REAL TRUTH ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

Comment

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on May 2, 2017 at 10:37am

If CO2 is so bad for the planet, why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth?

"CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient... increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels."

In fact, as recent scientific studies have shown, the slight rise in CO2 levels of the atmosphere has actually helped re-green deserts and arid areas, accelerating the growth of trees, shrubs and grasses which produce the oxygen human needs to breathe.

http://www.naturalnews.com/040890_greenhouses_carbon_dioxide_genera...

Comment by Eskutassis on May 2, 2017 at 9:32am

Deborah, the difference between you and me is that I don't believe we, as humans, have the slightest thing to do with the changes in our climate. I believe that we are but an insignificant fly speck on the face of the earth. Sadly to say, the huge growth in our communication system and the fact that anyone, anywhere can get bogus information spread to them at a moments notice has made this possible. It has made it possible to spread "fake news" and "fake Science" to the masses. It would have been Joseph Goebbels dream to have such a method of spreading propaganda. 

Scientists have been corrupted with politics. There is no room for politics in real science. Science is numbers and facts . . PERIOD and there is enough real science and real numbers to debunk all their "computer models". I sure like the idea we are going to be a little warmer, and the CO2 levels will be a little higher. It will make growing seasons longer and plants will grow much faster and bigger.

Comment by Long Islander on May 1, 2017 at 9:55pm

I could not agree more with the following from AWED (The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions):

We firmly oppose an “All of the Above” energy policy, as “All” would include
expensive, unreliable, and environmentally destructive options.

Instead we endorse “All of the Sensible” as the appropriate mantra
for an effective, economically and environmentally beneficial energy policy.

http://wiseenergy.org/more-about-awed/

The "All of the Above" energy strategy was likely concocted by a wind energy PR firm and is nothing but "safety in the herd", so that these scoundrels can sneak into our grid without notice. Such bull. Just another slogan that sounds good to the 99% of people who are not paying attention.

Comment by Deborah Andrew on May 1, 2017 at 7:26pm

In pointing out that AWED suggests we rely on coal, gas, nuclear because both Industrial Wind Turbines and solarphotovoltaics do great harm to the environment, I do not mean to suggest that there is a simple answer, not that we cannot gain knowledge of why we should not rush to install these so-called, misnamed, renewables.  I hope that more people will be fully aware of the real harm caused by the mining, manufacture, transport, installation, repair, decommissioning and replacement (every 20 +/- yrs).  In determining how to cease the use of nuclear, coal, oil, gas,I do not think we need go 'back to the stone age' but rather, that we begin the process of identifying what will mitigate, reduce, undo the harm we are now causing.  Working at the local level, cooperating regionally in implementing those things that appear to be able to contribute to this goal.  Regenerative agriculture, planting trees, re-localizing the sources of our basic needs, there are numerous projects around the world worth considering and monitoring.  I could not possibly respond to the question of 'what is the alternative' ... it would be worthy of a book or several books.  Yet, this is the direction in which I would suggest we would be wise to focus our energies.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on May 1, 2017 at 3:59pm

The hysterical climate obsessed alarmists not only have been had with bad data and data interpretations, but they also look at only one side of the ledger. If they were to look at the other side of the ledger showing all the good that fossil fuel has brought to modern civilization in the areas of human health and happiness, they might realize that it's basically all good on balance, particularly given how much we've cleaned up our air and water in the last 50 years. Perhaps one day even some of today's alarmists will look back and recognize the climate movement as one designed to hobble the U.S. economy, just as the immigration policy changes going back to 1965 were designed to destroy our national identity and allegiance to the American way.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on May 1, 2017 at 3:04pm

Climate-Change Activists Are the Real Science Deniers
For now, though, navigating the climate debate will require translating the phrase “climate denier” to mean “anyone unsympathetic to the most aggressive activists’ claims.” This apparently includes anyone who acknowledges meaningful uncertainty in climate models, adopts a less-than-catastrophic outlook about the consequences of future warming, or opposes any facet of the activist policy agenda. The activists will be identifiable as the small group continuing to shout “Denier!” The “deniers” will be identifiable as everyone else.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447215/climate-change-activis...

