<![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics - Environmentalism silliness]]>

<![CDATA[Global Warming Skeptics - Environmentalism silliness]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/ Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:49:24 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[The Green Death]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-548.html Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:31:35 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-548.html
posted at 12:58 am on February 16, 2010 by Doctor Zero

EXCERPT:

Who is the worst killer in the long, ugly history of war and extermination? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Not even close. A single book called Silent Spring killed far more people than all those fiends put together.

Published in 1962, Silent Spring used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (sound familiar?) to push for a worldwide ban on the pesticide known as DDT – which is, to this day, the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes. The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by this book… and these hearings concluded that DDT should not be banned. A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision. Threats to withhold American foreign aid swiftly spread the ban across the world.

LINK]]>
posted at 12:58 am on February 16, 2010 by Doctor Zero

EXCERPT:

Who is the worst killer in the long, ugly history of war and extermination? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Not even close. A single book called Silent Spring killed far more people than all those fiends put together.

Published in 1962, Silent Spring used manipulated data and wildly exaggerated claims (sound familiar?) to push for a worldwide ban on the pesticide known as DDT – which is, to this day, the most effective weapon against malarial mosquitoes. The Environmental Protection Agency held extensive hearings after the uproar produced by this book… and these hearings concluded that DDT should not be banned. A few months after the hearings ended, EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus over-ruled his own agency and banned DDT anyway, in what he later admitted was a “political” decision. Threats to withhold American foreign aid swiftly spread the ban across the world.

LINK]]> <![CDATA[Stimulating Green Jobs For China]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-521.html Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:41:45 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-521.html
Posted 02/11/2010 05:50 PM ET

EXCERPT:

Energy: When even Chuck Schumer is upset with the White House, you know something's amiss. In this case, it's news that efforts to boost wind power with taxpayer stimulus dollars are filling foreign coffers and creating foreign jobs.

According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power. The goal was to further energy independence while creating American jobs. It has done neither.

Of the money spent, according to the report, nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

LINK
====================================================
The stupidity of environmentalism continues.]]>
Posted 02/11/2010 05:50 PM ET

EXCERPT:

Energy: When even Chuck Schumer is upset with the White House, you know something's amiss. In this case, it's news that efforts to boost wind power with taxpayer stimulus dollars are filling foreign coffers and creating foreign jobs.

According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Investment Act has been spent on wind power. The goal was to further energy independence while creating American jobs. It has done neither.

Of the money spent, according to the report, nearly 80% has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.

LINK
====================================================
The stupidity of environmentalism continues.]]> <![CDATA['Green' experiment at City Hall stinks]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-507.html Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:28:41 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-507.html
February 6, 2010

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

EXCERPT:

There's been a stench coming from the second floor of City Hall -- and it has nothing to do with the steady stream of Chicago aldermen convicted on corruption charges.

Waterless urinals installed to promote water conservation in the public men's room outside the City Council chambers have turned into a stinky mess. The odor got so bad that the "green" urinals are now being ripped out and replaced with the old-fashioned kind at a cost City Hall has refused to disclose.

The problem is that Chicago's building code requires commercial buildings to use copper pipes in indoor plumbing. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specifically states that drainpipes for waterless urinals "cannot be made of copper pipe, which corrodes."

LINK

======================================================
Another poorly thought out green idea.]]>
February 6, 2010

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter

EXCERPT:

There's been a stench coming from the second floor of City Hall -- and it has nothing to do with the steady stream of Chicago aldermen convicted on corruption charges.

Waterless urinals installed to promote water conservation in the public men's room outside the City Council chambers have turned into a stinky mess. The odor got so bad that the "green" urinals are now being ripped out and replaced with the old-fashioned kind at a cost City Hall has refused to disclose.

The problem is that Chicago's building code requires commercial buildings to use copper pipes in indoor plumbing. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specifically states that drainpipes for waterless urinals "cannot be made of copper pipe, which corrodes."

