Update: SNOW IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
And here in Massachusetts? More snow on the way
Pfffffttt!
"The other global warming; Even if we contain the greenhouse effect, says a Tufts astrophysicist, we'll have another heat problem on our hands" by Bina Venkataraman | January 25, 2009
Human civilization will heat up the planet; the glaciers will melt and the seas will rise. It's a familiar refrain by now, with a familiar solution: stop pumping out the greenhouse gases that trap the sun's heat.
But even if we bring the greenhouse effect under control, says a Tufts astrophysicist, the earth will warm up anyway, thanks to a completely different source of heat that we create ourselves.
I'm not only sick of the LIES, I'm sick of the MISANTHROPY! There are the WORDS again; click on the link and see where you find them.
AHEM!!!
"This month's temperatures are running 3 to 4 degrees colder than normal"
"The EPA attributed the decrease to fewer days with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees"
Yeah, anecdotally, I didn't haul out the fan as much.
Also read: Global Warming Causes Global Cooling
Also see Climate Change Causes Power Blackouts and related links within for more as well as the AmeriKan MSM's Long, Slow, Ceaseless Fart.
Please STOP the LYING AGENDA-PUSHING, you harmful bastards!
Related: Scientists Admit They Made Up Global Warming Data
Over the next 250 years, calculates Eric J. Chaisson in a recent paper, the earth's population will start generating so much of its own heat - chiefly wasted from energy use - that it will warm the earth even without a rise in greenhouse gases. The only way to avoid it, he says, is to rethink how we generate energy.
Oh, I see, they are HAWKING some guy's BOOK!!!!
Yup, we are to have GLOBAL WARMING even if the SCIENCE is saying NO!!!
His paper examines the planet's growing pool of waste heat, a widespread phenomenon that nonetheless has been little studied as a cause of climate change. Nearly everything that uses or generates energy - chiefly power plants, but also cars, snowblowers, computers, and light bulbs - squanders some energy as wasted heat. And the larger and more energy-hungry the human population grows, the more waste heat remains in our atmosphere....
Chaisson's prediction suggests we need to change our energy policy - not just by keeping emissions low, but by shifting toward power sources that don't add new heat to the earth's system. The culprits in the waste-heat problem are not only dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil, but also some "clean" power sources like nuclear and geothermal energy, which still add to the problem by pumping new heat into the atmosphere. The only way to stop waste heat-induced global warming, in Chaisson's view, is to rely on energy that already reaches the earth's surface: sunlight, and the wind and the waves that it powers.
Actually, I AGREE with the SOURCES of ENERGY; however, I DO NOT WANT GLOBALISTS IMPLEMENTING the POLICY!!!
Critics say Chaisson's paper describes a scenario so far in the future, and so dependent on projections, that there's simply no way to know if it will come to pass.
But let's TIE UP a whole bunch of print on a Sunday to promote it!!!!
Talk about PUSHING an AGENDA!!!!
They also say it could distract us from the far more urgent problem of greenhouse gases. But the idea has piqued the interest of several scientists from around the world who see an opportunity to avert a crisis before future generations have to face it.
Pffffffftt! How about facing that full-blast, fucker?!!!!!!!!
And in a broader sense, it also suggests a new framework for decisions, one that appreciates the long road we - and our planet - have traveled in our evolution from the microbes of the primordial oceans and the stardust of the cosmos.
That kind of long-range thinking is exactly what drew Chaisson's attention from astrophysics to the topic of global warming. His research typically focuses on the origins and evolution of stars and galaxies, and during a seminar on climate change in 2007, Chaisson asked himself: If we look at the earth as a spinning ball in space, reliant on the Sun, but where people plow new energy sources, how long will it be before all that new energy heats the planet up? He scribbled out some rough calculations to predict the eventual explosion of waste heat.
He's an ASTRONOMER, huh?
The GLOBAL-WARMING SCIENTIST is an ASTRONOMER?
The concept was not entirely new to him. With his mentor and friend, the late astronomer Carl Sagan, Chaisson had often discussed the notion that no civilization on any planet could survive over the long term unless it relied on energy from "its parent star."
"It just came as a no-brainer," he said, of the waste heat idea....
Sort of like this article and "idea," huh?
Which means, why continue with it?
Of course, the agenda-push is continued on the ops page:
"Go green - but be smart" by Robert A. Rio and Roger Borghesani | January 25, 2009
ECONOMISTS SAY we are facing a long recession. The Patrick administration offers a response: investing in the "Green Economy" - primarily energy efficiency, renewable energy, and grants to encourage "green" companies to grow here - as good for the environment and the economy. And they're right - if we do it correctly. However, in our exuberance to do the right thing, there is the potential to spend money needlessly and residents may not get all the benefits they should expect.
I would EXPECT NOTHING LESS from the GOVERNMENT!!!
Let's start with the basics. The proposed investments are not funded by taxes but rather through surcharges and tariffs collected on customers of utilities - totaling about $175 million in 2009. This money supports utility-operated energy-efficiency programs and grant programs at quasi-government organizations such as the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to build renewable power installations and provide seed money to "green" industries.
Yeah, the ENERGY TAX is NOT an ENERGY TAX, got that?
So YOU PAID for those CARBON CREDITS, huh, taxpayers?
In addition, the Green Communities Act would allow utilities (subject to approval by the Department of Public Utilities) to invest ratepayer money to subsidize more renewable power projects, with the financial risk and higher costs borne entirely by the ratepayer.
Translation: YOU are FUCKED, American consumer!!!!
This is all on top of an existing law that subsidizes renewable power to the tune of $125 million per year, and the approximately $75 million allocated to energy efficiency from recent auctions of carbon allowances as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
And just WHERE do you think THAT $$$ came from?
All this adds up to billions of dollars over the next few years alone, a huge wealth transfer from electricity users (many of whom are struggling themselves in the economic downturn) to favored industries and programs.
That's GOVERNMENT for you!!!
As a result, the administration and the Legislature have a heightened obligation to make sure the programs are cost-effective, transparent, and coordinated, and to monitor the overall costs of the programs, not just individual initiatives.
Pfft! Yeah, the legislature is looking ot for you, taxpayers!!! Pfffft!
At present, that is not the case. Since responsibility for these programs spans different agencies and arises from separate legislation, regulation, and administrative actions, it is not clear that anyone except perhaps the attorney general, as ratepayer advocate, is adding up the combined impact of all these programs on ratepayers' bills or gauging the economic impact of raising electricity rates on one sector of the economy to give incentives to other sectors. While some of the charges that fund these programs are separately identified on ratepayers' bills, others are not, making them invisible to consumers....
Oh, so you WON'T EVEN KNOW they are fucking you up the ass!!!!!!!
--more--"
Oh,and about that GLOBAL WARMING:
And DON'T TELL ME the enviro-cultist's lies are NOT HARMFUL!
Avalanche kills 10 hikers in Turkey
