June 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm #495930porgeyMember
Thanks Len, I couldn’t work that one out.
As I wrote before and you alluded to, if the government encouraged a million families to grow there own food that would do far more in reducing A-CO2 and bringing about positive change than any tax will ever do. I think the “Carrot & Stick” approach would work really well, carrot seeds to plant and grow and a stick to hold up a home grown tomato!!June 8, 2011 at 5:17 pm #495931casalentaMember
porgey post=313641 wrote: Thanks Len, I couldn’t work that one out.
As I wrote before and you alluded to, if the government encouraged a million families to grow there own food that would do far more in reducing A-CO2 and bringing about positive change than any tax will ever do. I think the “Carrot & Stick” approach would work really well, carrot seeds to plant and grow and a stick to hold up a home grown tomato!!
You’re right, if they did that it would do far more, but they won’t because they’re more interested in raising revenue than in reducing CO2 emissions. Everything always goes back to money. If they encouraged everyone to grow food that would cost jobs (farmers, truck drivers, warehouses, supermarkets etc. etc.) and that would affect the economy, which they think is the only thing that matters in life.
We have to do it ourselves without waiting for any grubbyment to take action, and I guess that’s what most of us here are doing.June 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm #495932porgeyMember
Doc post=313553 wrote: VOTE 1 FOR PORGEY :tup:
Thanks Doc, I hope you are having wonderful day. Cheers, porgey. :cheer:June 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm #495933dianneParticipant
gardenlen post=313613 wrote:
as for the ice i can’t answer that but no doubtyou, are hinting at some sort of freezing operation why not add to that the transportation of the ice to homes and employment created. so you might say the freezer was a centralised one there were none in any homes and ice boxes don’t use gas so when they wore out they did not create any eco’ issues.
honest resonses generally explain what they mean and don’t come possibly as loaded. now keep in mind that those who worship CCC are not counting the pollution caused by food transportation which would have to be a major imput utilising trucks, trains, ships and planes as it does.
as for the gramma i am but a touch typist of about the 3 finger catagory.
might be the pictue i paint is a difficult one to grasp at times in this cosmopolitan society we live in. people of a certain age group would appreciate the term the good old days.
Just because this is a climate thread dose not mean everyone is against everyone else. my question was a truly honist one with no hidden agender. I truly always wondered where the ice came from and just thought I would ask as obvious someone here who rememmbers those days and migth know. I have tryed to find this out and have leart that for example in England they had ice shiped from Euroupe. I had wondered if we shiped blocks of ice for antartica but didnt know. As for the transport of the ice to homes as you mentioned, I thought they were delivered by horse and cart? not sure on that one either?
Please, not everything is an atack, not every question is “loaded”, sometimes it is just a question, someone trying to learn. :wave:
Ps. as you can tell, spelling is not my strong point either :whistle:June 9, 2011 at 1:33 pm #495934earthworm42Member
what u said in your original post is right on the money (pardon the pun. You are asking the right questions and when the answers and what we see in the real world are incongruent something is profoundly wrong.
keep digging but be prepared for very disturbing conclusions : (June 9, 2011 at 1:47 pm #495935lavmanMember
Like Dianne I too am puzzled at how things will be able to be kept cool, ice seems like a temperary or short term solution at best and does create other problems ie regualar supply and from how far away and at what cost. :shrug:
What about keeping milk cool during the day or do we train the cow or goat to come on demand when we want a cuppa, I know it is common practice to cool the milk through a heat exchange with cold water but it all depends on how cold the water is before hand, I wonder if is there any such thing as a solar fridge?
Sorry I think I have gone off topic, I believe over population is the cause of all our problems.June 9, 2011 at 3:35 pm #495936SurvegalistMember
In light of the heading of this thread and more important to the fact that we are not being asked by TPTB but rather,being told that “the science is in”.I feel that maybe,just maybe after reading the article below that the science just might not be as “in” as we are led to believe.
Don’t skim it over,read it.
Scientists trash the scientific method, more evidence disproving global warming theory.
At least the unethical and/or the leftist scientists do. The Scientific Method was invented by Galileo to insure ethical research protocols independent of popular thinking. Galileo was persecuted by the scientific community when his research indicated that the Earth revolved around the sun instead of the sun revolving around the Earth. This contradicted popular consensus of the time. He died penniless, persecuted and correct in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus.
