We have two main concerns: Global warming caused in large measure due to carbon dioxide (CO2) AND dependence on oil from politically unstable and unfriendly areas of the world. These two issues, which seem related on the surface are really two very different problems. Tying them together in terms of developing a policy is quite dangerous to the United States both environmentally and economically. Unfortunately, people who want to utilize our coal reserves are using the convenient argument that using coal for fuel would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. While this might solve one problem it creates another, an environmental mess and an economic one in terms of high priced fuel for the automotive/trucking sector. Hopefully, when developing an energy policy, both of these two separate issues will be viewed rationally and not inappropriately linked together.

Man's emissions of CO2 are so small as a percentage of all greenhouse gases (less than 2%) that it boggles the mind to hear that some people think this is affecting the weather. There are no studies which show that increasing CO2 is correlated to increasing temperatures, and, in fact, the earth has cooled since 1998, and the CO2 concentration has risen. Ice core records of millions of years show that first, the earth's temperature changes, and, then, the CO2 concentration follows.

The United Nations panel on climate change is a political body whose purpose is to convince the world to pay carbon taxes to support the UN. The studies they use are flawed and show obvious attempts to fraudulently demonstrate the need to reduce CO2. Sorry, its a lie; and scientists have quit the panel when their work was misrepresented. Google on "McKitrick global warming" and see the most recent studies.

And, the liquification of coal is a great idea. South Africa gets over 30% of its gasoline from coal and their processes (from SASOL) are licensed in other parts of the world. We have pilot plants operating in the US, and we have the largest proven reserves in the world. Canada and China are also in the top three.

Renewables cannot provide enough energy to replace petro-chemicals: Holland has abandoned new wind plants because their are not enough suitble locations and because wind power, delivered to the power grid, costs 3 times as much as fossil fuels. China has abandoned bio energy because it raises the costs of food more than it is worth.

Why would we not develop coal liquification and gasification. It works, it is cost effective, we have the reserves, we have the financial capacity to do it, and, we desperately need energy independence from our enemies in the Middle East.

Those who oppose it are being fools.

CO2 does have a negative effect on the environment. That includes weather.

I'm not sure which studies were read to suggest otherwise.

Anyhow-- I always wonder why engineers aren't creating a counteractive technology that perhaps emits Oxygen and uses CO2 -- like plants? If we're creating "bad" things-- why not use them to reverse that process?

...easier said than done I suppose. Otherwise we'd be using salt water to make fresh water and avoid water shortages.

I think science has become very confused

A couple of days ago the founding father of Climatology Reid Bryson, called the Global Warming "Hooey" because the CO2 science is not making sense, Here are his words:

"There is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide."

About two weeks ago the head of NASA expressed doubts that Global Warming is a significant problem. His statement was based on the thirty or so years that NASA has been monitoring the temperatures in earth's upper atmosphere, which have shown little or no change. Although he did point out that the surface temperatures have shown a steady increase.

I will also note that last week he announced that he regretted his statement, but he did not retract it.

The point is if the head of NASA, likely the world's most important research organization is uncertain, then modern science is obviously confused, which maybe costing all of us time we don't have to burn.

On Thursday, October 23rd, 2003, a NASA press release of composite images taken of earth's polar ice caps from 1979-2003 showed that they have melted about 50% over two decades, and the effect appears to be accelerating.

Scientific confusion invites those radio talk 'Know It All, Guys' to claim Global Warming is just another "normal" climatic phase. The thing NASA should be pointing out is that no normal climatic shift could ever melt half of earth's ice in 20 years. This is extremely abnormal.

A meltdown this rapid would be the result of a climatic disaster, such as a massive volcano, a jumbo jet sized meteor or maybe something like the removal of earth's thick thermal insulation which also according to NASA, covered over 80% more of earth's land surface, 200 years ago, then today.

Not only can children prove at least 8 very powerful cooling effects that earth has just lost, but vegetation eats the CO2 that many theory scientists are solely blaming for global warming.

The carbon taken directly from CO2 is one of the two main ingredients plants use to make their food. According to ed.weinipeg.com, the web's interactive encyclopedia, the average tree removes 26 pounds of CO2 from the air every year, and earth just lost billions and billions of these CO2 eaters.

I'm not saying the burning of organic compounds is not a big problem, but today's levels of CO2 could still be mathematically balanced with enough new atmospheric photosynthesis occurring, which may still need to be 36% more then was occurring 200 years ago.

There may be a few ways to actually get that much vegetation growing long before we could ever launch a space umbrella. And unlike the umbrella these methods would make a lot of money for a lot of companies and pay a lot of workers, they could also produce millions of tons of food and construction materials, create typical vacation paradises and greatly reduce other pollutants from earth's air, while also cooling it.
They could even help lower earth's raising sea levels, and replenish endangered species.

Out of the 8 other cooling factors that I could design experiments simple enough for third graders, several lost ones seem to add far more cooling then today's 36% higher CO2 levels can physically hold of additional heat.

