Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Climate Change is real. Even the Kochheads know it now!

Posted 2 years ago on Aug. 22, 2012, 9:58 p.m. EST by VQkag2 (16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/

Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution

By Joe Romm on Jul 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm

ten year data analysis comparison graph “The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” Via BEST.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.

UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”

Here is the money graf:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!

It gets better:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.

In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!

UPDATE (9 AM, 7/29): The UK Guardian has a good story up, “Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds: Earth’s land shown to have warmed by 1.5C over past 250 years, with humans being almost entirely responsible.”

And here’s an amusing tweet from a top U.S. climatologist, Michael Mann:

Below is some background on BEST followed by a longer excerpt of the op-ed.

A group of scientists led by one well-known skeptic, Muller — and whose only climatologist listed is Judith Curry, a well-known confusionist [see Schmidt and Annan and Steig andVerheggen, and CP] — decided to reexamine all of the temperature data they could get their hands on. I broke the story of their initial findings in March 2011 (with the help of climatologist Ken Caldeira) – see Exclusive: Berkeley temperature study results “confirm the reality of global warming and support in all essential respects the historical temperature analyses of the NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU.”

The top figure is an updated chart of their findings from March of this year. They found a lot of warming.

Indeed, their key paper from 2011 found:

… our analysis suggests a degree of global land-surface warming during the anthropogenic era that is consistent with prior work (e.g. NOAA) but on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions.

So the only remaining question for BEST was: What is the cause of that warming? Of course, those who read ClimateProgress or the scientific literature already knew the answer to that question (see the 12/11 post, It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was).

BEST is set to release those findings this week. The excellent UK Guardian reporter, Leo Hickman, tweeted earlier today that “Significant climate-related news will be breaking on Guardian website in next 24-36 hours” and then he tweeted an hour ago the link to the excerpt of Muller’s op-ed.

Here is more of the op-ed:

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

Well, in fact, to be seriously considered, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does CO2 — and it must offer some mechanism that counteracts the well-known warming effect of CO2. Not bloody likely.

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes.

Hope springs eternal. Unless, you’re a denier. Then the expression is “nope springs eternal.”

I asked Caldeira for a comment on Muller’s op-ed. He writes:

I am glad that Muller et al have taken a look at the data and have come to essentially the same conclusion that nearly everyone else had come to more than a decade ago.

The basic scientific results have been established for a long time now, so I do not see the results of Muller et al as being scientifically important. However, their result may be politically important. It shows that even people who suspect climate scientists of being charlatans, when they take a hard look at the data, see that the climate scientists have been right all along.

Who’d have thunk it? Not the Kochs….

105 Comments

105 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Worst W Nile virus in TX! More warming evidence!

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow. That is very interesting. You could be right. Scientists recently decided to stop suggesting that "each weather incident may not be climate change" as they have been doing.

It would stand to reason someone might have given them the word that we've gotten all we need. We will be acknowledging the science so you don't have to play it down anymore.

Insidious. Depressing.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thx

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OH - Hell.

Not a problem - I am sure they can pay a carbon penalty - and every thing will be just fine and dandy. {;-[....................

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And I really doubt anyone has looked at the complication of increased LNG fracking air pollutants.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22137) 2 years ago

"Greenland and Antarctica 'have lost four trillion tonnes of ice' in 20 years

• Landmark study by global team of scientists published • Finds melting polar ice has led to 11mm rise in sea level • Greenland losing ice five times faster than early 1990s"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/29/greenland-antarctica-4-trillion-tonnes-ice?intcmp=122

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We are sleeping while our world around us is crumbling.

Time we took a stand & ridiculed those climate deniers who have obstructed the progress we must make if we are to survive and flourish.

Greentech Now!, & end the burning of fossil fuels.!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22137) 2 years ago

Agree. Good grief, what does it take to get through to people?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think slow progress has been made even with the obvious setbacks we've experienced.

I think further that Occupy has been critical in the education of people, and any forward motion we've experienced. Occupy will continue that success, & also continue pressuring all pols to implement greentech solutions.

I'm an optimist. But the truth is, the path away from burning ever more fossil fuels and implementing greentech is increasingly obvious! History is pushing us there, and there is nothing any party or industry can do to stop it.

They have succeeded at delaying it enough to cause great damge & much death but they cannot stop the inevitable evolution.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Don't believe the Mexican hype!