Today ethical scientists abide by the Scientific Method in their research. The unethical scientists and leftists have abandoned that protocol in favor of “consensus”. The IPCC, Al Gore and the media keep talking about consensus about Global Warming theories. They don’t talk about any proofs derived through the Scientific Method because there are none.
Part of what makes the Scientific Method credible is the solid foundation that requires any scientific hypothesis to be verifiable, testable, repeatable and open to critique by any scientist in the world. In fact scientific journals are published to disseminate research findings and make them open to scientific peers. In response to that, we have scientists complaining around the world that they are “blackballed” from getting their refutation articles printed in scientific journals.
We have had had a Congressional hearing about the widespread censorship preventing scientists from coming forward to expose the fraud. We have had mainstream professors and research scientists complaining that the IPCC suppresses any dissenting articles and does not even report that there are any. We have Nancy Pelosi openly threatening any scientists who don’t toe the PC line on global warming to cancel their research grants.
That is not only a violation of scientific protocols and the Scientific Method, it is felony extortion. Similarly, we have had the head of The Weather Channel, Heidi Cullen suggesting that any meteorologist who contradicts the global warming tenants have his credentials revoked. This is also felony extortion. These women have not been called on it much as less prosecuted. Finally in “real science” there are supposed to be control studies or double blind studies done to root out tester bias. So far, I have not discovered any refutation, control studies or double blind studies in the research grants given by Congress.
ENVIRONMENTALISM IS A SECULAR RELIGION
We are also troubled by environmentalists who view it as secular religion. For them it is about faith and feelings. They can’t be bothered by facts and logic. Facts and logic do not resonate with them. They have adopted an alternative religion and for them it enables them to have a positive self-image. Whatever is stated in the name of saving the planet is never ever questioned or fact checked. To question it or fact check it to the environmentalist is a Christian’s equivalent to heresy. It is if we are denying God’s existence. Critics are dismissed, criticized, maligned and rendered irrelevant. For the environmentalist, there is no room for discussion. It is “us against them”. The resemblance between radical environmentalists and cults are eerily similar.
What is observed are the global warming cabal’s own writings. They characterize themselves as culturally and intellectually superior. They condescendingly refer to anyone who disagrees with them as: “The Cro Magnin Fringe”, Deniers, “under-educated” ignorant and so on.
Here are some scientific refutation facts that you should be aware of: Man caused global warming due to increased CO2 is a theory based upon a flawed computer model on the part of the IPCC. That theory posits that CO2 will rise into the atmosphere and stay there for 100 years. The IPCC claims that this will be cumulative and causing a “green house effect” thus causing the earth to warm.
Here is the scientific refutation. CO2 has a specific gravity of 1.52 which means that it is 152% heavier than air and thus sinks to the ground when released. This is why we use it in fire extinguishers. The CO2 sinks to the ground and starves a fire from oxygen. You can’t do away with the Law of Gravity. Now it is true that we have wind blown particles of CO2 in the air, just like we have wind blown dust particles in the air. The truth is that when the wind dies down, gravity pulls the dust and the CO2 out of the air and it settles back down to the ground. We went from 300 PPM (parts per million) before the Industrial Revolution to 380 PPM over the last 100 years.
That is an increase of 80 PPM. The fractional equivalent of 80 PPM is 8/100,000ths of 1%. That is a trace amount by any objective standard. Trace amounts are allowed in our food. The FDA even has standards for trace amounts of rat droppings in our food. People urinate in the pool while they are swimming. We all know that and yet we all swim in the pool. The amount of urine compared to the whole volume of the swimming pool is so small that it is not a factor.
Black Balloons is the title of a commercial that epitomizes the kind of outright rank fraud being perpetrated by the global warming cabal. You can see it for yourself by simply punching it into your search engine. Gore touted this commercial in a segment with Larry King. It is a slickly and professionally produced commercial with a voice over narration by Tommie Lee Jones. It depicts black balloons ostensibly being filled with CO2 from different appliances.
The balloons fill and then break free from the appliance and float up to the ceiling and out a window joining thousands of other balloons to illustrate how we pollute the atmosphere. What is fraudulent is that they filled those balloons with a lighter than air gas of Helium. If they had in fact filled them with CO2, they would have sunk to the ground. The media never made an outcry over this rank fraud. It is illustrative of the fraud going on the movement.
