US News
By M&C US News Dec 28, 2007, 18:36 GMT
French physicist calls Al Gore a 'crook' over global warming issues
And Also
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
- 2. It's official: Tiger Woods' injuries were slight (3rd Lead)
- 3. Tiger Woods treated after car accident (2nd Lead)
- 4. Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident (1st Lead)
- 5. REPORT: Tiger Woods seriously injured in car accident
Older Talkback
Let me go get my tinfoil hat and prepare my bunker. Need to protect myself from those crazy liberals and all those stupid scientists...
And guess what? All the duffers commenting here aren't really going to have to worry about global warming one way or the other.......!
Gee, this article has been supplanted in the 'most popular list', by two stories that are months old. Gee! I wonder why that happened? Life is just full of mysteries, isn't it?
Here is an interesting tidbit:
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/the_honest_broker/000932 david_whitehouse_on_.html
Oh, and here is another!
www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/happy_end_of_global_warming.html
And another!
www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html
Who can tell me how a greenhouse REALLY works? If you can tell me how a greenhouse REALLY works, not what they told you in the eighth grade, then you will know why this stupid 'Greenhouse gas' model is complete rubbish!
I don't worry about Global warming NOW, let alone in 100 years!
China's not worried
India's not wooried
Russia's not worried
Africa is DEFINITEY not worried
S. America's not worried
So, it seems to me, a lot of the folks with the worst air standards, or far more preesing issues, are not worried either.
Apparently this article does NOT reflect the words of Allegré at all,yet another spin from probably another neocon idiot
Here are Alegré's own words,at least part of the article,in original french,links and translation provided,it does not corresponsd to the interpretation monsters and critics seem to give of it:Mais ce qui me distingue des fanatiques de l'effet de serre, c'est que leurs proclamations consistent à dénoncer le rôle de l'homme sur le climat sans rien faire pour combattre ce danger, si ce n'est organiser des colloques et préparer des protocoles qui restent lettre morte. C'est l'attitude de l'écologie dénonciatrice. Je me situe clairement dans l'écologie réparatrice. Celle qui propose des solutions concrètes pour préserver notre planète. Dans le cas présent, en aménageant le territoire pour la préservation de l'eau et la prévention contre les cyclones, en défendant l'idée des voitures hybrides ou électriques dans les villes et les recherches sur la séquestration du CO2.
Translatedc in English it reads:
But what differentiates me from the fanatics of the greenhouse effect is that their proclamations consist solely in denouncind the influence of man on climate without doing anything to fight this danger ,except organizing conferences and preparing protocols which remain confined to paper only .THis is an attitude of finger pointing ecologism ,I subscribe to healing ecologism,the one proposing concrete solutions to preserve our planet .In the present situation this means the managment of territories for the preservation of water and the prevention against hurricanes,while defending the idea of hybrid cars or electrical cars in cities and the sequestration of CO2
This is part of the article by Alegré which is misinterpreted on this site .In fact he disagrees with parts of the solution to global warming,not denying it's existence or origins .
SO neocons,nice try but no deal
The whole article can be found hgere:www.lexpress.fr/info/quotidien/actu.asp?id=6159
So now what SP4 ?
...except that your hybrid cars emit more greenouse gases than some regular cars. On top of that, what makes them of any value when internal combustion is what enables them? If we do charge them at home, someday, what is the benefit if it is coal fired plants they charge off of?
80% of greenhoue gases, if you believe this new religion, comes from industrial plants, not cars. This being the case a 20% reduction in auto greenhouse gases equates to only 4% reduction in c02 overall, not a very good payoff, and it would require 100% saturation.
This is the core weakness of Tonny's plan: all the ficticous remedies don't really solve the ficticous problem. Like most of the green myth, the goal is not to improve the environment but to dictate a lifesytle of the new church they are creating.
Like the churches of old, instead of sex being a sin, buying gas is now the sin. Al Gore, who can count c02 but cannot seem to count votes in Florida, is the new Pope. Like most clerics, he preaches sustainability while burning zillions of gallons of carbon flying around preaching and being delieverd via SUV.
Now, if we are asked to do real cost analysis, the question comes up as this: Would Nuclear power be more effective than all the alternatives? It is continouosly available, so only one source is needed. It has zero greenhouse emissions and is current technology i.e. no development needed.
Invest to replace every coal fired plant. Cost? A trillion dollars? Fine, what would be the payoff? Huge reductions in emissions. Continuous power. The French have benefitted from this for decades.
But no, the luddite eco-nazi's would rather take another 30 years polluting in the blind hope their alternatives will pan out. What does THAT say about the urgency of all of this?
So, Tonny, like health care and just about everything else, people like us think people like you are, once again, full of crap.
I'm glad people like you are on the way out,goodbye neocon,the world is changing for the better,wellcome america again.
To the ignorants who still gobble the fairy tales spoonfed to you by the automobile lobby and the oil lobby a few scientific observations about how hybrid cars help save fuel.Apart from the consumption figures ,which nobody but SP4 denies,there are a few principoles behind this reduction of consumption,again unknown to SP4 only.When drviving a hybrid car and braking,the brake energy is transformed into electricity,whilst with a conventional internal comnustion engine it is tranformed into heath by the brakes,in other words wsted .THe heavier the car,the more energy transformed into electricity .Unfortunately always a part of that is lost,so don't jump to the conclusion that a heavy hybrid car is as good as a light one .THe second law of thermodynamics simply does not allow it .It isn't called the law of entropy for nothing .
