This "Going Green" trash and of course the Global Warming scam is the greatest fraud and conspiracy in Human History, and always has been ever since it began in the mid 1970's. Here is just one survey (a small example out of many) that indicates that this entire "Going Green" thing is about EMOTION - NOT science.

(note - I normally don't pay much attention to Rush and his links, but this one puts it into better context)

"In 2007, some 20% of Americans surveyed said they were feeling green guilt. This year, that number jumped slightly to 22%. Men actually felt less guilty this year (18% last year vs. 17% this year), and women were carrying the burden of guilt more (22% vs. 26%)." This proves again that men are smarter than women. Did I just say that? I did. Let me take it back. It proves that men are less emotional than women."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050908/content/01125113.guest.html



So more women are the ones who believe this - this green guilt trash from Al Gore ??? 30 years ago, we had about 100 million fewer people in the USA than today. So all that BS "Green Guilt" must be that new generation in the last 25 years, being totally dumbed down and brainwashed by the liberal media and Al Gore, of course. Out of 300 million people today, 66 million feel Green Guilt. They probably weren't there 30 years ago before this hoax of the century began.

Go drive your SUV and race your engines all you can !!! And be proud of it !! Because don't worry, you're not destroying the world just because you're driving to the post office, Ok ?? And if your stupid child comes running home to you after school and cries "mommy, mommy, my teacher said that our SUV's are heating up the planet !..." go ahead and smack them up the head and tell your kid to tell their teachers to get an education by clicking onto http://iceagenow.com - an excellent up-to-date site about record cold US temps, snowfall updates around the world, and growing glaciers (90 percent are growing).

Lastly, CO2 has NOTHING to do with temperature. It is NOT a pollutant, and without it, we wouldn't be here today. Got that ??

All this BS about us destroying the world and so forth is just a perfect example of destroying our way of life, causing guilt, and taxing us to death with a greater expansion of government !!

Kenneth

(don't know where to put this, since I couldn't find a hurricane blog anywhere, but if they want to, be free to post it)

Ever since Hurricane Katrina, it seems, we've been hearing lots of fake stories out there in the media circles about how hurricanes are getting stronger and more frequent due to "Global Warming." This is totally false.

Actually in the long term, hurricane intensity (Atlantic wide) and landfalls in the U.S. have DECREASED ever since 1900:

So where is the increase in Hurricanes?
The data below (derived from data at the National Hurricane Center site) shows the number of Hurricanes making landfall in the United States in each of the three 50-year periods from 1850 to 2000. What a decrease, especially since 1950 !

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml#history

Additionally, the National Hurricane Center Web site says that the peak for major hurricanes was between 1930 and 1950, when storms averaged nine per year; today, the average is three.
Nor is hurricane strength intensifying; since the 1940s, the mean maximum intensity has actually decreased. (There was a global cooling from 1940 to 1975 from the surface data, with no significant change in temperatures thereafter, acording to satellite data). However, this is something they're not telling us about.

The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time. This is a result echoed by Easterling, et al (2000), who said, 'the number of intense and landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has declined.' In the Gulf of Mexico there is 'no sign of an increase in hurricane frequency or intensity,' according to Bove, et al (1998). For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization, 'Reliable data � since the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has decreased.'"

Ken

So ..........despite the fact that methane is much more potent GHG .............It is preferable over CO2 ?????????????

Sounds good!

According to this perspective, increasing GHG appears OK as long as it's not called CO2.

So, I finally get it ! ! ! ! It's better to do something wrong than to do nothing at all ? Our children will thank us for it ..........if they're still alive ! ! ! !

This my friends is what we call a DESIGNER DISASTER. All made to measure and will fit every occasion .........LOL LOL.

Once we forget this stupidity with AGW or is it climate change or maybe just violent weather changes or ................well anyways, the methane/biogas collection is a damn good idea! ! ! And it's not even new! ! ! !

Completely off topic - it has been nineteen months since the start of a "particularly active" solar cycle 24.

18 August 2006

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft may have glimpsed the first sunspot of the next 11-year solar cycle. It has come a tad early, and it may mean that the next sunspot cycle will be a particularly active one.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn9778

with no cycle 24 sunspots
http://www.spaceweather.com/

Instead of using money to scare people about AGW why don't scientists explore ways to make this fuel on a larger scale. Why couldn't dairy farms, cattle ranches, zoos etc use this method for producing fuel? If they can do it in a country like Nepal think what we could do here.

thomasfurbs:

People do use methane on a larger scale to generate electricity. Landfills capture methane gas, dairy farms capture methane, too. Google. Learn it. Live it. Love it. And stop being so cynical about AGW science. It's more valid than any of the cut and paste tripe you'll find posted here by the regulars.

Kenneth:

Rush Limbaugh? Are you kidding? The only thing he is qualified to discuss is the danger associated with Oxycontin addiction.

Patrick Henry: since the deniers are right, and you love to post links, you can back up old Rushbo's stat about the fact that 90% of glaciers are growing, right? Kenneth is counting on you to make him look credible.

What I really want to see is energy created from Nuclear Waste and uranium mine tailings. What a waste to let all that good radiation just go into the atmosphere and the environment.