We are told that we are at a “tipping point” and that we are all in imminent danger thus requiring drastic alterations in our lifestyle, or at least mitigate it with carbon taxes.
Around the world, we put billions of cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere from distilling beer, wine and hard liquor. We also put billions of cubic feet of CO2 into the atmosphere from bread making. We even manufacture billions of cubic feet of CO2 to put fizz and taste into our soft drinks. In this country alone, the per capita consumption of soft drinks is an amazing 47.2 gallons.
Ask yourselves, if we are at a dangerous tipping point that requires immediate cutbacks of CO2 into the atmosphere, why are the scientists not asking or demanding that we cease production of these carbon offending products? This is of course a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. The public would revolt and we would not get any agreement at all to give the radical environmentalists what they are asking for.
In the mainstream media, we have been subjected to numerous scare tactic claims. We have been told that: we are going to have massive flooding due to glacier melt and ice burgs melting, that we are going to have “massive saltwater fish kills” due to that same glacier melting, that polar bears are either going to drown or starve due to the ice pack melting. We were previously told that we were going to have global warming because Freon was eating a hole in the ozone.
One of the big scare tactics by global warming alarmists is massive flooding due to ice melt. They conveniently forget to tell you thatNewton’s Third Law of Physics has not been disproved. His law states that: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION. This means that if we have ice melting due to warming temperatures, there will be an exponential increase in the rate of evaporation from the oceans. This evaporation is part what is called THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE.
The Hydrologic Cycle simply means that the rivers run into the oceans, the sun evaporates water from the ocean surface, distilling it and removing the salt in the process, the water vapor rises into the atmosphere where it is dispensed in the form of rain or snow which falls on the ground and runs off into the rivers where the rivers run back into the ocean. So in actuality, the oceans would actually decrease in height due to global warming not increase.
Al Gore stated that the floating ice burgs melting would also cause flooding in his movie; AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. You can disprove this yourselves because of Archimede’s Law of Displacement. You simply fill a Styrofoam cup above the rim with ice cubes to simulate ice burgs. You then fill the glass to the rim with water causing the cubes to float like ice burgs. Allow the ice cubes to melt. You will not have any water leaking over the side thus easily disproving Mr. Gore’s claim.
SALTWATER FISH KILLS DUE TO FRESH WATER INFUSION
We have been warned that there would be massive saltwater fish kills due to the fresh water infusion into the saltwater environment from melting ice pack. This sounds reasonable on its face. If you go back to the Hydrologic Cycle, we have rivers running into the sea all over the world. Examine TheMississippi River. It is the third largest drainage basin in the entire world. Its flow rate is 4 million gallons per second. Now ice melting could never equal that flow and in spite of it, there are no saltwater fish kills at the mouth of theMississippi River. This is due to the Diffusion Principle. You can be reminded of that Diffusion Principle back to the urination in the pool.
POLAR BEARS DROWNING DUE TO MELTING ICE PACK
If you look up in any scientific text, you will find that polar bears are classified as marine mammals like seals or walrus. You will also note that in that text, it will tell you that polar bears can swim 60 miles non-stop at a speed of 6 mph, more than twice as fast as a human. Drowning is not a factor in a healthy polar bear.
POLAR BEARS STARVING DUE TO MELTING ICE PACK
Polar bears primary diet is seal pups. Seals try and protect their pups by hiding them in snow caves below the ice surface. Bears smell the pups in the caves and try and catch them by breaking the ice surface to reach the cave and the pup. Bears are only successful in about 1 out of 6 attempts. If the ice pack melted, then the seals would be forced to having their pups on land. This would result in a veritable buffet of seal pups for the bears, thus causing the bear population to actually increase due to the extra food available. It is a little known fact that animals increase or decrease their rate of reproduction according to the available food in their habitat.
GLOBAL WARMING DUE TO FREON EATING A HOLE IN THE OZONE
Remember that scare tactic back in the 1970′s? Scientists have quietly backed away from that claim. This is because we outlawed Freon in 1989 and it has made no difference in the ozone. The difference it has made is to increase the cost of an alternative coolant over 500%. Despite the fact that their theory was disproved, scientists have not made such an admission and pushed for re-legalization of Freon which is much cheaper for cooling.
