson Pogue, Tom Ogle has his fans. One of them is Frank L. Reister who posted the following on a blog called PickensPlan on October 4, 2008: “Overnight Tom became a millionaire, and the American people, and the world for that matter, became the big losers. Incidentally, Monica Ogle, Tom’s wife, and their two-year-old daughter became losers as Tom was mysteriously murdered less than six months later.”

    Gasoline vapor is, of course, notoriously difficult to work with, an explosive mixture with oxygen. I wouldn’t be surprised if his “mysterious death” involved his contraption blowing up in his face. Going off of engine vacuum alone would result in an extremely lean fuel:air mix. This can improve efficiency, except it is prone to pre-detonation (knocking). Carburetors, in case you didn’t know, are designed to efficiently change liquid gasoline to vapor, there is no liquid gasoline entering the chambers. To avoid pre-detonation, carburetors are set for a richer mixture than absolutely necessary to achieve smooth running.

    However, despite as you’ve claimed, the greatest efficiency has been achieved by not using carburetors and instead switching to fuel injection, with individual injectors for each cylinder. This allows a precise charge of gasoline, as determined by computerized controls, to be delivered as needed, greatly minimizing waste and improving efficiency over carburetors.

    If GasHole is what you find to be a source of accurate information, I doubt you’ve even reviewed the basic info on internal combustion engines found in a Chiltons repair manual.

    Besides, the “Big Oil” claims you and others have made fail a basic logic test. The automakers owe no favors to the oil companies. If they could profitably make an affordable 100-mpg car, even a 50-mpg car that had the amenities and convenience that consumers expect from a fill-and-go gasoline-fueled vehicle, they would do so because the customers would be lining up around the block. The top executives of the automakers have stock and options, they would love to see their company’s stock shoot up on strong sales and make them wealthier. Unless you can show that Big Oil is paying off those executives to compensate them, and paying off many many others who’ve been doing legitimate research for many decades on improving fuel efficiency, those claims against “Big Oil” are unsustainable.

  64. Dave Worley says:

    Gravit Dynamic,
    Prove it. Show us the patent that is controlled by big oil.
    Patents are public record.

Comments are closed.