LINK

======================================================
Another poorly thought out green idea.]]> <![CDATA[Yet More Outrages of the Corn Ethanol Scam]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-462.html Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:40:19 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-462.html
Posted on Jan. 11, 2010

By Robert Bryce

EXCERPT:

Imagine driving into a service station. At one pump, conventional gasoline costs $3.25. Right next to it stands a pump with ethanol-blended fuel selling for $5.20. And since you are a savvy fuel buyer you are aware of the fact that numerous studies have shown that the fuel costing $5.20 is worse for the environment -- in terms of water quality, water availability, and carbon dioxide emissions -- than the fuel costing $3.25.

Given those factors, which fuel would you purchase?

The answer is pretty obvious. And yet thanks to Congressional mandates and subsidies for corn ethanol, the real cost of the ethanol scam has been hidden from taxpayers for years. But a new report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy has underscored some of the more outrageous aspects of the corn ethanol scam. The report, “Fundamentals of a Sustainable US Biofuels Policy,” should be required reading for federal policymakers, particularly given the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has delayed making a decision regarding the breaking of the “blend wall” a move that could allow gasoline producers to use up to 15% ethanol in their gasoline blends. Current regulations limit the blends to no more than 10% ethanol.

LINK

Maybe a temporary Corn blight attack will stop this stupidity.]]>
Posted on Jan. 11, 2010

By Robert Bryce

EXCERPT:

Imagine driving into a service station. At one pump, conventional gasoline costs $3.25. Right next to it stands a pump with ethanol-blended fuel selling for $5.20. And since you are a savvy fuel buyer you are aware of the fact that numerous studies have shown that the fuel costing $5.20 is worse for the environment -- in terms of water quality, water availability, and carbon dioxide emissions -- than the fuel costing $3.25.

Given those factors, which fuel would you purchase?

The answer is pretty obvious. And yet thanks to Congressional mandates and subsidies for corn ethanol, the real cost of the ethanol scam has been hidden from taxpayers for years. But a new report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy has underscored some of the more outrageous aspects of the corn ethanol scam. The report, “Fundamentals of a Sustainable US Biofuels Policy,” should be required reading for federal policymakers, particularly given the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has delayed making a decision regarding the breaking of the “blend wall” a move that could allow gasoline producers to use up to 15% ethanol in their gasoline blends. Current regulations limit the blends to no more than 10% ethanol.

LINK

Maybe a temporary Corn blight attack will stop this stupidity.]]> <![CDATA[Funding sources for CRU]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-433.html Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:29:13 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-433.html LINK,that I think deserve attention.This should put to rest the alarmist common statement that Skeptics are in pay of "big oil" and similar stupid bullcrap.

Quote:Andrew30 wrote:
At the bottom of this page
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.

It includes:
British Petroleum, 'Oil, LNG'
Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, 'Food to Ethanol'
The United States Department of Energy, 'Nuclear'
Irish Electricity Supply Board. 'LNG, Nuclear'
UK Nirex Ltd. 'Nuclear'
Sultanate of Oman, 'LNG'
Shell Oil, 'Oil, LNG'
Tate and Lyle. 'Food to Ethanol'
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, 'Nuclear'
KFA Germany, 'Nuclear'

You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.

This is all about making Nuclear Power, Liquefied Natural Gas and Food to Ethanol more cost competitive.

They have been paying for the research and getting the results that they have paid for, the results that you accept, and drive you to demand low CO2 products. They have the products you now want so desperately, and they are ready to deliver.

The raw data, the computer models and the methods used by the CRU have not been released, only the results. The CRU does not do science; they are in the anti-CO2 business.

I do not see a difference between this and Merck, their 'researchers' and Vioxx, the government and 'thousands and thousands' of doctors believed them, as did a lot of people.

It is business, it is capitalism.