Confronted with this contradiction to their theory, scientists are now claiming that it is CO2 which is causing a “Green House Effect”. There was never an actual hole in the ozone. There was only a seasonal shift in the thickness of the ozone layer at the poles. The thinning is a natural occurrence due to the fact that it at the poles where the earth spins on its axis. This would naturally cause what is defined as a vortex. You see a thinning of the air in the center of a tornado which is another naturally occurring vortex. The thinning changes during the seasons because of Boyles Law and Charles Law of Gasses.
Scientists never bothered to explain their theory in view of the evidence that: Gasses have no magical magnetic properties that would cause them to race thousands of miles to the poles and then magically re-concentrate themselves into this toxic soup to eat a hole in the ozone. They also did not bother to explain how Freon could then rise up into the Troposphere where the thinning occurs since Freon is a heavier than air gas weighing 134% more than air. Scientists also did not bother to explain why there was no atmospheric thinning over the land masses in the warmer climates likeFloridaandCaliforniaandMexicowhere the Freon was actually released.
NASA quietly and without fanfare corrected their temperature records because a blogger reminded them that the warmest year on record was actually back in 1934 during the Great Dust Bowls. This is long before the expansion of the Industrial Revolution and its corresponding increases of CO2.
We have had atmospheric cooling for the last 8 years with record lows being set around the world. For example,San Francisconever got above 71 degrees in June this year for the first time ever since we have been keeping temperature records. This flies in the face of global warming theory and is an utter contradiction. Scientists and Mr. Gore have quietly changed their rhetoric to talk about “climate change” instead of global warming in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Now that Congress is poised to inflict carbon taxes and Cap and Trade legislation, it would behoove us to look at both sides of the issue which are conspicuously absent in the mainstream media. Carbon taxes are sure to be a business killer. We are in a deep recession with thousands of businesses going belly up. There are tens of thousands more businesses, just barely hanging on. President Obama said during his campaign he “he would tax businesses out of business if they did not meet his carbon requirements”. Businesses need to start lobbying Congress for their own survival.
What then as a society should be our role? Should we blindly accept increased costs and taxes based upon a flawed and disproved theory? My answer is no, what is yours? What will you do about it to give voice to your concerns?
Editor’s note: John Wilder graduated from College with three degrees, two of which in the sciences. He went on to graduate school for clinical psychology. Additionally, he worked in the scientific field for several years.June 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm #495937pennyMember
I heard an interview (quite a while ago) where an australian had invented a solar powered air conditioner. It has disappeared, so it was no good or has been bought out to prevent its development. I don’t think there is any reason we could not use solar power for cooling.But I might be wrong :shrug:June 9, 2011 at 7:32 pm #495938AnonymousGuest
suppose ice wasn’t the crux of what i wrote of past times there are more important issues in that posting, as i was a kid the ice came off the back of a truck, not sure how ofen it needed changing as the ice boxes seemed fairly simple but efficient, may twice a week delivery and there was always some old left over ice to be thrown i the back yard, only room for the new block. just what might we have to consider if we want to live sustainably? or live at all for that matter. don’t maybe know read it again???
the thing is we bought meat fresh daily on low wages as my father got, only the best of meat no offal then, the milk was daily or second daily fresh, the ice fridge would have sufficed. from a stand point of power usage there were no fridges, all we had was a paddle washer, and a radio to listen that was it. oh the milk full delicious creamy.
no ones suggesting we head back to that scenerio the modern yuppy person would go mad without all the mod con’s’. for us now we run a twin tub that is water efficient the water we use from our own source app’ 70lts get used for 3 full loads of washing and rinsing then waters potted plants.
weare going back to a CTR tube tv when we move (no tv back in teh days i previously mentioned), and will of course have a standard form small fridge freezer. no heating or AC here but just gotta have my internet.
the main issue of what i wrote is our salvation is going to be from having farmers feeding communities no middle men that way the farmer gets an income on par with the community we save by not paying rip off stupid market prices and we benefit health wise from safer fresher food that has not used power to be stored in a huge chiller shed for up to 2 years, at which stage to use the term fresh might be a fraud and nutrients may be almost non existant also as the plants are all mono-cropped anyway so lack nutrients.
the story also pointed at eggs no more than maybe 1day old and mixed in double and triple yokers at no exta cost, again at a decent price and no middle men where eggs are probably more like 2 weeks old before they hit the shelf all from organic chooks so no fraud of putting any egg in an organic carton, spread all over the pan when cracked. milk that has been messed with instead of fresh and full of goodness from the cow.