The remaining fact is that fuel figures are better for hybrid cars .As the price of petrol reaches 100 dollars per barrel today and is bound to rize to at least 120 dollars within a few months, and much higher than that in a near future ,it is already clear the balance of economical interest is shifting towards fuel efficient cars .In Europe we already have better figures than the one implemented by the EPA for your cars for the year 2020.As the price of fuel is much more expensive here in Europe it is only normal that the pressure to build all cars less fuel consuming has pushed the car industry over the line .Unfortunately in the USA the lobby of car manufacterers weighs more heavy in the balance than the interest of the american people .So unless Arnie wins his fight against the EPA you all will pay a hefty price at the pump for nothing more than the inability of your automobile industry to address a problem and the benefit of the oil lobby for which a higher consumption means more profit.
It is as simple as that,all the rest is spin from FOX and neocon idiots.
Two things, Tonny. If the 'greens' were serious about carbon dioxide, they would be vociferous advocates of nuclear power and they would be screaming their heads off about water pollution. They are doing neither.
THat is only your own interpretation of it Noharness,there are enough arguments again nuclear power,the raising price of fissile material is one,the facts it will be exhausted in a few decades being another one .Meanwhile renewable energy sources only get cheaper and cheaper,on the contrary.It is only a matter of years before you will come around,at least I know you to look for better arguments than most of your allies,I'll grant you that.
Take a look at the eco-nazi scorecard. They've been slobbering over coal plant emissions for thirty years. They have credits, lawsuits, etc. but none of this has really cleaned up coal.
What it has done is provide government and lawyers a living.
Now, we get the renewable myth. All we have to do is subsidize it, and have a fossil source so it will actually work.
Good, how lucky can we be?
I agree with the French. Gore is a charlatan and a butthole. Like the Germans rightly bans Scientology from their country, Gore should be banned from all 'right' thinking nations and be condemned to staying in the U.S. to smoke his pipe and work on prefecting the Internet, which he invented. I'm suprised that those frauds at the Nobel Company in Sweden didn't give him a false award for that invention of his.
I think there are a lot of things people can do to help the environment, and should. Whether global warming is caused partly by the natural occurance and partly by man - credit should be given to those who actually are trying to better the world - unlike all those who sit on their a**es and criticize and spend countless hours on long, drawn-out rantings!
Sure! Look who they gave the credit to!
Viva la France!
RE:'THat is only your own interpretation of it Noharness,there are enough arguments again nuclear power,the raising price of fissile material is one,the facts it will be exhausted in a few decades being another one.'
I take it you have ruled out the use of breeder reactors, Tonny. That is just as silly as the other arguments against nuclear power.
RE:'Meanwhile renewable energy sources only get cheaper and cheaper,on the contrary.It is only a matter of years before you will come around,at least I know you to look for better arguments than most of your allies,I'll grant you that.'
Don't I just wish. I started looking at the energy issues back in the seventies. If I thought 'renewables' had a ghost's chance in Hades of actually meeting energy demands, with or without stringent conservation measures, I would be preaching sermons about them. Unfortunately, it does not take much of an examination of them to realize that renewables alone will fill the bill. The number are not there, Tonny. All of the renewables are basically forms of solar energy and the recoverable amount of 'renewable' energy does not come in at a rate that will meet the demand.
I should modify my last post a bit. There IS a way to make solar energy work, but the 'greens' are against it even more than they are against nuclear power. We COULD build solar power satellites and transmit the energy that they would generate to rectenna stationed in equatorial waters. From there the energy could be transmitted in the form of hydrogen to the places where it is needed by pipeline. It would be arduous and it would have the advantage of getting a sizeable portion of our population off this little mudball so that THEY could have room to grow and prosper. Alas, the left really and truly hates this idea and come out against it as vociferously as they do nuclear power.
Can somebody explain the logic in SP4 s post ?I find none?He claims it is wrong to fight coal provoked pollution because nobody succeeded to win against the coal lobby,do I get it right ?Is there any sense in his ranting,I find none,I guess nobody does either.As for his vive la France,he seems to know little about public opinion in France,does he even remember why SArkozy came to the USA?
But to Noharness this:I respect your opinion,thought about the breeder reactor as well but still prefer renewable energy .Wind energy is becoming already the cheapest form in the very near future,turbines are quite cheap and can be profitable for a lot of people.In Denmark people are even financing them privately and exploit them on local levels,using and selling the energy.The only real problem is that they appear quite ugly to meas I stated nuclear power is getting too expensive quickly .Consider,as you did the total cost of the life cycle of a reactor ,which is very expensive to recycle,especially the breeder reactor type,the remains are very radioactive ,no solution is safe enough ,this is my personal opinion for the moment ,based on whatever information I found available .Nobody speaks of solar energy as an option to replace fossile fuel,too expensive and not enough turnover .But there too progress is made and on a small scale it can make for a viable solution.Us companies manufacturing solar panels are experiencing record sales at a production cost of 1 dollar per watt with present scientific it is a honorable technique with potential towards the future .Give it a few more years and efficiency will be boosted,let us not forget that 1300 watt reach the earth per square meter from the sun,I don't know how much of it reaches the earth's surface,should be enough to justify further research anyway .
RE:'Give it a few more years and efficiency will be boosted,let us not forget that 1300 watt reach the earth per square meter from the sun,I don't know how much of it reaches the earth's surface,should be enough to justify further research anyway.'
This is nothing but an excuse to allow the politicians and corporations to keep right on sitting on their lazy asses. I've been hearing this since the seventies. Something needs to be done right now, not ten or fifteen years from now. The US is faced with enemies who have a demonstrated will to kill us in our own homes and offices. Every day that we burn coal, is another day that we dump mercury into the air and water--mercury that will NOT go away in the lifetime of anyone living today.
Your Talkback on this Story