The massive expansion of oxygen gas released from water during atmospheric photosynthesis has not been accounted for in global warming theories, and some people calling themselves scientists even deny it happens. Yet only a few denied that oxygen gas was released from a dense liquid that was already 82% oxygen. (H2O has 2 H atoms for each O but one O is many times heaver then 1 H atom).

I am a manufacture and I work with other engineers that see this as clearly as the things we build. This is because they only use real science, no time to make up theories, and the thermal effects of expansion and contraction are a very large part of many engineer's daily work lives.

Land plants mix the carbon they get from the CO2 with the other main ingredient of their plant food, hydrogen, to create 'carbohydrates'. They then convert these into sugars, for use and storage. Our bodies also convert carbohydrates into sugars. Somebody called me an idiot, saying "plants convert carbohydrates into glucose, not sugar". Save your email, simply speaking they are the same thing.

Plants do not use the oxygen left over after removing the H2, from the H2O, nor do they combine it with another dense compound, nor do they store it, nor do they burn it, they just release it into the atmosphere to provide earth's animals with fresh new oxygen gas to breath. Any encyclopedia will verify that Photosynthesis is responsible for at least 99% of the oxygen in earth's atmosphere.

Mathematically this expansion is so massive it would have been canceling out a tremendous amount of heat right above earth's surface, if we had not have just removed 80% of earth's thickest vegetation.
This is because 'Expansion' is nature's only one step supper cooling method.

Unlike the similar cooling effect from evaporation (called 'transpiration' in plants) the O2 gas will never condense back into a liquid at earth temps, as all of the evaporated water eventually will.
This means that the expansion of O from photosynthesis is 100% efficient at cooling the air near earth's surface (where the problem is) as water vapors eventually re-compress its heat when it condenses.
The bigger difference is that most of the Atmospheric Photosynthesis is now gone, and the rate of evaporation appears to be up, do to higher temps and more storms, if the Weather Channel is correct.

This roughly 800 time expansion of O from H20 makes brand new atmosphere which contains only enough heat to balance its mass (to surrounding temps ) when compressed 800 times, so this newly released gas instantly draws radiant heat from the hot air, right above earth's surface, to re-warm it.

I have had many denials that this expansion even occurs, or that expansion even cools, but none were similar or provided any evidence beyond their words. Not one offered a simple way to demonstrate how a dense matter, without being consumed, attached or used, converts to a very sparse state, of the same mass, without expansion, no matter what they call the process.

For matter to go from a very dense state to a very sparse one without expansion, alteration, reattachment or consumption, would mean that science has discovered 'completely vanishing matter'.

If you want to ask someone else about this, find a clever engineer, or science loving sharp third grader, but don't ask a science theory writer, this effect is about as basic as effects can be, and they missed it.

Go to earthfitness.blogspot.com and read about many other lost cooling effects that theory science has not accounted for or apparently even noticed. If I can't back my words with real experiments and or natural examples that are simple enough for children to verify, do not believe me.

I also list over a dozen ways we can start cooling earth back down, right now, not in maybe 30 years if we are lucky enough that the solar winds don't blow the Space Umbrella out of the solar system.
They are part of the article "Space Umbrella vs. Desert Irrigation" at
Steven Craig

Here, here, to Mr. Lemay. I wish I could say it better but I can't so thank you sir. I think one of our main problems is trying to figure out whats the truth and whats a lie. I don't have the time to do all the research about all our problems but it's a cinch we could use a little more honesty from everyone about global warning.

man made global warming is HOOEY. AND THE GREATEST LIE. DONT BELİEVE IT

Clean Coal is already here. Coal can be processed into a useable fuel, methanol, with a carbon neutral footprint. The technology has been proven over the last 10 years by the DOE in Kingsport, TN. There are other methanol plants in the U.S., but they were bought and shut down by a Canadian company, Methanex, so they can sell us methanol from offshore sources. Read more at:
http://home.att.net/~dr-methanol/#methanol

Regards, Mike

Does anyone have the confidence that anyone in the Contra Capital is going to demand and examine the science as opposed to shooting from the hip? Does anyone truly believe that they will make a labored rationale decision based on the best interest of American citizens?

I don't.

Before doing else first must be a change in attitude regarding MMGW, the Bruhaha about it should be stopped for the mental sanity to allow a clear choice. MMGW is a virus that ills the public state of mind.

Once the crowd is ready to really thing about it will be feasible to properly evaluate the alternative to make a wise choice.

Germany didn't have Oil but warred for 6 year plus and that technology is today even more effective and efficient.

The real problem with middle east isn't Oil but religious zealotry which isn't going to fade away, so, the equation should be solved anyway.

The final ROCK to clear the way is the greed of the CEOs and mayority rich shareholders of Oil, coal and related Corporations (steel, transportation, contruction, etc) who want to own the world.

So, humanity will have to wait for a couple of generations before something meaningful is able to happen, meanwhile, we, the environment and the Biome pay the price.