1/3/2010 2:14:05 AM

I spaced the comments for easier reading

I have seen other examples of AGW believing scientists and institutions who have been funded by "big oil" too.That is why I get excited when ignoramuses use that B.S. on skeptics and think it is neat.

It is not and stupid as hell too.]]> <![CDATA[Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-428.html Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:29:58 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-428.html
April 22, 2009, 4:00 am

EXCERPT:

For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.

Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

LINK
====================================================
A nice list of incredibly wrong statements follows from the should be long discredited ago environmentalists.]]>
April 22, 2009, 4:00 am

EXCERPT:

For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.

Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

LINK
====================================================
A nice list of incredibly wrong statements follows from the should be long discredited ago environmentalists.]]> <![CDATA[Solar Shutdown: Feinstein to Block Energy Projects]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-422.html Thu, 24 Dec 2009 20:08:21 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-422.html
Posted December 22nd, 2009

EXCERPT:

We need to transform to a new, clean energy economy but we can’t build solar panels in the Mojave Desert if California Senator Diane Feinstein has anything to say about it:

"Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region....."

LINK
====================================================
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the link thinks she is wrong for not:

Quote:“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review.”

Oh the irony!

bwahahahahahahahahaha!]]>
Posted December 22nd, 2009

EXCERPT:

We need to transform to a new, clean energy economy but we can’t build solar panels in the Mojave Desert if California Senator Diane Feinstein has anything to say about it:

"Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region....."

LINK
====================================================
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the link thinks she is wrong for not:

Quote:“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review.”

Oh the irony!

bwahahahahahahahahaha!]]> <![CDATA[Bill McKibben: Extravagant Emotional Excess]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-408.html Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:37:40 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-408.html
Dec 15, 2009

EXCERPT:

A few weeks ago I read Bill McKibben's 1989 book, The End of Nature. It's considered the first mainstream book on global warming and is, one presumes, part of the reason McKibben is a revered environmental guru.

I discuss that book in this blog post (see the section appearing in navy-colored text, midway through). What surprised me, as a newcomer to McKibben's work, is how utterly emotional his arguments are. Yes, he cites scientists and their research, but the book is first and foremost a philosophical/spiritual/highly emotive piece of writing. As I observed in my earlier post:

LINK
=====================================================
Wow an emotional wimpy mess.]]>
Dec 15, 2009

EXCERPT:

A few weeks ago I read Bill McKibben's 1989 book, The End of Nature. It's considered the first mainstream book on global warming and is, one presumes, part of the reason McKibben is a revered environmental guru.

I discuss that book in this blog post (see the section appearing in navy-colored text, midway through). What surprised me, as a newcomer to McKibben's work, is how utterly emotional his arguments are. Yes, he cites scientists and their research, but the book is first and foremost a philosophical/spiritual/highly emotive piece of writing. As I observed in my earlier post:

LINK
=====================================================
Wow an emotional wimpy mess.]]> <![CDATA[Coal company cuts 500 jobs, blames environmentalists]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-395.html Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:54:55 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-395.html
By Amanda Carpenter on Dec. 9, 2009 into Hot Button Blog

EXCERPT:

Chalk up another 500 jobs to the list of jobs President Obama will need to create or save.

A Pittsburgh-based coal company, CONSOL Energy, will lay off nearly 500 of its West Virginia workers next year and its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged “nuisance” lawsuits for the job loss.

But CONSOL Energy’s political problems are not unique to the mining industry, which has suffered under the Obama Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. And, agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.

LINK]]>
By Amanda Carpenter on Dec. 9, 2009 into Hot Button Blog

EXCERPT:

Chalk up another 500 jobs to the list of jobs President Obama will need to create or save.

A Pittsburgh-based coal company, CONSOL Energy, will lay off nearly 500 of its West Virginia workers next year and its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged “nuisance” lawsuits for the job loss.

But CONSOL Energy’s political problems are not unique to the mining industry, which has suffered under the Obama Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. And, agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.

