Well delly you claim to have read the President's energy plan. Could you refer me to a page and explain your claims about >>>>>One item of interest is the proposal to spend 2 billion on "clean coal research" while cutting funding on renewables.
I do believe you have fabricated some more just as you lied about the mock.
As to the various links at my site the fact that no correlation between CO2 and global warming has been demonstrated would suggest one should not spend billions on a possible non problem. Also I'd guess you are clueless as to the data the show enormous variation in solar output and many time cycles.
so delly you asked >>>>>> n the meantime Tom, can you post some of the factually incorrect information
well your hybrid mock lie and your lie on cutting funding on renewables
you see I have the document and many other available all the time. watman.com Of course this may be a little to big fro you computer to digest. A display of one desk of 40 desks.
And by the way from what you posted..... if you read the stuff the only argument is the delbert mis-interpretation of what was said to suggest there was demonstrated correlation and what was said is that no one knows, it's a guess.
This engineer believes only idiot's follow a path costing billions on an unproven guess. But liar's and idiots are not in short supply. So to me the best hedge is clean power that is 24x7 reliable. nukes nukes and more nukes. If you want conservation then let the free market set the price for energy. Price caps are the prescription for waste.
Bert Bolin: Singer
The occurrence of extreme events requires careful analysis. The problem
with Fred Singer's press release is that he is not as precise as he
should be. There are different types of extreme events. In fact, the
IPCC SAR, which Singer says provides an accurate account of the state of
scientific knowledge, highlights some of these distinctions, see pp.
168-173 of Volume I of the SAR for a discussion of our present
scientific
knowledge about extreme events. Observations show that some extreme
events are becoming more intense(heavy rainfall events in some regions),
some are becoming less intense(cold spells), while others show no
statistically significant changes (hurricanes). These changes are
consistent with the kind of changes that would be associated with a
warmer climate. While it cannot yet be concluded that these changes are
caused by human-induced changes of climate, neither can this association
be excluded. To state that these sorts of changes that 'are consistent'
with the predicted effects of climate change, as Vice President Gore is
quoted to have stated, is a scientifically accurate statement and no
cause for criticism.
The key issue is of course, if a human induced change of climate can be
detected. The global mean temperature has increased by 0.3-0.6 degrees
C, since the late 19th century and about 0.3 degrees over the last 40
years. Is part of this change due to our emissions of greenhouse gases
to the atmosphere? Climate varies naturally and the issue is if we can
detect a human-induced change of climate in spite of the "noise" due to
the natural variability. The IPCC concluded: "our ability to quantify
the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the
expected signal is still
emerging from the noise of natural variability and because there are
uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns
of long term natural variability and the time-evolving patterns of
forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse
gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance
of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on
global climate." It should be noted that the inertia of the climate
system and the counteracting effects of aerosols delay the appearance of
a climate change, makes the issue more difficult to grasp, but does not
diminish the possible seriousness of the issues.
you all have a nice day now hear.
tom watson tosiwmee |