Yep, they are right we have to find a fuel alternative. Reasons: They have a perfect setup planned, don't allow drilling, fuel shortage, therefore gas prices sky rocket and people have to find another way and it makes the go green theory look better and attempts to give credibility the the global warmers. But if we just drilled at home and enviro nuts realized that oil is there to use and people quit catering to the minority we would not be in this shape. If you can make an alternative at home great, but for 99% of jobs, vacation, fun, leisure and yes those are necessitys in life, it requires fuel and more than likely you are not going to produce an alternative fuel that is produced faster, cheaper than oil drilled from the ground. So lets ignore the nuts and fire up some drills.

Paul B, CH4 (methane) is clearly is a more potent GHG than CO2, but if it is burned in the presence of O2 its products are H2O and CO2. I strongly suspect that the amount of CO2 that would have come out of the manure if it weren't digested into methane is the same as the amount released by burning the methane. So basically it's a choice of using the manure as fertilizer to grow food or methane to cook it.

Another big time agw'er Tom Knudsen turns the corner
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9YzbkbPjYwP_3-9wZhTNbMcZSAQD90O62QO0
can't afford to lose job....LOL

wikipedia changes tactics
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&oldid=213058966#Confidence_in_GCM_forecasts

thomasfurbs:
Your right about the AGW scare tactics, and the green phenomenon. I believe in AGW and it's impact on the future. Why don't we go after the methane, in the Earths crust, and below the melting permafrost in the bog lands of Alaska.If we spent a little more money on solutions, and not the free, beautifully
and artistically seductive 2007 IPCC report,{three heavy brochures},with double weight glossy paper, and brightly colored graphics, the we could start to arrive at cost effective solutions. Did you know that the Discovery Channel will soon have a 24/7 cable channel just on Global Warming. Being green is like the new hula hoop, for dingbats. Yes thomasfurbs!!!!SOLUTIONS!!!SOLUTIONS!!!!!!SOLUTIONS
!!!!!!!!! KIPP

A 24/7 channel for global warming, how lovely, I can't wait. Any idea of the day? GSN, how is Al Gores son doing? Is he going green? And if you all can get methane and figure out how to use it to make my car go down the road cheap, I'm all for it. But until then lets drill fir sum earl! That would end this debate for a few centuries if we did that and probably by that time I will not worry about fuel and other technologies will be invented to where perhaps we do not need it, but we do now so lets use it while we need it, it is pointless to let it go to waste. Good cheap cooking fuel is firewood. Hey what a waste of electricity showing a show 24/7, I bet they drove to places, and used electric to produce this unnecessary show. What are they thinking, are they trying to intentionally warm the earth. All my!!!!!

Kenneth:
Society is a joint stock company, in which all the members agree, for the better part of each shareholder their bread. Self Reliance is it's ad version. It loves not realties or creators but names and customs. Your political rant does not discuss Science. But you quote and emulate Rush Limbaugh, who's greatest contribution to science, was the elimination of more addictive opiates.Why don't you get a grip on yourself and study Global Warming a little more. The reason that radicals don't like the idea of AGW, is that they think it is a plot to liberalize society. You know like education,and helping the poor;Social programs. I think the next reference you make should be scientific and not moronic.
KIPP

Adamant: I strongly suspect that the amount of CO2 that would have come out of the manure if it weren't digested into methane is the same as the amount released by burning the methane.

While I appreciate that you suspect that the amount of CO2 would the same, this would only be true if the quantities/volumes of methane remained the same.

Surely, if successful as a replacement fuel, ways would be found to increase the volume, capacity and efficiency of this process. And, as you mentioned, the inevitable release of CO2 would be proportional.

This is where I get frustrated with the media, single interest groups and politicians (from all fields) reporting on partial stories ........just to get a reaction. As seen with the corn ethanol debacle, partial stories (not lies) end up becoming public policy and voila, people are dying in the name of "saving the word" or as unintentional consequences.

I'm afraid that until this whole "debate" becomes more responsible and mature, we are no closer to finding out about the real issues.

Actionable problems, if any, and potential solutions, if productive, are currently nothing more than posturing for whatever purpose or from whichever side. We really have a long way to go ! .........and yes, the science for the issue is far from settled!

Adamant: I strongly suspect that the amount of CO2 that would have come out of the manure if it weren't digested into methane is the same as the amount released by burning the methane.

While I appreciate that you suspect that the amount of CO2 would the same, this would only be true if the quantities/volumes of methane remained the same.

Surely, if successful as a replacement fuel, ways would be found to increase the volume, capacity and efficiency of this process. And, as you mentioned, the inevitable release of CO2 would be proportional.

This is where I get frustrated with the media, single interest groups and politicians (from all fields) reporting on partial stories ........just to get a reaction. As seen with the corn ethanol debacle, partial stories (not lies) end up becoming public policy and voila, people are dying in the name of "saving the word" or as unintentional consequences.

I'm afraid that until this whole "debate" becomes more responsible and mature, we are no closer to finding out about the real issues.

Actionable problems, if any, and potential solutions, if productive, are currently nothing more than posturing for whatever purpose or from whichever side. We really have a long way to go ! .........and yes, the science for the issue is far from settled!

Regarding David Frederick's comment about reusing nuclear waste to do something useful. Texas has quite a number of oil wells, and dry holes, 300k more or less. I have contended for a long time, though nobody seemed to me seriously, is that the nuke waste could be converted into slugs, dropped down into the wells, and slowly silently heat up the oil so that the wells would be much more productive.
Before somebody wants to drop me down a hole, take note I support the California Treasurer's position to de-promote the CEO of Exxon, in order to help the company focus their attention on renewable enegy sources....
Thanks, "Dallas" Dave