Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/8/2009 10:32:45 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 36921

What a waste of money, a fool and his money are soon parted

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/8/2009 1:09:59 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

UN IPCC Scientist: 'No convincing scientific arguments to support claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate' Tuesday, May 05, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot Selected excerpts from UN IPCC scientist's recent testimony. IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and chemist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand is an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001. Dr. Gray's research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page "U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" Below are selected excerpts of his testimony before New Zealand's Committee for the Emissions Trading Scheme Review May 5, 2009: I am an experienced research chemist, with a PhD from Cambridge 1946, and a long research career in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. I have over 100 scientific publications, many of them on climate science, which I have studied intensively for the past 18 years. I have been an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC Reports since the beginning in 1990.I submitted 1,898 comments to the last (fourth) Working Group I (Science) Report. I was recently invited to the Beijing Climate Center as a Visiting Scholar and I recently lectured to a Conference in New York. I have reluctantly concluded, after detailed study of the evidence presented by the IPCC, that there are no convincing scientific arguments to support the claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate. [...] The IPCC “central/benchmark projections” are based on a combination pf ridiculously oversimplified models and unrealistic futures scenarios. The projections themselves conflict with the current fall in global temperatures, the absence of any warming in New Zealand, and the lack of local evidence of sea level change. [...] The presumed dangers of failing to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme appear to be illusory. We have enough problems coping with the current economic crisis without burdening ourselves with additional costs to our manufacturing and farming industries and adopting uneconomic sources of energy. [...] Changes in climate can have many causes, some of which are partially understood, but the influence of increases in greenhouse gases are not likely to be important if there is no detectable warming resulting from them. [...] In reality the sun only shines in the daytime. The earth absorbs energy by day and emits it by night. It rotates, so that all surfaces have a diurnal and seasonal cycle. There is no energy balance anywhere, and no net energy balance either, as there are warming and cooling cycles of different lengths. Also none of the greenhouse gases are “well-mixed”, so the assumption by models that they are is wrong. [...] The first IPCC Working Group I Report "Climate Change", published in 1990, provided the first set of climate models, from which the Panel made predictions about future global temperature change. It contained a Chapter 4 entitled "Validation of Climate Models". A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the Second (1995) Report. I sent in a comment pointing out that the Title of this Chapter was inappropriate, since no Climate Model had ever been "validated" in the sense understood by computer engineers. They agreed with me. The same Chapter in the next Draft was entitled "Evaluation of Computer Models", and they had changed the word "validation" to "evaluation" throughout the Chapter no less than fifty times. Since then, they have never used the word “validation”, and their models now never make “predictions”, but “projections”, dependent only on the prior assumptions. "Validation" is a term used by computer engineers for the procedure that has to be applied to computer models before they can be considered useful for future prediction. This procedure must involve successful prediction of the range of circumstances for which it is to be used. Unless this is done there is no evidence of how accurate the predictions can be. Not only has no computer climate model ever been subjected to this process, no IPCC Report has even discussed how it might be done. As a result, computer models cannot make "predictions", they only provide "projections" which are based on the value of the assumptions made in their preparation. Also there is no evidence as to how accurate they might be. This is one reason why the IPCC never gives opinions on the relative importance of the many models. There is no probability range for the models, and there is no "central" model. They do, however, seem prepared to provide “best estimates” and “likely ranges” .which are no more than guesswork. One early example of such a “best estimate” was decided by “a show of hands” by model providers. Dr. Gray's research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page "U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims" Buzz up!Add to Newsvine Add to Facebook Add to Digg Add to Twitter Add to DeliciousAdd to PropellerAdd to TechnoratiAdd to StumbleUponAdd to BlinklistAdd to FarkAdd to Reddit

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/8/2009 1:36:32 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 36921

