Archive for the ‘Global Warming’ Category

The Electric Vehicle Scam

Sunday, October 30th, 2022

Warped Perception?

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

If you have a degree in the hard sciences, you already know what I’m about to discuss. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there’s no such thing as perpetual motion machines.  If you want to do work of any kind, it requires energy.  One must create that energy, or at least convert it from another form, in order to do that work.  Most forms of energy production we do are chemical transformations of some sort.  When you eat food, your body chemically decomposes the meal into a form it can use to drive your muscles, and keep circulating your blood, and so on.  When you pour gasoline into your fuel tank, and it goes forward into your engine, where it’s ignited and turned into a forceful combustion, to push pistons that reciprocate, turning your crankshaft and so on, you’re also doing a chemical transformation.  When you store energy in a battery cell, then retrieving it to drive your electric motor(s), you’re again doing a chemical transformation, in reverse of the sort of chemical transformation that occurred when you charged the batteries.  Before you could charge the battery, however, the current with which you charged it had to be generated somewhere, and in a few cases, that was accomplished by nuclear reactions, or thermal, wind, solar and hydroelectric power generation, but throughout the world, the main source is through the burning of some sort of fuel in another chemical transformation into power to generate electricity.  This is reality, and even(and especially) Elon Musk knows it.  This poses a serious problem for the scam artists.  They can fool you on the front end, but in the long run, you’ll eventually convince yourself that you’ve been fooled.  Electric vehicles, as they’re being proposed to consumers, are a complete, utter scam, and every serious scientist knows it, and every engineer understands it.

I want you to watch the video below.  It’s just less than sixteen minutes, but it’s worth it.  I don’t know whether he’s exposing insanity or possibly suffering from it.  There are important lessons to be garnered here, but most importantly, you can finally put to rest the insanity of the electric vehicle scam.

The gentleman who made this video seems earnest enough.  My point here is not to criticize him, personally, but to confront what this video lays bare about electric vehicles.  His chief complaint with his Tesla EV seems to be that he doesn’t like the lengthy charging sessions, or the lack of availability of charging stations, but he also mentions his dislike of stopping to refuel a gasoline car.  i suppose he wants a forever-mobile, a kind of perpetual motion machine, that requires no charging, no refueling, and presumably, no maintenance or much of anything else.  He wants to be able to get in and drive until he’s ready to stop, to re-commence his travels at any time he pleases.  Who wouldn’t like that?

Obviously, he’s noticed that his Tesla requires recharging ‒ lots and lots of recharging.  If he only drove a few miles per day, he might well be able to subsist with his Tesla, at least until the very large, very expensive battery inevitably dies permanently, no longer able to be re-charged.  His solution here is to take a generator, driven by a 13HP gasoline engine, install it under the hatch of his car, in the area usually called “the trunk.”  Along with this, he’s also installed a gasoline tank, and all the plumbing and wiring to make this work.  He removed his rear window, created a weather-exposed zone in his trunk, hooking it all up so that the generator will charge his Tesla’s batteries, even while riding down the road, thereby extending his range, and giving himself a built-in charger.  I’ve seen others try similar approaches by simply pulling a small trailer with a generator bolted-down, accomplishing the same thing, but adding the problems associated with a trailer. I’ve seen others put a portable generator in the trunk that they can simply pull out and run to re-charge the car if they completely discharge between charging stations, but that cannot be run going down the road.

In the video, he takes this contraption on an 1800 mile journey of several days, the goal being never to stop for a charge.  Along the way, he stopped by a friend’s house, a friend who has a jet engine mounted on a pontoon boat(and I’d urge his friend to rethink the simple flat screen guard on that engine,) but a couple of things become apparent through the course of the video:

  • His generator is insufficient to keep up with his Tesla’s power consumption at highway speeds.
  • He is forced to refuel his “Cordless Tesla” several times, probably daily.
  • He has this noisy contraption running everywhere he goes, and must leave it running overnight while he sleeps in hotels.
  • It’s so noisy that people call the police.
  • The police stop him once because he’s driving too slowly on the highway as he attempted to match consumption to his insufficient generation.