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In South America's defense - they finally have something to sell that the world wants - that is not illegal - YET. I think that they would be cool - though - if they had green power/fuel technology and could go back to growing good crops.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They have great potential in South America for greentech and good crops.

I bet our fossil fuel, and big agri corps are screwing with them likethey are everywhere.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

For quite a long time our corps have been screwing them and their environment. And the drug prohibition has made things down there even more hellish. Legalize pot and you would see a major boom in their economy.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I could support that. And we HAVE been playing in our backyard for almost 200 years. Monroe Doctrine I think we call it. Or "no one fucks with these people but us".

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - and I am sure that every single South American appreciates that:

"no one fucks with these people but us".

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They must feel special & priviledged. Don't they.?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I suppose one could look at it like that. Hmmm they are strong christian believers - wonder if they figure that dealing with the USA's renegade corpoRATions and dealing with screwed up USA government policies/interference will count toward paying for the sins of imperfection?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But seriously in the last few years there have been a few south American countries going socialist. I saw a great documentary on Chaves recently and it is really promising for them.

called "south of the border" saw it on netflix directed by Oliver Stone

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes - South American Countrys have tried to go that route before - only to end up being messed with. I hope their new attempts are more successful - and actual socialist societies - and not disguised dictatorships.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes great danger. But at least we ain't screwing with them. You remember Bushs attempted coup in Venezuale? Ah yes good times. Good times.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shrub - what a cluster fuck he was.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes but he was our cluster fuck and he has grown up and moved out.

I'm so proud.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Later on then.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (6504) 0 minutes ago

Lol Alright I gotta go. Been fun as always dude. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

LOL - now we just have the fondly/horrific memories of what we all survived to this point in time to share and laugh/cry about.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Lol Alright I gotta go. Been fun as always dude.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I like wind power. I think battery tech must improve, along with an upgrade of existing transmission lines to some new superconducting tech.

Lotsa jobs, lotsa potential energy savings, lotsa pollution saved.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

It is depressing and disconcerting.

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thanks. hadn't seen it yet.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1636) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

Kochheads

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

They're addicted to oil, and lies.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1636) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

I liked coke way better!! Way!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Me too. except the cost.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1636) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

and the cut

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yeah. I've always been more of a pot head, than coke head.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1636) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

The Hillbilly Taliban likes Crank and Buttwiper!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sounds about right.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

FYI - From Environment America "click link".

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Nice. Slick.

Thx

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

If it is true that cow farts are changing the climate, I cannot imagine what them dang dinosaur farts did to the climate back then

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Maybe we need to outlaw eating beef.?

Certainly the country will save health care expenditures if we impose a vegetarian diet, and we will eliminate the cow farts you are concerned about.

Pigs too.?

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

But wait, we cannot eliminate beef or pig. What would ole al gore do with all those walk in freezers in his mansions?????

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Meaningless, childishness.

I guess you don't have anything of substance.

[-] -3 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

There's a problem with this kind of thinking. As this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg shows we're actually past peak temps for this interglacial. The Earth is actually in an overall cooling trend with just a slight warming in recent centuries.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So are you denying global warming?

[-] -3 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Just look at the graph. That's what I think is happening. The Earth warmed coming out of the last Ice Age but is now past the warming peak. There has been some warming since the mid 1800s. That doesn't change the fact that the Earth is in an overall cooling trend.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

So are you denying global warming?

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Just look at the graph. That's what I think is happening. The Earth warmed coming out of the last Ice Age but is now past the warming peak. There has been some warming since the mid 1800s. That doesn't change the fact that the Earth is in an overall cooling trend.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You're repeating yourself. I've looked at the graph, I am unimpressed.

Do I have to ask a 3rd time?

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

I'm not the only one repeating himself. I'm only doing it because you are. As far as I'm concerned I've answered the question.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Cool. Thanks.

How about pollution? do you support cutting pollution?

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Yes, though we may disagree on how to do it. I see the enforcement of property rights as the only way to achieve this. Protect property from pollution coming from others property. Not by the failed regulatory system now in place.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Property? how about pollution that hurts human beings. You didn't mention that.

I assume you are against that right?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And continues unabated. All in the name of the almighty dollar, and sacrosanct corps.

People need to learn that corps do not care about protecting natural resources, or workers. They Only care about profits. Land & people are obstacles to be dismissed, discarded, & destroyed.

Solidarity Shooz, Thx for this and all your contributions.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Against what right?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I'm asking if you are against pollution the hurts human beings (nor just property)?