Comment by Eskutassis on May 1, 2017 at 2:26pm

Deborah;

If we aren't to use coal, gas, oil or nuclear, you are proposing that we go back to the stone age. There are over 7 billion people living on this planet that need power to exist as we do today and to thrive in the future. The greatest harm to mankind is to NOT have power (electricity) that enables them to grow food, provide education, provide sanitary health care, a job and something to live on, build shelters, provide heat and cooling when necessary . . . the list goes on and on. Climate change is a fraud perpetrated on our society for economic reasons, not environmental. It is a method of transferring wealth to build a world government, to make us poorer and the rest of the world richer. It is basically world dominated welfare. We, the US, have put forth more than 20% of all the money in climate change research and development while there are over 200 countries participating and ALGore is asking for $15 TRILLION more. 

We can't depend on wind and solar because by laws of physics it can NEVER supply the amount of energy we need now or in the future. Lack of energy in places like Africa and India kills more people than old age. Wind and solar need baseload energy sources (Oil, Coal, Nuclear, Hydro or Gas) to be operating all at the same to make up for the slack times in wind and at night for solar. It is a fact. Germany has found that when "renewable" sources reach about 15% of input the system becomes very unstable. And because wind turbines are frequently a long distance from where the power is needed, it loses quite a bit in transmission, and are not reliable when power is needed. 

CO2 is not the problem, never has been the problem, and burning clean coal, gas or oil is NOT raising the temperature. For at least the next 50 years we are married to those fuels or we will have complete devastation of our economy. Poverty is lots worse than warm weather. We have to face reality not fantasy.

Comment by Pineo Girl on May 1, 2017 at 2:20pm

Deborah - We have to do the correct things! And wasting money on false science and bad technology that will not change a thing is wrong! We are all being exploited by environmental hucksters who are making hundreds of millions of dollars off of spreading climate fear!  Al Gore is one of those individuals - As are a few others we know - Like Leon Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, and Larry Summers  You can read all about that here on the Sun Edison bankruptcy site:

https://cases.primeclerk.com/sunedison/Home-DocketInfo

Other documents filed detail billions of taxpayer dollars lost by phony deals.

I am not against doing the right thing for the environment -I am all for doing the right thing and knowing the true facts!  But I am against being exploited

Comment by Paula D Kelso on May 1, 2017 at 2:14pm

I hear you Deborah, but very few things in this world are black or white. My life is a nightmare due to toxins in the soil, air and water. Most people aren't as sensitive to these toxins as I am. But I think all people would be better off without most of them. Someone argued that DDT saved more lives than it took. Well they did find alternatives that were safer. Fossil fuel plants are hard on respiratory health but they are working to make those emissions safer. Many industrial giants don't care about the harm to the environment or the living creatures. There have to be strict laws to protect the environment and the humans. Very few problems are magically solved by one solution. More than the lack of laws we have a lack of common sense. Especially in energy policies and the environmental impacts. Seems to me the world is being pushed into a one size fits all solution to the problem of providing the safest and most economical energy for home, work and play in all corners of this big blue marble.

Just read one article about a big wind project in eastern Oregon being denied because of danger to the sage grouse habitat. Actually it was because of neglect to address the issue, not that it was 'proven' that it would wipe out the grouse to have 40 to 60 turbines in their neighborhood. Oregon has an abundance of hydropower. Probably those WT's were to generate electricity for California or other states. California seems a likely site for solar supplement. Texas for oil and wind. New England for hydro and natural gas. Not solar or wind. Instead of looking for the most economic benefit and the least cost in dollars and environment, energy policy is focused on a crazy crusade to save the world by 2050 or whenever.

All common sense has gone out the window. Big cities have the worst air pollution, let them use battery operated vehicles. There are so many ways we can improve the air, water and soil; but it all takes some baby steps here some giant steps there; always mindful that creating a new problem to solve an existing one is counterproductive.

[An interesting side note in that Oregon story. The Audubon Society was fighting hard for the grouse and opposed to the wind energy facility. Guess the Oregon A. S. has different priorities than the Maine Society.]

Comment by Deborah Andrew on May 1, 2017 at 12:13pm

Dear Pineo Girl,

While the facts about the incredible damage to the environment caused by both Industrial Wind Turbines and solarphotovoltaics area well documented, if little known and never mentioned in the corporate media, the plea to use 'natural' gas, coal, or nuclear creates a Hobson's choice ... neither are wise, sustainable, benign alternatives.  The real work is dramatic changes in public and foreign policy, dramatic reduction of the US military including closing of all overseas bases, and dramatic efforts that would result in significant conservation.  It is our unintentionally harmful way of life, as well as the lives people aspire to, that are partial causes of the problem.  We, or some of us, have celebrated the very inventions that have, over time, been major contributors to what may be our demise.  As someone speaking at Saturday's March in DC said: the planet will survive and mend, but the human species will be gone if we continue down the current path.  AWED is flawed, sadly.