While he was considerate enough to park it well away from the hotels so that it probably wasn’t too annoying to guests, he stopped at one restaurant, and I’m pretty certain that if I had been the owner of said eatery, I’d have asked him to shut it down while he dined.  At the end, he summarized his experience, and also displayed the mileage his “Cordless Tesla” was getting:

This is not MPGE, but actual mileage at the speeds listed

With all of this said and done, at the completion of his trip, he notes the shortcomings, and since along the way, he visited a Kohler Engines facility, I can only imagine that he intends to install an even larger generator in an attempt to improve his results.  What he may achieve is to extend his duration, but what he will not change is the left-hand column on the chart above, except perhaps to worsen it with a larger, heavier generator installed.  A larger generator will likely necessitate a larger fuel tank or severely reduced expectations, but what I must say is that I truly want to congratulate him.

He’s built an undisguised fossil-fuel-powered Tesla EV.

He undertook this project apparently to address the shortcomings of his Tesla, and all EVs in general.  What he succeeding in doing is to prove that only larger internal combustion engines can actually accomplish his desired outcome.  He still has the fuel stops.  He still has the noise(much more, actually.) He has a doubling of the expense. He still has a giant battery pack that when it dies, will cost more than his eventual final generator, fuel tank, plumbing, and wiring, and he’s still burning so-called fossil fuels for the pleasure.  I don’t think his rig would be legal in California, either for the noise, or for the fact that they’re banning all outdoor gas-powered equipment like chainsaws and lawn-mowers and generators, so not much use there.  And then there’s this:

My last long trip in our 2013 Ford F350 Crew-cab, diesel 4WD truck was around 1250 miles each way.  On the highway, I averaged 70-75mph, depending on the speed limits, of course, but on that trip, the diesel truck managed to get 19.3 MPG.  I stopped twice for fuel, each way, topping-off a little before hitting the road for the return trip.  At roughly the half-way point on the way home, after topping off, my range said 647 miles.  Of course, it also sips diesel exhaust fluid.  That’s a truck that likely weighs well beyond double what the diminutive Tesla weighs.  I made the same trip a couple years before in my Mustang GT, which is probably closer to the same weight.  I averaged, well, let’s say “the same speed.” In that car, I managed 23.7 MPG, though in honesty, if I’d made more judicious use of my accelerator pedal, I might have done somewhat better.  The point is, neither of the vehicles I mention are “fuel misers.”

The truth of all of this is that you can’t hide from reality in the end.  Physics is.  Chemistry is.  Math is.  Some people need to spend a good deal more time at all three.  The truth, however, is more plain when it’s undisguised.  That’s the one thing this gentleman, the owner of the Youtube channel Warped Perception has fully exposed.  I’m not sure if that had been his motive, but if so, he’s succeeded.  His other Youtube channel is called Matt’s Lab, where he describes himself this way: “I’m an Engineer, lover of Science and Mechanics and also a Filmmaker.” If he’s an actual engineer, he surely knows all of this, but again, that may have been his point:  All EVs are at least in part powered by fossil fuels.  That’s because the electricity being generated elsewhere to charge the EV is probably burning fossil fuels.  You can’t escape it.  The idea that we can replace internal combustion engines in any practical sense with EVs is simply madness.  In his attempt to make his Tesla EV more practical, what he’s done is to simply unmask the whole EV scam.

The one thing that actually is more efficient about his mobile power-generation, at least theoretically, lies in the fact that there aren’t many miles of cabling between the source of the energy and its destination in the Tesla’s batteries.  You see, much energy is lost in the transportation of energy because of a little thing called “resistance.”  Measured in Ohms, it’s a measure of how much impedance a given current encounters while traversing a given conductor or device.  Rubber is a very poor conductor, which is why it’s often used as an insulator on cabling, while copper and gold are excellent conductors, as are most metals.  Aluminum is common in transmission lines, but one of the problems with aluminum is that it has higher resistance to current than copper, but because it’s lighter and much cheaper, it’s used there.  Chances are, the power cable that runs from the transformer on the pole near your home is aluminum.  In any event, for every mile and foot of cable between the power plant and your home, energy is being bled-out by this resistance in the form of heat and electromagnetic radiation.  It’s one of the costs of an extensive, lengthy distribution grid.  You’re bleeding energy all the way from the source to its point of use.  In this sense, his “Cordless Tesla” exposes another problem people don’t understand in this discussion generally:  In most instances, it is far more efficient to generate power where it’s being used, rather than to generate it at a distance, transmit it over miles of cable, through transformers, and ultimately into a chemical storage device(battery) from which it will be again transformed back into current on demand.  At each transformation along its path, and in the process of storing it and then pulling it from storage, there is a certain amount of loss built into each step.