LINK]]> <![CDATA[Bird Kills? What Bird Kills?]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-306.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:10:37 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-306.html
By Robert Bryce, Energy Tribune Editor

EXCERPT:

On August 13, ExxonMobil pled guilty in federal court to charges that it killed 85 birds – all of which were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees for the bird kills, which occurred after the animals came in contact with hydrocarbons in uncovered tanks and waste water facilities on company properties located in five western states.

The ExxonMobil prosecution is the latest of hundreds of cases that federal officials have brought against oil and gas companies over the last two decades for violations of the MBTA, a statute on the books since 1918.

Those cases were obviously justified. So, too, was the recent MBTA case against Oregon-based PacifiCorp. On July 10, the electric utility agreed to pay $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by the company’s poorly-designed power lines.

But the ExxonMobil and PacifiCorp prosecutions bring up an obvious question: why aren’t wind power companies being prosecuted for their bird kills? A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, estimated the farm’s turbines were killing 80 golden eagles per year.

LINK
===========================================

The green hypocrisy is very evident here]]>
By Robert Bryce, Energy Tribune Editor

EXCERPT:

On August 13, ExxonMobil pled guilty in federal court to charges that it killed 85 birds – all of which were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees for the bird kills, which occurred after the animals came in contact with hydrocarbons in uncovered tanks and waste water facilities on company properties located in five western states.

The ExxonMobil prosecution is the latest of hundreds of cases that federal officials have brought against oil and gas companies over the last two decades for violations of the MBTA, a statute on the books since 1918.

Those cases were obviously justified. So, too, was the recent MBTA case against Oregon-based PacifiCorp. On July 10, the electric utility agreed to pay $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by the company’s poorly-designed power lines.

But the ExxonMobil and PacifiCorp prosecutions bring up an obvious question: why aren’t wind power companies being prosecuted for their bird kills? A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, California, estimated the farm’s turbines were killing 80 golden eagles per year.

LINK
===========================================

The green hypocrisy is very evident here]]> <![CDATA[The Carbon Footprint Scam]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-305.html Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:47:12 -0600 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-305.html
Saturday, November 21, 2009

By Alan Caruba

EXCERPT:

I never cease to marvel at the environmental alarmists who create one “crisis” after another using wretchedly bad “science” to support their scams. On Tuesday, November 24, the Global Footprint Network is going to “release new data on the Ecological Footprint of 100 nations and humanity as a whole, and the current ledgers are sobering.”

Well, of course, they’re sobering. Everything the Greens announce is sobering because, as you well know, the oceans are rising, the glaciers and polar caps are melting, we’re running out of oil, every animal on Earth is endangered, incandescent light bulbs and global warming will destroy all life on Earth, yada, yada, yada.

“The figures provide a data-driven look at some of the most pressing issues facing humanity, from climate change to equitable distribution of resources.”

Is the “equitable distribution of resources” the same as Barack Obama’s “redistribution of wealth”? Is this shorthand of every liberal’s wet dream, communism? Oh, yeah. Been there, seen it, don’t want any part of it. After giving communism a try for over seventy years, the Soviet Union imploded because it doesn’t work, never has, and never will.

LINK

-----------------------------------------------------------
I marvel at the never ending stupidity of the eco nuts,who continually push low mass power production proposals.]]>
Saturday, November 21, 2009

By Alan Caruba

EXCERPT:

I never cease to marvel at the environmental alarmists who create one “crisis” after another using wretchedly bad “science” to support their scams. On Tuesday, November 24, the Global Footprint Network is going to “release new data on the Ecological Footprint of 100 nations and humanity as a whole, and the current ledgers are sobering.”

Well, of course, they’re sobering. Everything the Greens announce is sobering because, as you well know, the oceans are rising, the glaciers and polar caps are melting, we’re running out of oil, every animal on Earth is endangered, incandescent light bulbs and global warming will destroy all life on Earth, yada, yada, yada.

