FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Posted on 05/23/2008 12:44:44 PM PDT by markomalley
If we had a Reagan as President this news would have gotten out. GW and his cabinet must be asleep or they just don’t give a damn any more. This so called “man made global warming” is the reason the liberals block drilling for oil. This is the reason we are paying $4.00 a gallon for gas. I am very disappointed in the Republican leadership.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Video - back on the net!! (click here)
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Both your signature and list are impressive!
Unlike, for example, the supposed signatures on the IPCC’s propaganda sheets who DID in fact have non-scientific and sociology and psychology and literature and biology degrees, etc.
The one problem we've got with nukes is they are only good for base load. You can't simple dial down a nuke plant when demand drops overnight with cooler temperatures, less business activity, etc. We need peaking capacity, which means oil and gas combustion turbines.
The French get high levels of nuclear power in their mix because they can wheel excess capacity off to their neighbors.
That said, we can easily triple or quadruple our nuclear capacity.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part I: Documentaries.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part II: Lectures.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part III: Debates.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part IV: Short Videos.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part V: Humor.
Best Global Warming Videos On The Internet - Part VI: Updates & Additions.
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
What makes you say nukes are only good for base load? Not saying you are wrong; I just don’t know.
I know nothing of commercial reactors, but I know that naval reactors have no trouble answering all ahead flank from a dead stop and back down again.
The fossil plant I work at now was originally a base unit (five base units actually). Of the three in year long service, they regularly hit 375 MW by day and are scaled back to 75 MW at night.
That is approximately true, but totally misses the point. The AGW scam is not a scientific issue. It is a political issue. And opinion, scientifically meaningless as it is, matters a lot in politics.
When scientists promote the AGW hypothesis, we mostly hear from climatologists. Climatology is a young science, desperate for a big news story to establish its reputation. AGW is ideal for this purpose.
But then you want to talk to that other, much larger cohort of scientists concerned with climate change - geologists. They are universally contemptuous of AGW, precisely because they deal with irregular climate change cycles that have been going on for billions of years, worldwide, long before any human intervention. We never hear about this from the Hollymedia.
The pro global warming group used computer generated models that cannot factor in all the variables in weather and climate. So, that makes it bad science, no matter what kind of degree the scientists have.
I’m looking for someone to debunk the report in the Seattle Times that claims that the green house gases are already causing acid ocean currents off the west coast, 100 years before the Algorisms predicted.
It's so easy, even the FRENCH can do it!
> Doesn’t REALLY matter to me as the science is either sound
> or it is not. The data is either real or it is not.
The data can be manipulated. And it also needs a reference. For any “real” data, you can pick a timeframe that makes the data prove your global warming point.
As a stupid example, for the first six months of this year, the real data shows a warming trend. I predict that the last six months of this year will show a cooling trend.
Remember, it’s not just science, it’s political science.
I could see it. There's been a lot of advances. Do you have any links?
I don’t have time to dig it out right now, but if you look for the thread about McCain wanting to build 700 plants, I think it was there. I may have time to search later on today.
I’d like to take a look...do you have a link?
Why would it “disappoint me” if these 31,000+ scientists are valid?
....and if you look at the list provided in #19, they are not all valid.
This is the same tactic that GW theorists use to boost THEIR numbers and it’s just as disingenuous. MANY of those scientists on the Petition don’t know squat about climatology.
Even “they: give a rationale as to why non-related scientists get to be included.
Maybe I should sign it.....They could boost their PhD numbers by 1 (Immunology of Infectious Diseases), their BS numbers by 1 (Biology), and I even minored in climatology as an undergrad.
If you can’t see that they will take just about anyone with a science degree to boost their numbers....then sorry to disappoint you as it’s just plain ole true. Chemists, physicists, engineers, earth science (love that one), geology, geochemistry, geophysics, forestry, nuclear engineers, mece engineers, aerospsace engineers, chemical engineers, biochemsts, biologists, entomologists, zoologists, animal science (whatever THAT is...sounds like biologist for those too lame to take the tough courses)....medical science....medicine.......all these and more give nothing more than a passing glance at climatology, if at all, to get a degree and do not study climatology in their field.
....so what the frig would THEY know any more than the volunteer researchers and scientists from unrelated fields that “they” boost their numbers with?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.