He could make his generation more efficient by getting an even larger generator, and just driving the electric motors directly from the generator. To get the acceleration he sees now, however, he’d need a really large generator to produce the bursts of current he’d need, and transformers, as well as more weight and more fuel.  At that point, he’d be better off simply getting rid of the generator, keeping the motor, and hooking it directly to his transmission, and then do you know what he’d have?  A standard gasoline-powered car.  In the end, you have a vehicle just like the ones we’ve been driving for generations.  Problem solved.  Genius!

The most efficient solution that would also be as practical as gasoline or diesel engine is something else entirely, assuming you’re dead-set on getting rid of fossil fuels:  Hydrogen.  You can even keep the internal combustion engines.  All you need is hydrogen, which is in every molecule of water on Earth.  The problem is storing it.  You can derive hydrogen by simply using an electrical process to split the water molecule into its constituents, using electrical current.  The tricky part is that hydrogen in any quantity is quite combustible, and explosive.  There are methods for storing hydrogen that would be completely safe, or at least as safe as gasoline.  If the society used primarily nuclear power, augmented by wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric, the problem becomes much easier to address.  You could have a hydrogen station anywhere you have a supply of water and electricity, which means they could be as widely distributed as gasoline, diesel, and other fossil-fuels. Gas stations would be replaced/upgraded to hydro-electrolysis stations.  The best news is that the exhaust from your car would be heat and water vapor. Quick fill-ups, back on the road in minutes, with the convenience and range to which you’re accustomed, with the added benefit of a mostly clean exhaust stream, all of which could be yours without the EV scam, and reliance on China for rare Earth minerals and the ecological catastrophe of battery disposal for the cells used by EVs. You’d still need your common lead-acid batteries, just like the ones you use now, but that’s not an obstacle.

People buying into the Electric Vehicles are being scammed.  There are many hidden costs people don’t yet see, although the impracticability of these EVs becomes pretty plain to most folks who buy them.  Early indicators are that many people who buy one EV are unlikely to buy a second. This is a bit like Biden voters: Having chosen him once, many aren’t apt to do so again. Obviously then, while it’s harder to convince people they’ve been fooled than it had been to fool them in the first instance, it’s clear that one’s wallet is a powerful persuader.

 

 

Advertisements

Global Warming Voodoo on Ice

Saturday, January 4th, 2014

Slow Boil or Hot Air?

As the nation stands in the path of record cold temperatures, the media is doing its very finest to ignore the implications for “climate change” proponents. In Antarctica, an Australian team aboard a Russian research vessel became entrapped in ice, and now the Chinese icebreaker that provided helicopter rescue to the passengers of the Russian ship also needs to be rescued, itself having become trapped in the expanding ice sheet.  The media reports the entrapment, and the rescue, and now the second ship’s plight, but there are two words they have avoided in coverage of this entire debacle: “Global Warming.” The truth of the matter is that they’ve spent so much time and energy propagandizing on the issue that they dare not tell you the facts: Any measurable global warming halted more than one and one half decades ago.  Telling you this would not comport with their earlier reporting, since in all these years, global CO2(carbon dioxide) levels have continued to rise, but temperatures haven’t followed. According to their theory, global warming should come fast on the heels of any rise in CO2, but that hasn’t been the case.  All of it is predicated on their desire to control human activity, and human use of energy resources is the key.  Why?  Simply put, the global warming/climate change crowd are statists who wish to control everything, everywhere, in every case.  Accusing mankind of wrecking the climate is their sledgehammer, but the global temperatures haven’t been supporting their attack.

They won’t tell you that the very expedition the researchers had been wanting to replicate never experienced the ice levels that this new voyage has experienced.  They won’t now tell you that the purpose of the expedition had been to document shrinking Antarctic ice.  Therefore, team leader Professor Chris Turney dare not tell you that their ship became entrapped some forty miles short of the bay into which Douglas Mawson steamed in open, ice-free waters of Commonwealth Bay in 1912. Here’s video from original footage of that arrival more than a century ago:

These are the sort of inconvenient truths on which hucksters like Algore should spend a good deal of their time, but it doesn’t fit their tax-justifying agenda, so they refuse to acknowledge all contrary information.  When asked about this, Professor Turney concocted an excuse about the ice that blamed it all on global warming!  There’s more ice than in recorded history on and around Antarctica, but this fool wishes to blame “global warming” or “climate change.”  It’s as though a cosmologist would blame the accelerating expansion of the universe on the long-debunked “steady state” theory.

