georgiact’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Dan, Can you tell me what you mean by climate change? I think you really mean global warming. If so, that is what you should say for clarity. regardsOn Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists' emails hacked at CRU posted 6 days, 9 hours ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Des Emery, Dan, What numbers coming out of the accelerating icemelt are you referring to? And that is a big IF you're talking about. There are no accurate numbers for the overall ice budget/trend. Very few of the worlds glaciers have been tracked over time. Before satellite data, we really have little details about most glaciers. Arctic sea ice is inicreasing after a 30-year low in 2007. Greenland is not green like it was 1,000 yrs ago. The oceans are cooling slightly. As best we can tell, global temp. is flat or slightly declining. It's very disturbing when scientists refuse to put their data and methods out for public critique. That is how science is supposed to be advanced! Instead it appears that we have cliques of scientists scheming with each other to push what they can't seem to prove on the scientific field of play. Regarding CO2, if it were on a basketball team with all the other climate change impact characters, it would be 7th off the bench. It is a weak and trace gas with a narrow absorption band. So I do not see why we should continue to waste large sums of money on a non-problem and focus on the ones we can affect. regards.On Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists' emails hacked at CRU posted 6 days, 9 hours ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  AGW has been disproved (actually never proved outide of a computer model) completely years ago. Dr. Linzen's recent work just adds another set of physical data showing the models are wrong and so is the assumption about CO2. You all should be thrilled that we will not be reaching any tipping point or runaway warming. If you want to conserve energy, let's start by not flying all these bureaucrats all over the world for these climate talks. Remember video-conferencing? If we put this issue to bed, we can move onto some real environmental issues, which is what I do everyday. However, working for a cash-strapped state, I see huge $$ wasted on "climate change." Those dollars could be better used to restore streams and wetlands, purchase land to limit fragmentation of habitat, implement better stormwater managment technologies, reduce nitrogen discharges, etc. In government, I see the same group think. Not one person I work with can explain the science behind AGW other than to mention the greenhouse effect. All they know is that the IPCC is king. Then the EPA mearly advances the IPCC junk and it trickles down to the states without any critical examination. How many more billions do we need to pour down this rat hole before we wake up to the fact that politicians, Mr. Gore, and others are staring at huge paychecks and more power? This is exactly how we got government to pay for ethanol, which you all know is a boondoggle and harms the environment more than iT portends to help. WAKE UP. CONSIDER YOURSELF FREE TO HAVE A REAL IMPACT ON OUR ENVIRONMENT AND ALL LIVING THINGS.On Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists' emails hacked at CRU posted 1 week ago 43 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I would think that China would be smart enough not to chase something as useless as wind turbines. Let's let them waste their money and let them follow in the footsteps of Denmark, Germany, Spain, the UK, and unfortunately, the US. The data is in...WIND MILLS are a dead end! And they kill lots of birds and bats.On China is leaving the U.S. in the dust as it surges ahead on clean energy posted 2 months ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Wind... the next big ethanol boondoggle.   I wish wind were the great silver bullet, but it just ain't so.  Use of wind is not without environmental costs.  Ask Denmark and the dead birds and bats.  It leads to more pollution, not less.  Public money will have to subsidise wind in a big way forever in order for it to work, which means it doesn't work.  Harnessing tide or wave energy is a much better area to focus research/investment dollars on.  Wind could potenatilly work in a limited way to pump water behind hydro dams to be realeased in a controlled way, but the overall contribution to the energy budget is scant.

  The next big energy idea is probably coming together in someones garage or basement.

  On Investment rushes into wind, but can we make it last? posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses