What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!!

[nnuut]

Maybe we could filter all of the CO2 coming from our cars into tanks and sell it to companies that make cement?

Turning CO2 into Cement

by ASLA on 03/24/2010 14:01 0 comments , 562 views
Categories: Green Building, Future Technologies
Tags: co2 emissions, calera, cement production, infranstructure

​

The New York Times highlights a new technology that turns carbon dioxide emissions from coal and gas power plants into the basic inputs for cement. Calera, the Silicon Valley start-up creating the approach, has received some $50 million in financial support from venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Peabody Energy, one of the world’s largest coal company, has put $15 million into the idea. While still relatively small numbers compared to overall investments in fossil fuel-related technologies, these first funds signify growing investment in turning CO2 into a reusable, non-polluting resource.
Calera will combine CO2 with “seawater or groundwater brine, which contain calcium, magnesium and oxygen. It is left with calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate, which are used in making cement and aggregate. It plans to sell it to concrete companies for use in pavement.” To convince building manufacturers that their material is safe, Calera’s CO2-embedded cement is being mixed with Portland cement, the “calcium silicate” binder used in concrete for buildings and transportation infrastructure. Turning CO2 into building materials will make “carbon reduction attractive,” argues Brent Constantz, Calera’s founder and chief executive.
Coal power plants are major emitters of CO2 emissions. Cement production also contributes large amounts. Creating a cycle wherein the coal plants’ waste becomes feedstock for cement will help kill two birds with one stone. Vinod Khosla said: “With this technology, coal can be cleaner than solar and wind, because they can only be carbon-neutral.” [more]
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/Home/30195

 

[nnuut]

:suspicious:

New Research Finds No Increase in CO2 in Past 150 Years


Posted by Dan McGrath in
A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds no statistically significant increase in the airborne proportion of anthropogenic carbon dioxide over the past 150 years. Being that climate scientists like those from the Climactic Research Unit at Hadley and alarmist members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that increased CO2 is to blame for warming patterns over the past several decades and that the warming will soon accelerate out of control, due to an inability of the ecosystem to cope with increased CO2 emissions, this research poses a problem. How can carbon dioxide be causing warming if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has not actually been on the rise?
We know that mankind does produce and emit a relatively small (compared to naturally occurring CO2) amount of CO2 and industrialization has increased our overall CO2 emissions, but now it seems that it hasn’t mattered. The earth’s natural mechanisms have effectively dealt with the increase. Vegetation, like forests and ocean algae, of course thrive on CO2 and convert it into Oxygen.
A December 31st article in Science Daily noted, “Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.”
Despite the new evidence that CO2 cannot have been responsible for the recent reported warming (that ended around 1999), the warmists are undeterred. The article goes on to say, “However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
“Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.”
So, the new line may well be: Even though it hasn’t happened at all yet, future increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause global warming, because we’re on the verge of maxing out the earth’s ability to absorb CO2.
It seems the climate models may now rely on predicting a heretofore unobserved increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in order to predict future CO2-driven global warming, even though (despite earlier claims) neither has actually been observed.
Every claim of the warmists has been disproven. Not a single catastrophic prediction has come to pass. They insist the science is settled and the debate is over but science is based on observation and duplicable results. Observation shows no CO2-induced warming and the CRU’s climate models haven’t produced one accurate result, let a lone a duplicate. The warmists it seems, will unabashedly stretch to any length to try to maintain their dreams of carbon-based economic control, but the thing about stretching something is that it also grows thin.
Abstract: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Science Daily: No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds
This entry was posted on Monday, January 4th, 2010 at 11:27
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2010/01/new-research-finds-no-increase-in-co2-in-past-150-years/

 

[nnuut]

Who said it was a scientific source, and who are you? You forget we know who you are.:laugh:

 

[nnuut]

Good morning!

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

So you're admitting to posting Bull-Shtein?

Or is that Bull-Rove?

My apologies...I thought you were actually serious in your argument. Sorry.

Enough of the Nazi propoganda BS! The Nazi's were leftists, more appropriately linked to "progressives" like you FWM. They were not in any way conservatives.

Keep it up and this thread will be taken away too. If you want us conservatives to start posting inappropriate, photoshopped, pics of your crew, I am sure we will be more than happy to oblige.

 

[nnuut]

Good morning Gentlemen!
The National Socialist Party of Germany was the Far Right, this is true, which followed the normal progression from Socialism to Fascism under Hitler's reign. Mr. Roe is not a Socialist.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Interesting how history repeats itself, only this time it's the leftists leading the way to fascism.