Sadly, most Americans don’t see the big deal with the current Antarctic ice sheet, because so many Americans don’t realize it’s not Winter, but Summer in the Southern hemisphere.  Mawson’s 1912 expedition was timed to make arrival after the Summer solstice precisely because ice ought to have been at its minimum extent.  What the “warmists” refuse to acknowledge is that there is currently more ice in Antarctica than has existed for 100,000 years.  At present, the combination of Arctic and Antarctic ice is at an all time record.  If this is the case, the global warming hypothesis looks pretty weak, and plainly wrong, but the mainstream media will not tell you this.  Instead, you are faced with having to trawl through site like climatedepot.com, which one could consider like the Drudge Report of climate science, or climatedebatedaily.com, another such site, and there are fantastic blogs like WattsUpWithThat by Anthony Watts.  The problem is that to get any contradictory information, one must venture outside the mainstream media, or risk falling into the mire of group-think that pervades the popular media culture.

I realize that among my readers, there are those who have their doubts, and who worry that perhaps humanity is indeed negatively affecting the environment, but I would suggest to them that humanity’s impact tends to be localized, but not global.  What now becomes clear is that despite all the claims of warming disasters, humanity has little if any effect upon ice in the polar regions. Despite the evidence, we have the preposterous spectacle of the ill-fated expedition’s media director, Alvin Stone, claiming that the ice in which his ship is still lodged is the direct result of global warming. You simply could not make this up.  The truth is that despite all their rationalizations, the facts of nature do not support the foolish, apocalyptic claims of climate doomsayers.

Here are some facts you ought to consider: The life of our sun is roughly nearing the half-way mark.  There is no source in our solar system that can affect climate on Earth like our sun.  As the sun consumes its hydrogen through the process of nuclear fusion, it will expand and grow hotter.  This is inevitable.  The sun will make life increasingly difficult on the Earth until life here becomes impossible.  While this outcome is millions of years away in the future, it is nevertheless an absolute fact.  The truth is that on the largest time-scale, the Earth should be warming, and the sun ought to be delivering the added heat.  When the sun begins to expand dramatically some three billion years hence, life on Earth will be at an end.  Global warming is factually inevitable, but it will have nothing to do with your SUV, or mankind’s use of fossil fuels.

If that is too distant a timescale to contemplate, consider that in a mere one and one-half million years, the star Gliese 710 will pass very close to our solar system.  Having roughly sixty percent of the mass of our sun, it will almost certainly cause gravitational perturbations in the outer regions of our solar system that may send many comets and asteroids heading toward Earth.  Should that happen, unless we’ve concocted a practical method of deflecting or destroying these massive natural missiles, life on Earth could perish.

Still too distant? In the next several decades, there are at least two known asteroids that pose a substantial risk of collision with Earth.  Should that occur, we may go the way of the dinosaur, and it will be an epic calamity that could wipe out the entire human population, and all larger species, though some microbes and slightly larger species may endure.

Is this still too far off in the future to consider? Consider then Wolf-Rayet star 104(WR-104.) This massive star is very near the end of its life. It could explode as a supernova at any moment.  In fact, it may have exploded already, but at a distance of an estimated eight-thousand light-years, the light would need to have traveled that distance (and that many years) for us to learn of it.  If WR-104 had exploded as agriculture began to spread into Europe, and the human population of Earth was around five million, we would learn of the supernova only now.  Worse, we would have no warning whatever, as the arrival of its probable gamma-ray burst would punctuate its end, but also perhaps our own.  There are many stars capable of delivering deadly gamma-ray bursts, but the proximity and orientation of WR-104 makes it more likely to have significant effects on Earth than all the others.  Supernovae that emit a gamma-ray burst do so in blasts from their poles, so that much of the energy is focused in two narrow and opposing beams racing away from the dead star at nearly the speed of light.  If Earth happens to fall within one of these relatively focused beams, and within a few thousand light-years, life might well be wiped out by the radiation.  Though there are now some questions as to WR-104’s precise orientation, such a star’s death could simply poison those exposed to the radiation, or it could strip off the atmosphere and roast us alive.  Some claim it could even vaporize the entire planet. The most energetic events in the universe are not a circumstance with which to trifle, and from our perspective, they could occur at any time.

