What happened to global warming?

[Watchdog]

An analogy.

Here in Montreal Quebec we have an NHL hockey team called the Canadiens. The goalie is called Carey Price. In the media there is a "concensus" within all the sports journalists that Price is one of the best goalies in the league, despite the fact that the team finished dead last in the league last year, has never gone past the first round of series except one year when the second goalie (Halak) was in goal, and the fact that statistics show that Price is not better than the average goalie (rates between 15-20th in the league). He finished 22nd last year!

No matter how he plays the "consensus" is that he is a superstar, hero, and perhaps the best they ever saw. When the team wins it's because of Carey, when the team loses it's because of everyone but Carey...

But, most hockey fans know that he's not that great, except those that have been brainwashed by the media. But still, why would the media pimp this putz? Well, follow the money trail. RDS the local sports channel is owned by Bell media, who owns the hockey arena and the television rights to broadcast the game. Also, because the owners of the Canadiens hockey team gave Price a 35 million $ contract stating that "he was the best player on the team, a superstar".

The analogy?

When so many people get their feet wet they cannot admit that it's raining outside. When people are given lots of money to defend a position they lose their ability to question the premise. So many people will look like fools when the cat comes out of the bag. They will have to "blame" external conditions to save face.

The day will come when some scientists and politiciens will say that "we have been successful in mitigating climate warming, and the cooling of the climate is the proof that science and policy have evolved into a life saving tools for humanity".

Once more, the layers of mental programs via brainwashing that have been given to us are so deep that digging for "reality" has become a challange, almost impossible, if not a lifetime endeavor.

The strange things is that when a layer is shed, "reality" can be frightening. It's mind blowing to realise that things are the inverse of what we beLIEved all our lives. Could someone die of fright if all layers were shed together in an instant? Perhaps not die, but certainly go insane. That's a possibility.

One layer at a time and steady as she goes. Finally, if those surrounding us don't participate in this endeavor, or don't proceed at the same pace, we should be prepared to feel great inner solitude and awkwardness.

Like Tarzan who was taken away from the jungle and dropped downtown in the traffic of a big city, sort to speak.

[FastTadpole]

Here's a quantitative analysis that shows a massive fail in carbon accounting. Wind and Biofuel actually produce more Greenhouse Gas than Coal, Oil and Natural Gas.. tell this one to the windbags pushing for a global carbon currency system.

Quote:Renewable energy's big secret
by Steve Goreham on February 24, 2013

Climate change has again moved to center stage. In his State of the Union address, President Obama stated, “But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change.” Two days later, Senators Sanders and Boxer introduced a legislative package calling for a carbon tax on coal mines, refineries, and natural gas facilities.

A week ago, an estimated 35,000 climate crusaders joined a rally on the national mall in Washington, urging President Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline project.

These efforts advocate reducing the use of hydrocarbon energy from oil, coal, and natural gas while increasing incentives for wind, solar, biofuel, and other renewable energy sources. Proponents say that use of renewables will reduce carbon dioxide emissions that are claimed to be causing dangerous global warming. But they don’t tell you about renewable energy’s big secret.

Renewable energy remains a tiny part of our energy picture. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, by the end of 2011, 39,000 wind turbine towers were operating in the United States, but provided only 2.9% of our electricity, compared to 42% from coal, 25% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, and 6% from hydroelectric sources. After twenty years of subsidies and mandates, solar energy remained absolutely trivial, contributing a miniscule 0.04% of our electricity. Ethanol and biodiesel provided about 11% of U.S. vehicle fuel at the heavy cost of using 40% of the corn crop.

Renewable energy’s big secret is that the two biggest renewable sources, wind and biofuels, don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Wind energy is highly variable. Wind output can ramp from negligible output to 100% of rated output to zero again over just a few hours. On average, wind systems provide rated output only about 30% of the time, so they can’t replace hydrocarbon or nuclear electricity sources. Coal or natural gas plants must be used as backup to the wind system, ramping up and down inefficiently to mirror changes in wind velocity.