 

[Valkyrie]

this is why your lost FWM


In Milton's Paradise Lost, the first time Satan spies Adam and Eve in the Garden he muses that he is forced by circumstances to plot their fall from grace. Milton comments, "So spake the Fiend, and with necessitie, the Tyrant's plea, excus'd his devilish deeds."
Tyrants haven't changed much since Milton's day -- or since Adam's. "Necessitie" is still their plea, and the eco-hype daily pumped out in the media is just another example. The "crisis," the "emergency," the "necessitie" is needed to justify the "moral equivalent of war," and it's being created in advance of the war. Let me share a quotation with you from the Insiders' favorite pop-intellectual, Bill Moyers. This comes from the November 15, 1989, program of his PBS television series, "The Public Mind."
"The basic text of our political system, The Federalist Papers, anticipated a government of reflection and choice. Forget it. Fifty years ago, Dale Carnage wrote a new bible for American politics and called it How to Win Friends and Influence People. In it he said,

"When dealing with people, we are dealing with creatures of emotions, creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.' This famous evangelist of persuasion went on to say that the Art of Human Engineering, as he called it, requires an ongoing appeal to the emotions. The opinion industry lives by the gospel that it's easier to motivate the heart than the mind, easier to stir up our feelings than our thoughts. Vanity, love, anxiety, hope --these sell cake mix and tooth-paste...and foreign policy, too." [Emphasis added]​

Much as we may wish it otherwise, Mr. Moyers is absolutely correct. As we must constantly repeat, even to the point of tedium, for most people "perception becomes reality." And for the decade of the nineties, creating perceptions is going to be not just an art form, but a way of life.


Here is one more significant quotation by Mr. Moyers from that same PBS television program: "Symbols and slogans. Slogans and symbols. The monologue of televisual values becomes the conversation of democracy."
As we move into 1990 and beyond, our task is to sort out the reality and not be seduced by the "symbols," "slogans," and "the art of human engineering." In the case of the environment, the media fear-mongering knows no limit. Even the words are carefully chosen for maximum emotional effect: "Brink of Destruction is Here, Scientists Warn;" "Destruction of our planet's resources;" "Warnings of a nightmare world;" "No serious scientist questions the catastrophe theories;" "Changes in the atmosphere may be irreversible, with consequences second only to nuclear war;" "Breathing: Latest hazard to nation's health;" "Pesticides, toxic chemicals take to the airways;" "Acid rain destroys thousands of inland lakes;" "Earth's chemistry upset as rain forests vanish;" "Some of the smallest nations may be doomed;" "Thinner ozone layer paves way for more cases of skin cancer;" "The sky above: A fragile shield under attack;" "Pollution, a 'ticking time bomb.'" "Even the staid and stodgy Wall Street Journal headlined a book review of two recent eco-Jeremiads with "Kissing nature goodbye."

The threats to the environment, we are told, transcend all other interests: economic, racial, national, ideological, every other consideration pales before the great eco-threat. "Humanity must re- integrate itself into nature and ignore national, religious, and racial boundaries to cooperate in restoring the planet," says a declaration of international scientists and scholars assembled by UNESCO in Vancouver in September, 1989. Remember this when we discuss a bit later our predicted legal basis for a worldwide eco-tyranny.
In case you aren't convinced by headlines, there are emotional spurs, too: guilt manipulation, self-hatred, and misanthropy. "The destruction of our planet's resources touches every one of us," writes Tom Wicker in the August 23, 1989, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "and each of us is in some way responsible." Guy Dauncey, a British Green, writes that our "ruthless exploitation of nature," our "commitment to materialism and personal gain" and the West's "disproportionate consumption of the world's resources" have proven to be our undoing. Twenty percent of the world's population in the West are accused of consuming 80 percent of the world's resources.

For others, a little guilt -- just enough to take the edge off a sleepy conscience but not enough to make you really writhe --will not suffice. They want guilt deep enough for wallowing: "The quest for material wealth has brought humanity to the brink of destruction, a group of international scientists and scholars says," reports the Canadian Press on August 25, 1989. "We see man as the destroyer and upsetter of our whole world," said Digby McLaren, President of the Royal Society of Canada, at a conference sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [emphasis added]. It seems that every vegetable, animal, and protozoan has a right to exist on earth -- except man.


http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/greening.shtml#5

 

[nnuut]

Oh! I just noticed we are really off subject!! Let's keep it to CLIMATE CHANGE/GLOBAL WARMING Please! BOOGA BOOGA!! View attachment 9396

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Closing Comments:

We can only hope!:suspicious:

 

[nnuut]

Closing Comments:

Nnuut:
Agreed Rove is not a Socialist. And niether is the man who saved our economy (and the stock market) from total collapse...our super hero POTUS.

Valkyrie:
Uhhm...I'm still sifting thru Your "Tolsty's War & Peace" sized cut&paste. Maybe a little too much Napalm exposure back in Nam?


Damn...we need Tom to set up our "no holds barred octagon" ASAP! Where you enter at your own risk...for political battle to the death!:cheesy:

OK...per Nnuut reminder, I'm back to saving the world from global disaster on this thread.

Who saved our economy, no one has done that? Speaking of Global warming, it's gettin' hot around here!:laugh:

 

[Frixxxx]

Who saved our economy, no one has done that? Speaking of Global warming, it's gettin' hot around here!:laugh:

Stupid axial tilt..:nuts: Man, if the earth wasn't tilted we'd never have this warming trend through the summer months.

 

[Buster]

Stupid axial tilt..:nuts: Man, if the earth wasn't tilted we'd never have this warming trend through the summer months.

There was an awesome thing on one of the discovery channels..that envisioned what would happen if the Earth would stop rotating..Amazing what a delicate balance and unique situation that gives this blue marble in space such a wonderful glow.

 

[Buster]

Here is another example of Climate Hoaxes that hit us in the pocket book in the early 90's..

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Scientific Evidence Proves
Ozone Depletion Theory False
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that the ozone depletion models -and the resulting ban on CFCs- are based on a Big Lie[/FONT] http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html​

 

[Frixxxx]

Here is another example of Climate Hoaxes that hit us in the pocket book in the early 90's..

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Scientific Evidence Proves
Ozone Depletion Theory False
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that the ozone depletion models -and the resulting ban on CFCs- are based on a Big Lie[/FONT] http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html​

Going after cigarettes next......Stoopid smokers....Wait...Some of my friends are smokers! Must be those third world countries cooking over an open flame...Stoopid third world countries......Wait, some of our best slave labour is in third world countries.

Got to be freakin China:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/china-pollution-citizen-survey.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10pollute.html
http://www.greenlaw.org.cn/enblog/?p=1129

 

[nnuut]

Here is another example of Climate Hoaxes that hit us in the pocket book in the early 90's..

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New Scientific Evidence Proves[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ozone Depletion Theory False[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]New scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that the ozone depletion models -and the resulting ban on CFCs- are based on a Big Lie[/FONT] http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
​

WHAT's NEXT??????? I guess we will find out that CO2 isn't a GreenHouse gas?:laugh::laugh: View attachment 9397 money money money money!!!!

 

[Frixxxx]

WHAT's NEXT??????? I guess we will find out that CO2 isn't a GreenHouse gas?:laugh::laugh: View attachment 9397 money money money money!!!!

It isn't:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor is....

 

[Buster]

It isn't:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor is....

Well then...we had better start seeding the clouds with Silica gel Crystals pronto..

 

[nnuut]