This is a good thing because it will create a roaring demand for oil when alternates can't keep up. I'm surprised the greenest of all alternates "nuclear" was not mentioned. Keep making me money wharfie, it is what I pay you for after all. Check out eit.un - it pays a dividend something you won't get with the TH stocks. EnerVest Diversified to pay 15-cent May distribution 2009-05-19 16:45 ET - News Release An anonymous director reports ENERVEST DIVERSIFIED INCOME TRUST ANNOUNCES MAY 2009 DISTRIBUTION EnerVest Diversified Income Trust's May distribution will be 15 cents per unit. The record date for this distribution is May 29, 2009, and the payment date will be June 15, 2009. The ex distribution date for this payment is May 27, 2009.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/8/2009 1:47:23 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

You better find an alternate to your alternate if this story is correct... Magnetic field and electric grid collapse – the New Energy imperative One of the major puzzles facing space weather scientists is the Earth’s weakening magnetic field. As the magnetic field weakens, so too does the Earth’s natural defense against harmful solar and cosmic radiation. In December 2008, NASA scientists discovered a huge breach in the Earth’s magnetic field that was far larger than anything observed previously. The weakening magnetic field and emergence of giant breaches will allow far more solar energy to enter into the Earth’s atmosphere than anytime in known history. As this happens, the planet’s electric power grid systems will face systemic collapse. Space Weather scientists have been convening workshops and issuing reports on the prospects of electric grid collapse from severe solar storms. As the magnetic field continues to weakens, introducing independent off-the grid energy systems using renewable energy sources as a lifeline for humanity becomes an imperative. Among the least understood but potentially most beneficial sources of renewable energy are “new energy” technologies. In the last 150 years, the Earth’s magnetic field has weakened about 10-15%. According to some scientists the weakening magnetic field is a prelude to a complete reversal. Mioara Mandea, a scientist at the German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, concludes that the changes observed so far "may suggest the possibility of an upcoming reversal of the geomagnetic field." The Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the past. It has been pointed out that “the process could take thousands of years to complete.” Regardless of whether the Earth’s magnetic field reverses itself or not in the near future, its weakening is a scientific fact. As the magnetic field weakens and/or reorients itself, the Earth’s natural protection against solar energy continues to erode. As a planet, we face the social, economic and health impacts of solar plasma entering directly into the earth’s atmosphere. This will impact on human physiology. More urgent is the enormous effect incoming electrically charged solar plasma will have on the electric power grid. Most simply, the chances of systemic grid collapse become greater. Space weather scientists estimate that recovery times for worst affected areas where large electric transformers need to be replaced will range from 4 to 10 years! Many badly affected areas may simply have very little if any electrical power at all. Electric grid experts such as John Kappenman have advised the addition of large resistors to protect vital elements of the electric grid. The resistors however may not be enough. He therefore advises the development of renewable energy sources as a lifeline in the event of systemic electric grid collapse. Currently, approximately 3% of electricity is produced through renewable energies and most occurs with medium-large generating facilities used by electric utility to directly power the electric grid itself. If the electric grid were to collapse, these renewable energy generators would be unable to transmit power to homes, businesses and government services. Also, most renewable energies such as solar, wind and geothermal are capital and land intensive, and therefore will not help much in dense urban areas if the grid collapses and consumers need to produce their own electricity. This is where the rapid development and commercial production of “new energy” generators becomes an imperative New energy technologies are those that produce greater quantities of energy than is used to power them. For this reason supporters often describe such technologies “over unity” devices. In contrast, critics characterize them as perpetual motion machines that are impossible since they violate conservation of energy laws. Not so according to Dr Robert Koontz who recently wrote an Open Letter to Dr Michio Kaku rebuking him for dismissing new energy technologies. Rather than a violation of conservation of energy, Dr Koontz argues that such devices use “negative mass electrons” which requires a new way of understanding conservation of energy laws. The first “new energy” system that could be used for small scale electricity generation was developed by Dr T. Henry Moray. Dr Moray was an electrical engineer who developed some of Nikola Tesla’s ideas found in his 1901 Radiant Energy patent. In 1928, Dr Moray developed and tested his first functional new energy device that was able to draw energy from the environment. He successfully demonstrated his energy machine to many scientists and engineers who acknowledged that it genuinely worked and no fraud was involved. However, they could not understand why it worked. Moray’s device was then dismissed a priori since it appeared to violate conservation of energy laws. A long line of inventors have since come forward to demonstrate similar technologies, but again these have been dismissed a priori by most scientists as perpetual motion machines. In developing a comprehensive strategy for developing renewable energy generators as a societal lifeline in case of systemic electric grid collapse, new energy or “over unity” generators need to be seriously considered. A priori scientific objections based on conservation of energy laws should not preclude the study, testing and development new energy generators. As Dr Koontz points out, there may simply be a new form of energy particles that are being used which maintain conservation of energy laws. The likelihood of systemic electric grid collapse creates a social, economic and political necessity that ultimately must trump rigid scientific orthodoxy. examiner.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/9/2009 2:53:47 AM
From: average joe	Respond to of 36921