I assume you are against that, correct? (not 'right' as in civil right, but 'right' is in correct)

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Correct. I see the protection of property as the way to protect people.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I see the protection of people as the protection of people, and the protection of property as secondary.

We gotta stop burning fossil fuels if we are to survive. Property is important & a good measure of how damaging pollution is, but the health ofthe people must be the 1st priority.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

I don't want to keep on repeating myself so let me just add that since people live on property its protection is the protection of the people on it.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Property is important, people are the 1st priority.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

How exactly do you protect property from pollution coming from other peoples property? Have you really thought this out?

Sounds like Libertarian double speak with no understanding of the problem.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I don't know - this is an interesting point - frankenfoods uses the concept ( and I really think that it should be used in reverse by the farmers ) - where they plant patent owned/controlled seed - then sue neighboring farms if their patent product shows up in those farmers field though the seed drift was their ( frankenfoods ) fault.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

In that case it's easy to prove who the owner is.... pollution is whole 'nother thing.

Example: The acid rain problem that hit the Adirondacks in the late 70's. Pollution (sulfates, nitrates, chlorides) coming from the smoke stacks of industrial areas in Canada caused the rain to combine with these compounds and create acids. The acids killed all life in water bodies like lakes and rivers in the Adirondacks. If you had a pond on your land you were impacted. How can you tell which manufacturers were responsible to sue, since acids are nondescript? Some of the lakes had pH's readings lower than lemon juice.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

But what is sad though is the judicial system siding with frankenfoods who actually contaminated their neighbors fields.

Your example is good and very real and has been a subject of contention by countries around the world and has spurred some actions on atmospheric emissions. Environmental clean air acts. Which power companies and fossil fuel industries have been fighting against as well as auto manufacturers - everyone whose business in one way or another affects our atmosphere.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Same problem with ground water, especially if you have a drinking water well on your property.

Example: You are surrounded by old gasoline stations that had leaky underground gas storage tanks for the pumps. There are 7 or 8 of them in a 10 mile radius. Your water well is contaminated with gasoline degradation products. Which gas station is responsible for your property being polluted? Worse yet 3 of the most likely candidates have been out of business for 5 years or more.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (23961) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Exactly - no accountability no responsibility - Often times no one to go back to to seek damages or clean-up. All of these things and the fact that fossil fuel is not an absolute necessity any more - and yet - the change away from fossil fuel and even proper regulation while moving away from its use - and no strategy in place or operation actively cleaning sites - or relocating people - the change over is being done like picking single grains of sand and walking ten miles to drop that grain of sand into the Grand Canyon in a concerted effort to fill in the canyon - one person making the trip on foot each way and grabbing one grain of sand to deposit it and repeat and repeat. It is not in any way shape or form a sane approach as to what is needed to be done.

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Yes, I have thought this out & I'm sure to you it sounds strange. Here's one take on it:

THE POLLUTION SOLUTION

Restoring what we have harmed is the best deterrent of all!

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap14.html

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

This is what I meant by not thinking it out. It's a very over simplistic view of what happens. I've worked in environmental remediation for over 18 years. Roughly half of the time, the guilty parties that committed the pollution are never positively identified, especially in an industrial area where many sources 'could' be the guilty one. The Superfund (CERCLA) was created to address this as the guilty parties were either out of business or could not be positively identified. CERCLA provided cleanup funds in those cases.

Then there is this idea that polluted land can be brought back to 'pristine' again. Many times it simply can't. You would have to haul away all the effected soil down to 1000 feet deep over several acres for one site I know about.... and then where does it go? To another site to be dumped at incredible costs.

A small old family owned dry cleaning business that used carbon tetrachloride as the accepted dry cleaning fluid back in the 1950's could be responsible for millions of gallons of contaminated drinking water because of spills and undetected leaks in the system. The laws changed on carbon tet use once we found out about how dangerous it was. You think they have enough funds to cover the havoc that they were at one time legally able to do? No.

The article you linked talks about sovereign immunity. That is one issue, but local everyday citizens do almost as much harm. Leaking home heating fuel oil tanks, over the counter cleaning products dumped down leaking sewage systems, just plain rain water run off from our roads and highways - pollute and do it seriously. Nitrate pollution from farming, another example.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

Ok , you see the present system not working. We're advocating something different. I do believe that politically connected polluters are invisible to the govt. That's just more proof that we need to get away from this regulatory approach to environmental protection.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Politcally connected polluters aren't invisible to the government. The environmental forensics to pin point guilty parties to the degree necessary to carry out private property protection as outlined doesn't exist.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 2 years ago

The forensics don't have to be perfect to make the system work. You're overstating the problem.