“The figures provide a data-driven look at some of the most pressing issues facing humanity, from climate change to equitable distribution of resources.”

Is the “equitable distribution of resources” the same as Barack Obama’s “redistribution of wealth”? Is this shorthand of every liberal’s wet dream, communism? Oh, yeah. Been there, seen it, don’t want any part of it. After giving communism a try for over seventy years, the Soviet Union imploded because it doesn’t work, never has, and never will.

LINK

-----------------------------------------------------------
I marvel at the never ending stupidity of the eco nuts,who continually push low mass power production proposals.]]> <![CDATA[Fat Folks Beware (greenies are after you)]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-248.html Mon, 21 Sep 2009 00:56:17 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-248.html Green World Trust.

Fat Folks Beware

I found the concept so ludicrous it preyed on my mind, so I tried some analysis to sort myself out.

The current world population level is claimed to be 6.5 billion. Assuming people to be made mostly of water let's calculate how much mass that is.

In the distant past when I was young and flying hither and yon, airlines used to calculate their passenger load at 12 stone per passenger. This a bit over 76 kg so in difference to our obese population I will use 80 kg as the average mass of every man, woman and child on the planet. Feel free to use your own figure. (pun for free)

Now 1 cubic meter of water is 1,000 kg or 1 ton. Divide 1000 by 80 and we get 12.5 people per ton. Divide 6.5 billion by 12.5 and we get 520 million tons for the body mass of the global population.

Now lets put that figure into some sort of relation to the climate. The oceans evaporate 2 millimeters of water each day and rain it all back to the surface within nine days on average. Doesn't sound much. Lets work it out.

1 millimeter over 1 square meter is 1 litre of water or 1 kg. Therefore 2 millimeters is 2 kg per square meter. There are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer therefore we get 2,000,000 kg or 2,000 ton of water from each square kilometer. The area of the planet covered by water amounts to 361,132,400 square kilometers so 2,000 times that equals 722,264,800,000 tons of water evaporating from the ocean surface each and every day due to normal climate conditions.

Divide the mass of the daily evaporate by the mass of people and we get 1,388.97.

Think about that! 1,388.97 times the mass of all the people on this planet evaporates each day from the sea surface and rains down somewhere else due to normal climate processes and some people claim that because a percentage of the population is over weight this will effect the climate!

Surely the possession such a concept should grant addmittance to a lunatic asylum? A bit like claiming that 0.06% mass of a trace gas in the atmosphere can raise the gobal temperature by any measureable amount.]]> Green World Trust.

Fat Folks Beware

I found the concept so ludicrous it preyed on my mind, so I tried some analysis to sort myself out.

The current world population level is claimed to be 6.5 billion. Assuming people to be made mostly of water let's calculate how much mass that is.

In the distant past when I was young and flying hither and yon, airlines used to calculate their passenger load at 12 stone per passenger. This a bit over 76 kg so in difference to our obese population I will use 80 kg as the average mass of every man, woman and child on the planet. Feel free to use your own figure. (pun for free)

Now 1 cubic meter of water is 1,000 kg or 1 ton. Divide 1000 by 80 and we get 12.5 people per ton. Divide 6.5 billion by 12.5 and we get 520 million tons for the body mass of the global population.

Now lets put that figure into some sort of relation to the climate. The oceans evaporate 2 millimeters of water each day and rain it all back to the surface within nine days on average. Doesn't sound much. Lets work it out.

1 millimeter over 1 square meter is 1 litre of water or 1 kg. Therefore 2 millimeters is 2 kg per square meter. There are 1 million square meters in a square kilometer therefore we get 2,000,000 kg or 2,000 ton of water from each square kilometer. The area of the planet covered by water amounts to 361,132,400 square kilometers so 2,000 times that equals 722,264,800,000 tons of water evaporating from the ocean surface each and every day due to normal climate conditions.