Ancient caribou-hunting camp may lie at bottom of Lake Huron Human development is to blame for loss, study shows By Randy Boswell, Canwest News ServiceJune 8, 2009 Scientists probing an underwater ridge 35 metres deep in Lake Huron — and running 160 kilometres across the U.S.-Canadian border — have found what they believe to be 9,000-year-old traces of an ancient caribou-hunting camp used by some of the earliest inhabitants of North America. The stunning discovery, if verified by further field research this summer, would represent "the first archeological evidence of human activity preserved beneath the Great Lakes," according to the summary of a study to be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The suspected remnants of the hunting site include fire pits and a 350-metre-long "drive lane" of piled stones that may have been used by prehistoric hunters to herd fleeing animals toward an ambush. The site is described as lying on a submerged, 16-kilometre-wide ridge stretching 160 kilometres between Point Clark, Ont., on Lake Huron's eastern shore, and Presque Isle, Mich., on the western side. The ridge would have been a land bridge 9,000 years ago, when water levels in the lake were much lower. The findings were revealed Monday by University of Michigan co-authors John O'Shea, curator of Great Lakes Archaeology in the Museum of Anthropology, and Guy Meadows, a professor of marine engineering. "This is the first time we've identified structures like these on the lake bottom," O'Shea said in the research summary. "Scientifically, it's important, because the entire ancient landscape has been preserved and has not been modified by farming, or modern development. That has implications for ecology, archeology and environmental modelling." The scientists used sonar, robotic probes and other high-tech instruments to gather data and record images of the suspected remnants of the aboriginal hunting site. "The combination of these state-of-the art tools have made these underwater archeological investigations possible," Meadows said in the statement. "Without any one of these advanced tools, this discovery would not have happened." The potential find is reminiscent of traces of ancient fishing weirs recently discovered near Peterborough, Ont., and which were similarly used by Paleo-Indian people to ensure plentiful supplies of food. Canadian scientists off the coast of British Columbia are also probing underwater sites in search of drowned traces of much earlier occupants of North America: migrants from northeast Asia who might have crossed a land bridge to present-day Alaska 14,000 or more years ago. leaderpost.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (24800)	6/9/2009 3:37:51 AM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36921

Wharfie, that was done when oil was $140 a barrel: <Green energy overtook fossil fuels in attracting investment for power generation for the first time last year, according to figures released today by the United Nations. Wind, solar and other clean technologies attracted $140bn (£85bn) compared with $110bn for gas and coal for electrical power generation, with more than a third of the green cash destined for Britain and the rest of Europe. > In case you haven't noticed, the return on those investments will be somewhere between grim and nothing with oil being sold cheaply to compete. But maybe there is the usual political scam moving money from taxpayers to politicians' buddies to finance the dopey "green" ideas so there might be profits [even if the production is uneconomic]. Mqurice