[+] -4 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

Put some emission systems on the dang cows asses and that will take care of the problem. Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa In the last hundred years, the Earth temp has risen one degree. Oh my God it is so fucking hot

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3340) 2 years ago

Don't send me abusive Personal Messages again using words like 'dumbfuck', u 'df'! This time I just deleted your b.s. - next time I'll report your ignorant ass! Try occupying what passes for your brain!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Existing cows should be allowed to die off and the gas emission capture system you allude to should be used on humans.

Agreed?

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

Agreed and the first one we should install on al gores ass. I wonder if he holds his farts in, after eating cow??

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oops! there you go again. Gratuitous personal attacks on the great Al Gore only betrays the impotence of your argument.

I guess your position is so weak you must resort to meaningless childish insults.

And so..... You lose!

Loser!

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

Anyone that sticks up to the "great gore" has to be a real loser

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree, & support Al Gores efforts to eliminate burning fossil fuels.

Don't you agree that the internal combustion engine should be illegal?

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

I think it should be illegal to own an internal combustion engine under around 800 hp.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But over 800hp is ok.?

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

bet yer ass it is, higher the hp the better

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"I'm not the only one" JL

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We absolutely WILL see full implementation and the end of the internal combustion engine.

Don't blink. It's comin @ 90MPH.

LOL

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

pipe dream

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Whatever model develops (maybe just 'quick charge') It is definitely coming.

Hold on dude, It's gonna get bumpy for you from here.

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

We will never see a full implementation of it in our lifetime

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Batteries will be cheaper, part of the cost of the car of course, And interchangeable in seconds at refueling stations.

Done.

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

I doubt that and you will probably have to finance one

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Country elect cars. Simply add electric refueling or battery replacement. It can be done.

Building/homes. May not be as efficient as nat gas but doesn't pollute so add that to theefficiency equation and elec wins!

Plants- Every elect gen plant should be serviced by greentech, if it proves inadequate now we supplement with nat gas!!

This would improve economy (greentech, building efficiency, infrastructure jobs) & the environment.

[+] -4 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

Hey wait!!!! I got the money in my wallet for that 10,000 dollar replacement battery. No thanks, gas smells good

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The difference in cycle efficiency is miniscule & irrelevant. Plus we can create electricity with greentech while diesel is just more pollution to destroy the planet.

Not so efficient after all.

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

Right now all we can do it further develop electrical power and in the meantime fossil fuels will be used until a firm alternative is developed. Some on here think that we can stop using fossil fuels "today", I hope you are smarter than that

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

What about electric locomotive engines? That is more powerful than any car.

[-] -3 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

the total cycle efficiency of electric engine from power plant to wheels of the engine is much less than the diesel loco. So therefor, electrical generated vehicles have a long ways to go, before they can take over fossil fueled ones. So in the meantime "fill er up"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I disagree.

In the end you know that electric engines will be far more powerful than any gas powered engine right.?

[-] -3 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

wrong and electric powered engines will never be able to out perform gasoline motors.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We can stop using a whole lot of fossil fuels.

All small-midsize cars- electric.

Large cars-trucks- Net gas.

Buildings/homes- electric/fuel cell for heat/hot water. (impose massive efficiency as well!)

Electric generation plants- NO COAL! Wind/Solar other Greentech.

All this we can do now! And of course should.

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

All small-midsize cars- electric. //////////////////Maybe for commuting in the city but useless out in the country.

Buildings/homes- electric/fuel cell for heat/hot water. (impose massive efficiency as well!)////////////////////////////////////////Currently natural gas is more efficient /cost effective to electric

Electric generation plants- NO COAL! Wind/Solar other Greentech./////////////////////This may work for a very small plant but it has already proven not to be productive for very large plants. Some large plants tried to run just on wind but needed fossil fuel also to maintain the needed electrical current

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

We really don't need to know about your anal fixation.

You should talk to your doctor about that, not us.

Or more specifically your psychologist/therapist.

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 2 years ago

read the past post and we were discussing cow farts and the effect it has on (no Global warming) If you cannot comprehend on what you are reading then have your Mama help ya.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

So why is global warming the perfect platform for you to express your anal fixation?

It seems more than a little weird.