unless we stand united and it may be way too late as the CCCer’s have won, so we end up with expensive fresh food most won’t be able to afford no other way as there is way too many food miles in food, case in point qld gets butternut pumpkins from sth aus’ crazy they are so easily grown.
i never mention other’s gramma/spelling this is a topic discussion not an english lesson.
p.s: i think in those days the ice was far better quality than nowadays it certainly didn’t melt in a day, and ice factories not like now would have been near to all communitites. so maybe the sum total of all the ice made for acommunity might have the cost of the power it used spread over all the homes in that community, not a mathematician but i bet that was more efficient than each home having a fridge/freezer. maybe we got ice once a week dunno?
lenJune 9, 2011 at 10:30 pm #495939SurvegalistMember
penny post=313811 wrote: I heard an interview (quite a while ago) where an australian had invented a solar powered air conditioner. It has disappeared, so it was no good or has been bought out to prevent its development. I don’t think there is any reason we could not use solar power for cooling.But I might be wrong :shrug:
Penny,I also remember something along those lines but not sure whether it was a form of a solar powered cooler or thermal convection which cooled the room.
“Bought out to prevent it’s development” is a dicey thing nowdays with the advent of the web and access to alternative ways around an antiquated system driven by consuming electricity and the products they seem to make thousands of every day to keep the gravy train running on.
You thanked me for the post I made above,I wasn’t expecting that and was surprised actually,thank you.At least somebody read it. :pinch:June 9, 2011 at 10:39 pm #495940DennisMember
Hi Penny. Also a bloke was making a solar powered fridge. Trouble he was having was that it worked during the day but not at night. Good idea.
Survegalist I agree that was a great post and gives plenty of info.
DennisJune 10, 2011 at 12:15 am #495941
Furtther to the sea level rise issues of some Pacific Island Nations, like Kiribati and the people who are losing their islands to the sea.
“The first country destroyed by global warming”
Kiribati is a collection of atolls scattered around the central Pacific, none more than three metres above the average sea level. “It is that physical situation that makes us much more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change,” Mr Teem said on Friday. Rising sea levels, salt water inundation and severe coastal erosion is forcing the 100,000 people who live on the islands to move further inland – “if there is such a thing”, he said.
The small Republic of Kiribati, consisting of x 33 atolls and situated in the Equatorial Pacific, is slowly and surely going down. Storm surges, freakish waves, salination of fresh water wells and lands, un-predictable weather and tidal increases, are all contributing to the country’s physical demise. X30-40 years is all they have left. As yet there is no policy from industrial countries, or the UN, as to our collective responsibilities to people such as the I Kiribati. Where will these environmentally displaced people migrate to, and how many? Who will be their host countries? The I Kiribati remain now, literally on the very edge, as the most vulnerable of peoples, living with climate change. What we are looking at here is the eventual extinction of a distinct race of people, through loss of their home lands, and with it their vibrant social system and culture. This is irreversible.
Did anyone see the report tonight on “6:30 with George Negus”?June 10, 2011 at 12:33 am #495942June 10, 2011 at 1:19 am #495943RuddyCrazyMember
why bother with commercial when one has the internet at their disposal DIY ANYTHING is there for the taking. Solar fridge/ice maker easily made DIY but buying ammonia is taboo for the small guy so go make a still and use 92% or above brew. Let the exise mob come down and try and charge you because you used a 5 litre LEGAL still to make 92% or above brew. The idea is the boiling point is so much lower so make a solar collector and use and old ice chest as the ice maker. Sure it won’t work 24/7 but make enough ice through the day and the ice will keep everything cool until morning.
MMMMMM that link seems to have either been taken down off that website or I can’t find it but some quick fruuuuuugling came up with this one
Cheers BryanJune 10, 2011 at 9:50 am #495944AnonymousGuest
yep with you mate, “they” will simply brand all this as bad science infortunenately as they have not real concrete support for their own theory, a long read which if you don’t mind i will send to my posting list.
i have said before the worshippers of this beleif system of CCC, have won not by numbers but by being in the right place at the right time, we are now to be lumbered with a carbon tax industry that will neve be emoved as like there is no way they can prove their story they have no way of proving when the tax needs to be removed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.