The point of all this is to recognize the fact that life on Earth will end. There exists almost an infinite range of possibilities for how it will end, but it’s mostly a question of what gets us first, and not whether we’ll be gotten.  The climate change acolytes know this every bit as well as their skeptics, but only the discussion of anthropogenic global warming or climate change gives them an opportunity to command human behavior.  In order to control your lives, they must create some justification, and it’s nearly always couched in terms of some exigency.  I submit to you that the hypothesis of “anthropogenic global warming,” or “climate change,” is precisely that sort of ploy.  When I was a child, they spoke in dramatic terms of a coming ice age.  Then as a young adult, I was bombarded by the global warming hysteria.   In fact, the Earth goes through periodic cycles, as does our sun, and some of those cycles span many human lifetimes.  In that context, it is foolish to pretend that what mankind has done or is doing must be the cause of every fluctuation in the thermometer, never mind to attempt to control all mankind on the basis of these fluctuations. Pretending that mankind is the greatest threat to the planet permits them an excuse to regulate all humans.

When politicians spout dire warnings about global warming, or anything else of dubious human origination, we ought to take the time to politely listen, but then examine their supporting evidence, or the lack thereof.  Now we witness the ignominy of an activist professor, Chris Turney, looking for some way to explain away the fact that his ship got stuck in ice nearly fifty miles from where was once open water at this same time of year, and he absurdly claimed it is because the planet has been warming.  I cannot say with certainty that mankind is having exactly zero effects upon global temperatures, but I can say with certainty that pseudoscience won’t help us, never mind save us. We don’t need modern witch doctors propagating their voodoo to a vast but sadly, too often ignorant audience, and the best way to combat it is to lift the veil of ignorance that has descended over the eyes of our popular media culture. Our lives and our liberties, and indeed the future of mankind depends upon it.

 

 

Romney’s Former Adviser Advocated Compulsory Sterilizations

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

Romney and Holdren

John Holdren now works for Barack Obama as his Science Czar, of course, but just a few years ago, in 2005, he was one of Mitt Romney’s advisers on the issue of carbon dioxide regulation.  This is part of the entire range of global warming hoax science, but what is stunning is that John Holdren could have been a Romney adviser at all.  Holdren is now Barack Obama’s Science Czar, but throughout his career in academia, he has been a raging leftist ideologue who ceaselessly advocated bizarre and tyrannical ideas, including the notion of involuntary birth/fertility control, and forced sterilization of women in order to control population growth.  To find that he had been working for a time as an adviser to Mitt Romney raises further troubling questions about Romney’s judgment, and his claims to be a conservative.

For his part, Holdren denies being an advocate of these positions, but he co-authored a book in which these tyrannical ideas for the sake of population control were advanced. In the end, Romney enacted vast and radical new strict emissions regulation schemes in his state of Massachusetts on the advice of this hard-left activist.

Holdren is an infamous leftist ideologue, and his work in the realm of environmental advocacy is well-known.  He is a part of that community of flaky scientists that includes many who can’t wait to control all human activity, even by compulsory means. In 1978, he co-authored a book with famed population scare-mongers and radical environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. (The links above on fertility control and forced sterilization come from this book.) Paul Ehrlich, you may remember, is the author of the infamously wrong-headed, 1971 Population Bomb. Holdren was a losing party in the famous Ehrlich-Simon Wager, and has been a mover and shaker in the extreme left’s environmental agenda. He also served as a science adviser to Bill Clinton from 1994-2001.

My question remains over why Mitt Romney would use this man as an adviser.  This is the troubling part about Romney’s latter-day reversals on a range of issues.  Until he began running for president, Romney was a very liberal politician, and for him to claim now to be a conservative seems generally dishonest. That he appointed Holdren as one of his advisers on environmental policy during his term as governor really calls into question the entire proposition that Romney had been anything but a liberal.  How is Romney going to differentiate between himself and Obama in a general election campaign?  He certainly can’t criticize Obama’s Science Czar, can he?  This is likely the reason Obama’s campaign can’t wait to face a Romney candidacy:  They know everything about him, and will be able to make mince-meat of him because one of their own was an insider in Romney’s camp.  I have argued that Romney is effectively neutered against Obama.  Now you can see why.