Before doing else first must be a change in attitude regarding MMGW, the Bruhaha about it should be stopped for the mental sanity to allow a clear choice. MMGW is a virus that ills the public state of mind.

Once the crowd is ready to really thing about it will be feasible to properly evaluate the alternative to make a wise choice.

Germany didn't have Oil but warred for 6 year plus and that technology is today even more effective and efficient.

The real problem with middle east isn't Oil but religious zealotry which isn't going to fade away, so, the equation should be solved anyway.

The final ROCK to clear the way is the greed of the CEOs and mayority rich shareholders of Oil, coal and related Corporations (steel, transportation, contruction, etc) who want to own the world.

So, humanity will have to wait for a couple of generations before something meaningful is able to happen, meanwhile, we, the environment and the Biome pay the price.

to Arthur E. Lemay and his supporters in this forum, where have you been? I find it hard to imagine reading anything with your head stuck in a the sand. Join us in reality!

The proper consumption of the natural resources, especially oil, depend on how people can find thier smart ways in many fields. For years, many nations is under soundless war due to the procurement of energy. Personally, I hope that the 3rd oil shock won't take place in the future. US has strived to get thier energy protection from other nations or ways. Of course, the energy makes nations' power. However, God,currently,let us stop using the energy oil. That is a global warming. As most people have same views, it's so so serious. A few weeks ago, G8 ought to select the global warming as a top topic. In my opinion, G8 must show other nations thier efforts to try to reduce the green house gas. North and South Pole being melted is another world homework to slove.
Most of all, the world need to step forward more slowly for the development.

Mr. LeMay,
1. You misreported the CO2 issue - %/year isn't it. The issue is the 38% rise in CO2 concentrations- they're ours. It's a known. (Nature 275ppm. Status 380ppm. Current delta +2/year.)
2. Yes, there are CO2/temp correlation studies - it's called the greenhouse effect. It's a known. baseline ~+40dF, minimizes day/night dif ~15dF.
3. You may want to skip McKitrick - one of his climate model erroneously showed cooling because he interpretted missing data as 0d. It's a known. His curve needed the extra CO2 to work right.
4. The earth has not been cooling since 1998 (the Lintzen gambit). It spiked in 1998 due to an El Nino. It returned to its prior pattern of increases. It's a known.
5. There are no ice-core records for millions of years- Vostok is 400k years. No one ever claimed that ice-ages ended because of CO2 rise. Malenkovitch cycles, albedo effects, and greenhouse effects are known major contributors.

Your last point is desception: because it didn't cause warming naturally, you hope the reader will conclude that it won't cause it from human pollution. It will. Debate all you want about how much, how soon, and how bad, but more greenhouse gases will make each of those issues worse.

The pro-pollution camp needs to accomplish two things. First, empirically prove there was no unusual warming over the last 30 years. Second, disprove the greenhouse effect. Personally, I hope you can do it, because right now our plans are counting on it.

There is only two choices for avoiding abrupt climate change and runaway global warming: either immediately stop building non-CCS (carbon capture and storage) coal-fired power plants, or remove significant amounts of CO2 from the air after it has been emitted.

Ironically, three of the largest greenhouse gas polluters have vast deposits of coal: the US, China, and India.

The US generates about half of her electricity by burning coal. China generates about three fourths of her electricity by burning coal, and she is adding the capacity the size of Britain's entire power grid each year! India is planning to add at least 7 "mega" coal-fired plants.

And why not? Coal costs about 1/6th what oil or natural gas cost to generate the same amount of electricity, and coal is an abundant resource that doesn't have to be imported, but instead enriches the local economy.

According to the most recent scientific paper by Dr Hansen of NASA called "Climate change and trace gases" http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

"We conclude that a feasible strategy for planetary rescue almost surely requires a means of extracting [greenhouse gases] from the air."

A ban on building non-CCS coal-fired power plants is a non-starter.

By the way, I suggest the low cost, highly scalable, and technically feasible strategy of biosequestration for removing the CO2 from the air. Perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean. Mechanical sequestration is very expensive to build and operate, and is technically very difficult to engineer large scale.

The best plans for liquid coal state the use of carbon sequestration/recapture or nuclear power to eliminate the co2 problem. We only have around 30-40 years left on conventional oil, and there will be 9 billion mouths to feed. We need to be open to CTL technology if we expect human life to continue on this planet. As for the water, it can be recycled.

The climate change is a natural process, but the human activities are increasing this process. an option could be change the development model or greens tecnologies.

Hi Everyone,

I'm going to do colon cleansing pretty soon and need some recommendations to pick the right product for this.

I'm looking for something natural that has minimal side effects (preferably none at all)

Right now I have written down only one possible candidate - Bowtrol. I've found some good feedback about it on other forums and blogs but I need to be double sure before using it myself.

Here's one of the many colon cleansing product reports about Bowtrol (if you don't know what I'm talking about).

Let me know what you think.


Annika