Your car has two mileage ratings, one for city driving and one for highway driving. A typical car may get 23 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 33 mpg when driving on the highway. Stop-and-go driving uses more fuel and produces more emissions than highway driving at continuous speed.

Wind farms change our electrical networks into stop-and-go electrical systems. Analysis of utilities in Netherlands and Colorado show that combined wind-hydrocarbon systems use more fuel, produce more nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollutants, and emit more carbon dioxide than coal or natural gas systems alone. Despite claims to the contrary, addition of wind farms to our electrical grid does not reduce emissions.

Neither does the use of biofuels reduce carbon dioxide emissions. For years, advocates for the fight against climate change assumed the burning of biofuels to be “carbon neutral.” Even though the burning of wood or plant material releases CO2 to the atmosphere like any other combustion, the “carbon neutral” concept assumed that as biofuel plants grow they absorb CO2 equal to the amount released when burned.

But a 2011 opinion by the European Environment Agency pointed to a “serious error” in greenhouse gas accounting. The carbon neutral concept does not take into account the CO2 that would be absorbed by the natural vegetation that grows on land not used for biofuel production. A 2011 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that, after considering land use effects, production of ethanol as replacement fuel for gasoline was likely to “increase such air pollutants as particulate matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.” The study also found that greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol fuel were likely to be higher than gasoline.

So, even if you ascribe to the theory of man-made climate change, it’s unlikely that deployment of renewable energy will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n...ig-secret/
http://blog.heartland.org/2013/02/renewa...ig-secret/

Now how to change public perception? .. and if we actually do will it amount to the men with the guns changing up their plan for global domination. Maybe it's time for us to live in our own communities and cut the co-dependant umbilical chord.

[thokling]

Nice find, FT. Put the dollars back where they belong.

I found this sneaky thing lurking around the Internet:

Quote:Nuclear: Less CO2 than solar, hydro, biomass
By Mark Halper | February 19, 2013, 6:31 AM PST



There is no such thing as completely "green" energy. All forms of electricity generation have some detrimental environmental impact - some relatively little, some enormous.

One of the most closely watched effects is emissions of carbon dioxide - the sort of thing that makes fossil fuels like coal and natural gas notorious.

Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are linked to rises in Earth’s temperature, and thus to global warming, climate change and all that. Fossil fuels belch plenty, as the chart above shows. It illustrates how many tonnes of CO2 are emitted per gigawatt hour of electricity generated by different generating technologies.

The chart is a "lifecycle" analysis that takes into account CO2 emitted not only during electricity generation, but also by the mining, manufacturing, construction and other processes it takes to get a power plant up and keep it running.

It’s no surprise that coal and natural gas tower above the others. But some of the other marks might raise a few eyebrows. "Renewable" power sources solar PV and biomass are both more CO2-intense than nuclear, as is hydro. Nuclear is on a par with geothermal, and virtually the same as wind.

smartplanet:Blogs:Business
Nuclear: Less CO2 than solar, hydro, biomass

"Life-cycle", from what I've been able to gather, refers to the overall time the technology's been in use. So it's only useful, perhaps, if used in more manipulative statistics.

There's another report from a few days before the one you posted which contains the following image:


NEI.org:Protecting the Environment
Emissions Produced by 1 Kilowatt-Hour of
Electricity Based on Life-Cycle analysis

According to this chart in units per KwH, hydropower and nuclear power are the leaders in clean CO2 emissions. Wind and biomass are margically better, but still produce up to twice the amount of CO2.

The big belchers per the chart are solar, natural gas and coal. So there's a discrepancy somewhere.

All figures have to be applied against the energy output in KwH to calculate the effectiveness of the technology, placing some sort of value on emissions (likely negative or fractional). But this value placement appears to be paid for by corporations to "independent studies" that favour the corporation.

[fujiinn]

The problem with hydro is that it destroys natural ecosystems (with huge impacts on people as well) and nuclear creates the most toxic waste known to man, with existing technology. Their CO2 footprints are irrelevant in the greater picture.

[macfadden]