(H/T Citizens4Freedom for digging up the details- Excellent research!)

Climate-gate 2.0: The Scandal Continues

Sunday, November 27th, 2011

The Hoaxers Get Caught Again - Media Silent

For those who harbored any doubts about the political nature of the scientists running the “Global Warming” or “Global Climate Change” hoax on the world, those doubts should have been erased now and forevermore.  A new batch of 5000 emails has been delivered to the press anonymously, and these emails are even more damning than the first round of emails released two years ago.  What these emails demonstrate is both the degree to which politics motivates the so-called “science” and the extent to which the conspirators have gone to conceal the totality of the evidence.  It’s the same list of climate hoaxers, and the same axis of dishonesty becomes readily apparent.  What’s even more stunning is that the US government is in collusion with the hoaxers. From the Forbes piece:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

You may remember Phil Jones as the man at the center of the first email scandal two years ago, and it seems Jones hasn’t learned any lesson but one:  He must work even harder to conceal the truth from the world than ever before.  Rather than simply resort to science, Jones’ emails show the intent to continue the fraud, and hide the data from the public, and here he admits that the US Department of Energy is agreeable to keeping the original temperature station data secret.  You pay for this agency, and yes, the same agency is at the center of the entire “Green Energy” scam, so what we clearly have is a rogue agency of the United States government that is acting contrary to the public interest.  So much for “openness and transparency.”

If this isn’t bad enough, Michael Mann has been looking for “journalists” who would investigate and smear skeptics:

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

This is simply outrageous conduct for a so-called “scientist.”  Clearly, Mann is more interested in trying to harm Steve McIntyre than to refute his research.  This is horrendous, but as bad as this attempt at smearing others may be, the motive for the smear is made clear in other emails:

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

That says it all.  They have to fake it to make their case, and rely upon one dubious study while ignoring many more that contradict their general claim.  In short, they are lying to you, and to the UN, and to all the people in all the nations who are being ruled by those sympathetic to their scam, which at this point clearly includes the Obama Administration and the EPA as well as the Department of Energy.

Phil Jones may be engaged in outright fraud.  He has gone to great lengths to conceal information from various FOIA requests:

“With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these.”

Add to this that a new study by Dr. Andreas Schmitter of Oregon State University that strongly suggests the concerns over Global Warming  due to increasing CO2 is vastly overstated, according to the Daily Mail:

‘The results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought.’

And:

Dr Schmittner told the Daily Mail that it would be ‘virtually impossible’ for a doubling of carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise by 8c or 10c.

Let’s be perfectly honest about what this means.  It cannot be claimed that there is a “consensus” on Global Warming, or CO2’s impact upon it, never mind mankind’s effect on the climate.  One recent study indicates that the actual culprit in any observable warming may not even be terrestrial in origin.  Henrik Svensmark’s work supports the notion that cloud formation is greatly affected by cosmic rays, and that cloud formation plays an important role in climate.  CERN recently confirmed his earlier findings, but what this demonstrates is that in the real world of science, outside of the control of politically motivated hacks at the UN’s IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that science is far from any alleged “consensus” on the matter.

Meanwhile, the hacks continue to carry on as though they’ve not been caught.  What is needed in this instance is a complete withdrawal of US Government support for the whole Climate Change/Global Warming Hoax, to include de-funding of the UN’s IPCC and any other politically motivated group related to this issue.  What many have long argued in criticism of the global warming regime is that it was intended as a method by which to enact new taxes on energy consumers.  Whether that is the only motive is unclear, but it certainly makes sense.  After all, for what other reason would this entire hoax be carried off if not to make us believe in a crisis as justification for further governmental involvement in our lives?  I think the Congress should investigate, and if proven, those involved should be prosecuted for fraud.  How many have made a living from this hoax?  How many have plotted to defraud the American people, and indeed, people all around the globe?  Climate-gate 2.0 is surely just the latest disclosure, but probably not the last.  One would hope more responsible scientists would step forward to say to the Phil Jones/Michael Mann/Climate Hoaxer crowd: “Enough is enough, you’re ruining our good name.”  With even some warmists now criticizing all of this, it seems there is a chance that the myth of “consensus” will finally be broken.

My question is:  Will the Nobel Committee ask Al Gore to return the prize and the cash?

For more reading on Global Warming: