These are the people who bring you the science behind global warming. Reporting from Fishing Lake;
“Standing in rubber boots in a flooded yard, with the lake behind her, she said that the waters will rise more once the lake’s surface ice, visible in the shot, melts over the coming weeks.”
LIke David Akin, who a few weeks ago soberly informed CTV viewers that “even if C02 levels were reduced to zero”, anthropologic global warming would continue.
In fact, according to Al Gore, flooding in Saskatchewan during April runoff is a sign of global warming. Thanks, Al! Now, when they report hail in July, frost in September, and blizzards in February, we plebes will finally have the answer to an age old question – “why?”
Do they realize that Flourescent lights wont work in the cold? How on earth are we going to light the outside of our houses in -30 weather ?
Yeah ENRON, Kyoto carbon credits only for governments
and the extremely rich! Hans Rupprecht.
More:
The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)
[…]
Amidst the talk about the benefits that Kyoto Protocol is supposed to promote, it is perhaps forgotten especially amongst the greenies how Kyoto was born in the corridors of very big business. The name Enron has all but faded from our news pages since the company went down in flames in 2001 amidst charges of fraud, bribery, price fixing and graft. But without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.
About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise.
Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime.
…-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813229/posts
Should we not be more than a little concerned that the Schools across the Country are pushing the Big Bull-crap spreader Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie?
It would be better called ‘Convenient Lies’ which it is. If there were any consideration for balance they should be showing the other side from some reputable scientists who know what the hell they’re talking about.
This is no way to present controversial subjects without an alternate view.
What was the attendance at Gore’s Regina appearance?
Do they realize that Flourescent lights wont work in the cold? How on earth are we going to light the outside of our houses in -30 weather ?
We’ll have to do like the “First Nations” and have a sacred fire going 24/7. That should cut down our CO2. sarc off
It’s interesting how the environmental hangers on interpret things. The way they spin anything and everything, all that happens with the weather is due to GW. A few years ago there was a guy from Suzuki’s organization on Rutherford (talk radio) in Calgary. What ever the weather, cold, warm, rain, snow, the character indicated that it was always due to GW. He did not hide his agenda; his position was clear and final.
Now, how do you argue with the point that a snowy day in July or a 20o C in December in Calgary is nothing out of the ordinary and then someone insists that it is due to GW. It seems just ridiculous.
Anyway one of the latest arguments dismissing the GW hysteria is Climate Cycle which is much superior and more appropriate to the “climate change” or “global warming”.
…spike at 1025 says
What about all the CO2 produced by fermenting food grains to make bio fuels?
that was not posted by this spike. there seems to be several of us on this blog. some confusion as its happened before. possibly posted by spike1 ? or 2.
Someone should tell the GW crowd and the Goracle that the Inuit are worried about the polar bears.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/04/25/arviat-bears.html
This MUST mean GW is a threat!
That should have been 20 degrees of Celsius. Superscript from Word does not work here.
more from maz2’s link:
As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this was simple; just look at the recent issue of Scientific American where four attack dogs were called out to chew up Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish The Skeptic Environmentalist demonstrating that global warming is overblown. David Bellamy, the world’s foremost environmentalist also stepped out of line with his widely printed article “Global Warming? What a load of old Poppycock.” In the same way Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, so Bellamy under pressure backtracked on some of his claims.
Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.” One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA.
True to its plan, Enron never made its own findings public, self-censoring them while it pleaded with the Bush administration for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that it could broker. That pleading continues today – the remnant-Enron still views global warming regulation as the straw that will raise it from its corporate oblivion. Some greenie campaigning in America is still directed from this source. On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a federal grand jury for his involvement in the scandal.
Everyone knows that a few hundred votes in Florida tipped the election to George W, but few are aware that West Virginia, normally a Democrat stronghold, went for Bush because the coal industry in that state decided to back him because he would not endorse Kyoto. Without West Virginia, the vote in Florida would have made no difference.
”Enron stood to profit millions from global warming energy-trading schemes,” said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and American Coal Coalition. The investigation into the collapse of Enron will reveal much more about the intricacies of the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which was promoting the Kyoto cause within the Republican Party and within US business circles. Coal-burning utilities would have had to pay billions for permits because they emit more CO2 than do natural gas facilities. That would have encouraged closing coal plants in favor of natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group – El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine – would make money both coming and going – from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices. If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.
Any chemistry grads out there able to help me stomp on some leftard science illiteracy?
I caught something on the radio t’other day, from the Sainted Suzuki or the Goracle about cars producing 800 tons of CO2…I didn’t catch whether that was annually or lifetime to whatever. But the numbers make no sense…800 tons (1.6M#) implies about 1/2M# of carbon or 275,000 litres of pure Carbon…yup, over a quarter of a million dollars worth of gasoline…and say 5 Million km plus.
If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale…
So today I googled ‘gore co2 reduction car’ and by way of an intermediate link ended up at ‘TerraPass’. It offers to assuage your guilt, make your hair grow back etc.etc. If you pay them to do..something..it’s not clear what they *do*.
But it has this calculator thingy, where you select your car make, model and year, it is tells you how much gas you are expected to use, and how many pounds of CO2 that produces, in driving an average 12,0000 miles.
Here’s where the numbers start to go…voodoo.
The relationship is in fact, fixed: You produce 19.56 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gas. (How many gallons and how many pounds depend on the car’s efficiency). That’s US gals, TerraPass being based in California.
So I figure 19.56 pounds of CO2 gas at standard temp and pressure consists of 13.61 pounds of elemental oxygen and 5.95 pounds of elemental Carbon. (Now class, there is one Cookie at 14 and two Oreos at 16 in each package. The box of packages weighs 19.56 pounds. How many pounds of cookies?). Sound horribly horribly deja vu already? With me so far?
Now an Imperial gallon weighs about 8 pounds and 1.2 galUS = 1 galImp so 1 galUS = 6.66 pounds or thereabouts..
Which implies that the elemental carbon in one US gallon is …5.95/6.666 = 89% of the overall weight. So what about the oxygen in the gasoline?
Those numbers imply something in the order of 7 carbon per oxygen atom to match that ratio. Now it’s been many years since I escaped from a chemistry exam, but I don’t remember seeing volatile liquids with that sort of ratio (even if you throw in some hydrogen atoms…)
So… anyone know a good figure for the actual carbon content of a gallon, or litre of gasoline?
I thought about attempting to reconcile the rest of the number structure but my head started to hurt. However I think that these numbers are bogus. Can anyone help?
From a Poor tax payer in Saskatchewan!
Does anyone know, or will anyone ever find out how much it did cost to have our priemier invite Gore to preech his Stupidity. Flooding happens in Spring in some areas of Saskatchewan.!
Geoff, I used to live in the NWT where winter temps got down to -40 quite regularily. My outside porch bulb was a CFL and it took about 15 minutes to light up, so I decided to leave it on 24 hrs per day (it was hard to change so I wanted something that would last a while). Moral of the story: they will light up but it takes a while.
Also, the dummies in Nunavut think that this will save energy? Incandescent bulbs help heat our homes 8 months of the year!!!!
I am now taking orders for delivery of genuine Texas incandesent bulbs. As these are texas souveniers they will be exempt from the Canadian ban. Line forms on the left…
Geoff, sorry to disappoint on your chemistry comment (because I strongly believe that GW is caused by the sun, not CO2):
The mass of one gallon of gasoline is about 6.2 lbs per gallon (water is 8.4 lbs per US gallon). Assume that most of this is elemental carbon (less than half the molecules are carbon, but they weigh much, much more than the hydrogen molecules). So if you take a pessimistic case that 6 lbs per gallon is pure carbon, the resulting mass of CO2 emissions will be : 6 lbs carbon + 21 lbs oxygen (molecular weight of Oxygen is 8 moles, carbon is 6 moles, so it is not a 2:1 mass ratio) = 27 lbs Co2. Now this of course is simplified (I didn’t calculate how much C is actually in gasoline, so I am a little on the high side with my assumption), but the number you mention sounds reasonable. I would do a better calc but I am sitting a hotel lounge without any decent reference material on hand.
You’re on the right track Geoff.
What you need are the molecular formula of the fuel(which will be different for each fuel, each grade, and to some extent may even be slightly different between brands) and the combustion equations. Keep in mind that your adding air (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon and about a dozen other elements and oxides in minute quantities – including .035% CO2)and that your products of combustion will include, in addition to CO2, CO, N2O,SO2 and other real pollutants. Then take into account combustion efficiency of the engine, fuel additives and other local contaminants, and allow for what your catalytic converter removes from the exhaust.
It seems pretty obvious that in the rare cases where numbers are being thrown around, that they are pure estimates. I personally don’t know anyone who has a gas analyzer on either their car’s exhaust or their home heating system. Good luck.
Texas Canuck:
Do you take ‘incandescent bulb trading credits’? 🙂
Maybe you could list a ‘bulb trading’ company on the NASDAQ?
Just make sure in your SEC filing you tell them they are not Dutch tulip bulbs!! You want to avoid all that nasty ENRON stuff.
Cheers
Bend over Conservatives, John Baird has a present for you:
“The Conservative government’s new climate change plan calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be slashed by 20 per cent below current levels by 2020 … The government was planning to unveil details of its plan to stakeholders and environmentalists tomorrow in Toronto. It is expected to include new short-term targets to crack down on pollution in all sectors of the economy with penalties that could affect the bottom line of many companies, operating in Canada.”
But don’t worry! They’ll come up with lots and lots of make-work “green” projects for you, after your job goes bye-bye to someplace where they’re not so worried about winning votes from eco-loons. How ’bout a nice, cushy job picking through thousands of tons of trash in a recycling facility making sure that the plastics are fully separated from the cardboard. Or knocking down all the buildings in what used to be your town’s industrial park and planting trees in their place. Better start kissing your member of parliament’s ass right now though, because all the really great make-work projects will get booked fast.
My, isn’t this wonderful? The Cons have jumped on the Global Warming band wagon. Fluorescent lights for everyone. I’m looking forward to more mercury and phosporus in the environment.
http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/electricity/fluorescent/safety.html
Which spike is it ? Curious Cats need to know .
When I heard about the proposed ban on incandescent bulbs, I first checked the date on my computer to see if I had somehow hit a timewarp and ended up back on April 1. Nope, 25 of April and looks as if moonbats are infiltrating the conservative party. An alternative explanation is that there is something about Ottawa that rots peoples brains in which case the whole place should be quarentined.
The incandescent bulb is cheap and about as simple as one can get for an electronic device. It operates in the cold and on winter nights I’m very glad I have incandescent bulbs in my workshop as they provide me with enough illumination so I can light the stove and once it is warm enough the fluorescents come on. Incandescent bulbs are also a source of heat which is often very desireable.
In other cases the heat is undesirable and here I use fluorescents; generally not the type that fit into regular light bulb sockets but the long ceiling mounted types that produce lots of light.
For small lamps there are no fluorescent substitutes and LED’s have their own set of problems. The other thing about incandescent bulbs is that they represent a variable resistance with the resistance being very low when they’re cold and quite high when glowing. There are a lot of electrical circuits where a light bulb is an integral current limiting component; sure you can get the same effect with solid state electronics but light bulbs are tough.
One solution to the mercury problem in incandescents that has been proposed is to go to high intensity LED’s. All my Christmas lights are LED’s, I have LED flashlights all over the place, and would love to have high intensity LED’s, but would never rely solely on them. The main reasons for this are (1) lightning and (2) EMP. Solid state devices have the annoying habit of being destroyed by relatively low voltages whereas incandescent lights are destroyed only by high currents. A lightning strike nearby in which part of the current travelled through the house wiring would destroy all solid state devices connected to the power lines while leaving incandescent lights unscathed. A nuclear bomb detonated high above Canada could fry most of the solid state electronics in a very large geographic area. Incandescent lights would survive and so would most tube operated equipment. (That’s one of the reasons why the vehicle I drive was built in 1969). I haven’t abused the tiny fluorescents enough yet to know what they would do in this setting.
When incandescent lights are banned, what happens to tubes? Most TV sets have a picture tube which is really a glorified incandescent bulb. It contains a vacum in contrast to incandescent bulbs which contain inert gas – would the ban only apply gas filled bulbs that have filaments? One could then get around the ban by selling vacum filled incandescent bulbs, but these wouldn’t last as long as metal tends to evaporate off the filament faster in a vacum. If there was a blanket ban, then only LCD screen based TV’s could be sold in Canada in 2012. What about elevator button lights and vehicle headlights?
The decision by PMSH to take away the environment ministry from someone who was doing quite a good job and assign it to a totally incompetent ignorant moron is the most serious mistake he’s made thus far. As soon as I am less worked up about this, a letter is going off to PMSH.
I also think that banning the light bulbs is a pretty pointless move, however, I disagree with loki’s comment: “assign it to a totally incompetent ignorant moron is the most serious mistake he’s made thus far” — Baird is in that position because environment became a political hot potato. Harper needed someone forceful to stand up against all the criticism. Unfortunately, a lot of these moves are being taken in response to the vocal evironmentalists. Something needs to be done to respond to demands of environmentalists (unfortunately with respect to CO2 and Kyoto, their demands are totally misguided) — however, as long as Harper and Baird do not do anything too extreme (like buying credits from China), I don’t find it to problematical. I think the light bulb thing is just a bit silly — and if the flourescents don’t work in the cold, then the decision will have to be reversed.
Don’t understand this stuff where you get some 27# of gasses from @ 7# of gasoline with conversion of gas into heat and kinetic energy, I guess there is an explanation some round about way, though this is impossible as per laws of thermodynamics. What’s the deal?
As I said before,do I get compensated for loss of income (I paint Burned out incandescent lightbulbs)thanks a lot all you eco freaks!
Marilyn, we have some excellent jobs coming up picking pieces of broken mercury-laden fluorescent light bulbs out of a trash conveyor belt with tweezers. It should be a good match for your skills. It’s from 2am-6am weekends, and it’s seasonal, and it’s in Timmins, but thanks to a deal we cut with the NDP to support this legislation the funding to the waste transferal company (owned by a consortium of political bagmen, natch) is locked in for the next 5 years so if you don’t drive a car and you don’t take any vacations then you’ll be able to afford a down payment on a small prefab home after the first 3-1/2 years or so. Call me at my constituency office, okay? BTW what are you doing during the next election? Do you think you could stuff envelopes or something?
And to all you people who think that cutting energy use by 20% and imposing draconian limitations on industry and consumers is going to harm the economy: blow me. Green jobs are an investment in the future.
Bolshevik, although the liquid input is only 7 lbs of gasoline, the rest is made up of oxygen from the atmosphere.
BUT: None of this matters. The sun drives climate change.
LindaL: As far as my comments about the environment minister, I stand by them as only a statist moron could come up with an idea like banning incandescent bulbs. While they’re at it, why not pass a law banning global warming?
IMHO the best approach for PMSH would have been to forcefully put forward evidence that anthropogenic climate change is junk science. The president of Czechoslovakia has no such inhibitions about stating this and we need more leaders who are willing to stand up for the truth.
Bolshevik: Simple chemistry is the answer. Assume that gasoline is 100% n-octane (close enough for this computation although in reality gasoline is complicated mixture of various long chain hydrocarbons and their isomers). Octane is C8H18 which gives it a molecular weight of 114.2 and it has a density of 0.7 gm/ml. Thus 1 liter of octane would contain 6.12 moles of octane. When burned this would produce 49.04 moles of CO2 and 9 moles of H2O. The 49.04 moles of CO2 have a weight of 2.16 kg with 1.46 kg of that weight coming from atmospheric O2. So burning 1 liter of octane would result in the replacement of ~1.59 kg of atmospheric O2 by 2.3 kg of CO2 and 0.144 kg of H2O (weights of products don’t add up due to rounding errors).
So, 1 imperial gallon of n-octane (4.546 liters) would result in the production of 10.46 kg of CO2 or 23.0 lbs. 1 imperial gallon of n-octane weighs 7.03 lb. If someone wants to refine these numbers based on the actual composition of gasoline, feel free but basing the calculations on n-octane is probably within 5-10% of the actual value. (100% combustion of gasoline also assumed in the above calculation).
Thus, a short drive like Vancouver-Kamloops in an SUV which used to cost ~$50 when gas was cheaper would result in the production of 164 kg of plant fertilizer.
Loki — the political realities in Canada are different from those in Czechoslovakia. For one thing, they have discovered the sham of a Communist/totalitarian government, while here, many still think that might be a good idea. I just really think that Harper would be pilloried if he tried to tell the truth about Kyoto and global warming — too many people have a vested interest in keeping this nonsense alive. It also is clear from tentative steps that have been taken that you can present logical arguments about such things as impact on the economy — you will be shouted down by the environmental Nazis.
I voted Conservative and ended up with another Liberal government.
My response to the 2012 light bulb ban is to institute a donation ban effective immediately.
The donation reminder I received today will be mailed back with a polite note.
TIME had a article about this global warming fruad and they were recomending we give up beef SCREW TIME i have a better idea instead we just cancil our subcription to TIME i mean how many trees were chopped down to make this liberal socialists rag
so my 7lb gallon of gas, now weighs 23 lbs after it has been through my engine?
Only the truly naive believe that Ambrose or Baird could possibly run the Ministry of Environment independent of Harper. Nope. All these flip flops on the environment are strictly Harper’s ideas.
Welcome to Canada’s New (Liberal)Government…where promises are quickly forgotten and ethics revolve around getting re-elected.
sysk: “so my 7lb gallon of gas, now weighs 23 lbs after it has been through my engine?”
Think of whiskey – your engine doesn’t drink it straight. It mixes it with coke (air) and lots of it. When it whizzes it out – everything comes out.
Goreacle’s Gong Show/Road Show is filed/classed as “Entertainment” by Google News.
If the shoe fits, …
…-
Entertainment
Al Gore brings climate change lecture to Calgary
CTV.ca – 23 Apr 2007
http://news.google.ca/
The Conservatives will announce emission targets today .. setting a goal of reducing air pollution 50% by 2015 & reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 2007 levels effective 2020. This is shy of Kyoto targets the fmr. Liberal govt said it would meet, i.e. 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.
Liberals have it right, Kyoto’s the way to go – urgent dramatic action is needed
7.31%
Conservatives have it right – meeting Kyoto targets would be economically ruinous – this plan is realistic & includes smog
91.4%
Other (email mornings@cfra.com)
1.21%
Total Votes: 82
Trevor and Loki
Thanks for the lesson
The simple truth is that what any of these political parties announce today to get the votes of the uninformed, really does not matter. The dates annunced do not matter today. There will be a different government, different technology and who knows maybe the whole GW hysteria will be abandoned once it looses financial rewards, remember that is the only an sole reason this subject is alive. Have a look at the post at SDA 26-4-2007.
So what is announced today has very little bearing on 2015, 2020 or what ever.
I read that the average car built in 1985 produces 35 times the carbon monoxide (as opposed to dioxide) than the average car built in 2007.
Given that carbon monoxide is supposed to be much more efficient at trapping heat (as in greenhouse effect) than carbon dioxide by some huge magnitude (I’m going by memory but it was something like 20 times more effective like sulphur dioxide is) then we have already vastly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We have also drastically reduced the sulphur emissions. So out of 3 major GHG’s, we have dramatically reduced the two worst ones. These are also the gasses that also cause things like smog and acid rain.
Why no credit here? I assume someone will correct my figures to the accurate ones. The point being the same.
Getting back to the melting ice on the lake, obvisously, as stated elsewhere and acknowledged by the Goru himself, will not raise the level of flood water. Someone pointed out that melting mountain ice will raise levels and that is also true in theory at least. Observation of melting snow and ice in moutainous regions and rising water levels in lakes and oceans don’t seem to bear out the theory. The levels are not rising with any significance, probably because moutain glaciers contain very little water on the grand scale.
“The mass of one gallon of gasoline is about 6.2 lbs per gallon (water is 8.4 lbs per US gallon)(less than half the molecules are carbon, but they weigh much, much more than the hydrogen molecules…”
…what I still don’t know how they figured the weight of the earth to be.
Seeing it is so heavy, why doesn’t it fall down?
😉