Wall Street Journal: In 10 Years, No Sign of Global Warming

[Tater]

States Professor Happer. a Princeton physics professor:

He told Congress in 2009 that the increase in carbon dioxide “will be good for mankind." The same year, he likened those who believe carbon dioxide is causing climate change to Nazis. “This is George Orwell. This is the ‘Germans are the master race. The Jews are the scum of the earth.’ It’s that kind of propaganda,” he said.

“What used to be science has turned into a cult.”

How can you tell the Murdoch news empire from The Onion?

In further news, Fox News reported Romney up by two points over Obama today.

Oh yeah, Princeton, being the conservative bastion that it is, one can understand why this professor is now in cahoots with FNN.

[Tater]

It can. Just run it on ethanol. Your fuel economy will be terrible.

Yep...ethanol, due to the reduction in MPG, actually increases consumption and generates even more CO2.

[wrongway149]

Apparently, AGW has been on vacation for the last 10 years...

Wall Street Journal: In 10 Years, No Sign of Global Warming

World temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years

If true, I say "halleluia" !

It validates the efforts on we environmentalists, and it's time to reinforce our success! But in all likelihood, though, he's waiting to see what the other 2% think.

He's been a denialist forever, Show me a report from an unbiased scientist, or one who has converted from a beleiver to a denialist.

[JimWhite]

Show me a report from...one who has converted from a beleiver to a denialist.

Here's one...

http://co2insanity.com/2011/04/14/gr...arbon-dioxide/

"Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption on the Greenhouse Effect hypothesis.

Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations into the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”"

[Morbii]

Yep...ethanol, due to the reduction in MPG, actually increases consumption and generates even more CO2.

Only if you ignore the production process. I wouldn't expect you to have a clue in hell what you were talking about, though.

[Martin Mayers]

Only if you ignore the production process. I wouldn't expect you to have a clue in hell what you were talking about, though.

Yup...and no sulphur dioxide and/or lead emmisions whatsoever.
And the plants it's made from produce more O2 emmissions in their lifetime than the CO2 which their usage as ethanol produces.
So yes...in summary....as usual...Tater is talking out of his @rse (sorry Tater)

[JimWhite]

An interesting take regarding the loss of forests to make room for more cropland in order to make the ethanol.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...bon-footprint/

[wrongway149]

An interesting take regarding the loss of forests to make room for more cropland in order to make the ethanol.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...bon-footprint/

I think most environmentalists today would agree that corn-based ethanol is not a 'net gain'

Just as most agree (even after the Japanese tsunami) that nuclear power has a place.

I'm trying to convince some that "fracking ' is not the worst thing for the environment (with proper oversight and accountability, of course.)

The last paragraph:

And while it is easy to attack any environmental model -- because by nature, models are based on a series of assumptions, variables, and projections -- something as serious as climate change and creating policy that seeks to mitigate it should not be left to special-interest groups that are allowed to define science according to their own agenda. If science suggests that first-generation biofuels that come from feedstocks like corn, soybeans, palm oil, and rapeseed are found to have a higher per-unit carbon footprint than petroleum, we need to have the courage to be authentic about it and examine whether the billions of dollars of subsidies that we provide to these industries could better be deployed to those advanced biofuels -- such as algae -- that do not need scarce cropland or promote deforestation.

[Tater]

If true, I say "halleluia" !

It validates the efforts on we environmentalists, and it's time to reinforce our success! But in all likelihood, though, he's waiting to see what the other 2% think.

Bwwwahahahaha!!! It validates nothing other than global climate is cyclic and that man made CO2 never did have anything to do with AGW. Unless you believe that enviromentalists were able to stop AGW instantly starting 10 years ago.

He's been a denialist forever, Show me a report from an unbiased scientist, or one who has converted from a beleiver to a denialist.

You first, you show me a report from an unbiased scientist (i.e., one who's financial support is not tied to keeping the AGW scam alive) that proves GW is directly related to human activity.

[Tater]

Yup...and no sulphur dioxide and/or lead emmisions whatsoever.
And the plants it's made from produce more O2 emmissions in their lifetime than the CO2 which their usage as ethanol produces.
So yes...in summary....as usual...Tater is talking out of his @rse (sorry Tater)

The conversion of corn to ethanol is a net loss overall...

1) Since ethanol contains 2/3 of the energy per volume as gasoline, ethanol produces 19% more CO2 than gasoline for the same energy.
2) Current production methods include air pollution from the manufacturer of macronutrient fertilizers such as ammonia. That is REAL pollution, unlike harmless CO2.
3) Tilling new soil to expand crop production produces a one-off release of REAL Green House Gases (GHG). It takes about a century of annual CO2 savings to make up for the GHG released from the initial tilling.
4) Soil depletion/errosion.
5) Consumption of water resources.

This doesn't even include the problems in the third world as food prices and availability are driven up by the redirection of foodcrops to fuel. The only winners with ethanol are the big Agra conglomerates.

So it would appear that I got more brains in my @rse than Martin & Morbid got in their heads...combined (sorry Martin).