Climate panel 'errors' review to begin

Written By:BBC , Posted: Fri, May 14, 2010


A review into the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is starting in Amsterdam.
The review was demanded by governments and commissioned by the UN, following allegations that the IPCC made a series of errors in its major 2007 report.
The body admits one error, concerning the melting date of Himalayan glaciers, but robustly rebuts the wider charge.
The review panel was set up by the InterAcademy Council which comprises bodies such as the UK's Royal Society.
IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri will be the first person to present to the panel, and is expected to outline the organisation's rules and procedures.
"I've read many many comments about the IPCC and I've talked to people inside and outside the organisation," said Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chair of the InterAcademy Council.
"They feel the issue of climate change is so important that it really needs robust scientific counsel.
"The IPCC has grown in importance and it's a very good time and a good opportunity to look at its management structure and its processes," he told BBC News.
Although Friday's contributions all come from IPCC and UN personnel, Dr Dijkgraaf said the panel would be looking to draw on different shades of opinion over the next few months.
Governing concerns
The review was demanded by ministers from several governments during the February meeting of the UN Environment Programme (Unep) governing council.
Ministers felt allegations about IPCC errors were undermining the body's reputation and with it the reputation of its conclusions, on which many governments have based their climate policies.
Subsequently, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked the InterAcademy Council to run the review. The council is independent of the UN, and has the capacity to select from among the world's top academics.
"The attacks on the IPCC, some of which are clearly driven by people and groups that have a political agenda, have undermined some public confidence in the IPCC," admitted Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the London-based Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
"A review by the world's premier scientific academies will help to boost confidence in the competence and integrity of the IPCC."
The IPCC has admitted making an error by including the projection that Himalayan glaciers could have disappeared by 2035, saying it regretted "the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance".
But it has stuck to its guns over other allegations, including for example that it exaggerated the likely costs of climate-related natural disasters.
It has pointed out that in a report totalling several thousand pages, compiled and collated largely by academics working in their spare time, it would be surprising if there were not one or two mistakes.
Roger Piekle Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado who has researched the likely costs of natural disasters, remains dissatisfied with the IPCC's response, and maintains that the review must listen to critical voices if is to be effective.
"The IPCC is certainly mendable," he said.
"In fact, it is important for it to be mended... climate change is an important issue, hence advisory bodies are similar importance.
"However, there are risks here as well, as a poorly conducted review could irreparably damage the institution."
He also said the review should look at conflicts of interest within the IPCC.
The charge has been levelled at Dr Pachauri over some of his consultancy work, although an investigation in March by auditors KPMG cleared him of financial irregularities.
"Dr Pachauri is in a very difficult position, because some of the most vociferous critics of the IPCC hold him personally responsible for the panel's perceived failings," said Mr Ward.
"Such critics are unlikely to be satisfied by anything other than Dr Pachauri's departure."
However, Dr Dijkgraaf suggested Dr Pachauri's position was not an issue for the review, and pointed out that the IPCC had itself asked for an independent review.
Wide view
The 12-strong review panel spans the physical and biological sciences and economics, and is drawn from the developed and developing worlds.
It is chaired by US economist Harold Shapiro, a former advisor to the administrations of Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton.
Its most decorated member is Mario Molina, who shared the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on ozone depletion.
About half have worked in environment-related science or economics, but the others have not, meaning they can bring in perspectives and practices from unrelated fields.
The panel is charged with producing conclusions by the end of August, which will then go out for peer review.
Its final recommendations will be presented to the IPCC in October, during a meeting aimed at finalising structures and procedures for its next major evaluation of climate science and economics, due to conclude in 2013.
http://www.kbc.co.ke/story.asp?ID=63956

 

[nnuut]

Open your wallet!

EPA moves to regulate industrial greenhouse gases

MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer Matthew Daly, Associated Press Writer – Thu May 13, 6:28 pm ET
WASHINGTON –
The Environmental Protection Agency moved Thursday to more tightly control air pollution from large power plants, factories and oil refineries, a step to limit emissions widely blamed for global warming.
The EPA said it is completing a rule requiring large polluters to reduce the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that they release into the air. Those emissions can boost many allergens and worsen smog, which can trigger asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments.
The rule would require companies to install better technology and improve energy efficiency whenever they build, or significantly modify, a plant.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the rule applies only to large polluters such as power plants, refineries and cement production facilities that collectively are responsible for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources in the United States.
Jackson said the rule sets commonsense standards that will clean the air and protect public health, while avoiding burdensome regulations that could harm farms and small and medium-sized businesses.
"There is no denying our responsibility to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren," she said in a statement. "It's long past time we unleashed our American ingenuity and started building the efficient, prosperous clean energy economy of the future."
The EPA announcement comes a day after an energy and climate bill was introduced in the Senate that seeks to accomplish many of the same goals. But EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan denied any connection, saying "rules are ready when they are ready."
The pollution rule will take effect in January, when industrial facilities that already obtain Clean Air Act permits for other pollutants will be required to obtain permits for greenhouse gases, if they increase those emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year.
Starting in July 2011, the rule would apply to any existing plant that emits at least 75,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year, or any new plant that emits 100,000 tons per year.
Emissions of 75,000 tons of carbon dioxide are equivalent to the annual emissions from 13,000 passenger vehicles, or the electricity use of about 8,200 homes per year, the EPA said.
The rule comes as Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., made public a long-delayed bill aimed at curtailing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill introduced on Wednesday would set a first-ever price on carbon dioxide emissions produced by coal-fired power plants and other large polluters. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_bi_ge/us_epa_greenhouse_gases