Divide the mass of the daily evaporate by the mass of people and we get 1,388.97.

Think about that! 1,388.97 times the mass of all the people on this planet evaporates each day from the sea surface and rains down somewhere else due to normal climate processes and some people claim that because a percentage of the population is over weight this will effect the climate!

Surely the possession such a concept should grant addmittance to a lunatic asylum? A bit like claiming that 0.06% mass of a trace gas in the atmosphere can raise the gobal temperature by any measureable amount.]]> <![CDATA[Hosted by Google Back to Google News World celebrities sing to stop global warmi]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-241.html Mon, 14 Sep 2009 19:56:27 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-241.html
9-14-2009

EXCERPT:

GENEVA British rock group Duran Duran and heavy metal band Scorpions are among 55 world celebrities who have joined in recording a song to draw attention to the global warming crisis, organisers said on Monday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...PGzJwKMM6g
===========================================================

"If we do not stop the (greenhouse gas) emissions today, global warming will be still be with us in 40 to 50 years,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!]]>
9-14-2009

EXCERPT:

GENEVA British rock group Duran Duran and heavy metal band Scorpions are among 55 world celebrities who have joined in recording a song to draw attention to the global warming crisis, organisers said on Monday.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...PGzJwKMM6g
===========================================================

"If we do not stop the (greenhouse gas) emissions today, global warming will be still be with us in 40 to 50 years,"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!]]> <![CDATA[Bill Gates involved in weather control plan]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-202.html Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:33:19 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-202.html Bill Gates involved in weather control plan

From the article:

Quote:Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earths most fearsome forces: the hurricane.

An application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Jan. 3, 2008, lists Gates and 12 others as the inventors of a number of methods to control and prevent hurricanes

All righty then -

if he can control hurricanes, maybe we should all be nicer to him. Espcially those of us on the East Coast of the US.

:o]]> Bill Gates involved in weather control plan

From the article:

Quote:Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earths most fearsome forces: the hurricane.

An application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Jan. 3, 2008, lists Gates and 12 others as the inventors of a number of methods to control and prevent hurricanes

All righty then -

if he can control hurricanes, maybe we should all be nicer to him. Espcially those of us on the East Coast of the US.

:o]]> <![CDATA[Polling for fun]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-95.html Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:28:25 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-95.html <![CDATA[Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-64.html Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:08:34 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-64.html
Sunday, July 12, 2009

By Marty Toohey

EXCERPT:

For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.

Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs.

But those are short-term talks.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/ne...hoice.html
=================================================
Gosh and they were surprised?]]>
Sunday, July 12, 2009

By Marty Toohey

EXCERPT:

For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.

Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs.

But those are short-term talks.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/ne...hoice.html
=================================================
Gosh and they were surprised?]]> <![CDATA[Wind power stalls]]> http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-63.html Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:04:25 -0500 http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-63.html
July 12, 2009

Editorial

EXCERPT:

A year ago the Oracle of Oil, T. Boone Pickens, reinvented himself as the Wizard of Wind, launching a $58-million ad campaign to boost alternative energy and vowing to spend $10 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. It was a startling move from a staunch conservative who had made a fortune in the Texas oil fields, raising hopes that both ends of the political spectrum were coming around to the same point of view about weaning the country from its reliance on oil.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-e...9474.story
=====================================================
A loss of $2 billion proves that he was way overboard for wind power]]>
July 12, 2009

Editorial

EXCERPT:

A year ago the Oracle of Oil, T. Boone Pickens, reinvented himself as the Wizard of Wind, launching a $58-million ad campaign to boost alternative energy and vowing to spend $10 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. It was a startling move from a staunch conservative who had made a fortune in the Texas oil fields, raising hopes that both ends of the political spectrum were coming around to the same point of view about weaning the country from its reliance on oil.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-e...9474.story
=====================================================
A loss of $2 billion proves that he was way overboard for wind power]]>