Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[darkbeaver]

Louis Hissink's Crazy World - Windows Live

Blog



April 27
Falsification of atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

The following posts on Alan Siddon’s Climate Realists website are interesting:

Posted by cementafriend (forum) on Apr 25th 2010, 10:37 PM EDT
I must read the full article a bit more closely but it is the first article I have seen in hundreds on climate assessment that mentions the measurements of heat transfer on combustion gases (including CO2) made by the late Prof Hottel of MIT. His entry on Wikipedia is here Hoyt C. Hottel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Hottel wrote the section "Heat Transfer by radiation" in Perry's Chemical engineering Handbook pages 5-23 to 5-42. In that, there is an equation based on measurements that allows the calculation of CO2 and H2O absorptivity from inputs of temperature, partial pressures and beam length. Other books on heat transfer have the Hottel equation in a graphical form.
In considerations of heat transfer it will be noted that net heat flux only occurs from a higher energy source to a lower energy receiver. This has been measured over one hundred years in the operation of heat exchangers, boilers, furnaces etc. The Trenberth and Kiehle paper on Gobal heat balance is wrong in assuming that a cold atmosphere radiates back to a warm earth surface.
REPORT
Posted by Alan Siddons (forum) on Apr 25th 2010, 10:58 PM EDT
"net heat flux only occurs from a higher energy source to a lower energy receiver. This has been measured over one hundred years in the operation of heat exchangers, boilers, furnaces etc. The Trenberth and Kiehl paper on global heat balance is wrong in assuming that a cold atmosphere radiates back to a warm earth surface."
Well said, cementafriend. Or, as professor M. Quinn Brewster puts it in his book Thermal Radiative Transfer and Properties, "Like conduction, thermal energy is in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics such that, in the absence of work, thermal energy is radiated spontaneously from higher temperature to lower temperature matter." Now to get the rest of the climate community to admit that. Source
​

The assertion that thermal energy radiates from colder to higher temperature matter could be dismissed as verbal virtuosity, or simply intellectual bulldust, but Alan Siddons and others make one error – there is actually down welling infrared radiation measured from the atmosphere.
Casey is right that it cannot be coming from the gases of the atmosphere, since these are cooler than the earth’s surface, so where is the measured down welling IR coming from?
Atmospheric electric currents operating in dark plasma mode. All electric currents passing through matter generate IR, or heat.
The error climate science makes is assuming that the measured down welling IR HAS to come from CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases.
It’s the plasma folks.

 

[darkbeaver]

yukyukyukyukyukyukyuk

 

[ironsides]

Oil is life, aside from fossil fuel, we wouldn't have all the medicines we now have, medical tools would not be built, no wind power generators, no tidal power stations, no solar panels to convert suns energy no nothing. We need oil.

 

[Tonington]

Louis Hissink's Crazy World - Windows Live

Blog



April 27
Falsification of atmospheric Greenhouse effect.

The following posts on Alan Siddon’s Climate Realists website are interesting:

Posted by cementafriend (forum) on Apr 25th 2010, 10:37 PM EDT
I must read the full article a bit more closely but it is the first article I have seen in hundreds on climate assessment that mentions the measurements of heat transfer on combustion gases (including CO2) made by the late Prof Hottel of MIT. His entry on Wikipedia is here Hoyt C. Hottel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Hottel wrote the section "Heat Transfer by radiation" in Perry's Chemical engineering Handbook pages 5-23 to 5-42. In that, there is an equation based on measurements that allows the calculation of CO2 and H2O absorptivity from inputs of temperature, partial pressures and beam length. Other books on heat transfer have the Hottel equation in a graphical form.
In considerations of heat transfer it will be noted that net heat flux only occurs from a higher energy source to a lower energy receiver. This has been measured over one hundred years in the operation of heat exchangers, boilers, furnaces etc. The Trenberth and Kiehle paper on Gobal heat balance is wrong in assuming that a cold atmosphere radiates back to a warm earth surface.
REPORT
Posted by Alan Siddons (forum) on Apr 25th 2010, 10:58 PM EDT
"net heat flux only occurs from a higher energy source to a lower energy receiver. This has been measured over one hundred years in the operation of heat exchangers, boilers, furnaces etc. The Trenberth and Kiehl paper on global heat balance is wrong in assuming that a cold atmosphere radiates back to a warm earth surface."
Well said, cementafriend. Or, as professor M. Quinn Brewster puts it in his book Thermal Radiative Transfer and Properties, "Like conduction, thermal energy is in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics such that, in the absence of work, thermal energy is radiated spontaneously from higher temperature to lower temperature matter." Now to get the rest of the climate community to admit that. Source
​

The assertion that thermal energy radiates from colder to higher temperature matter could be dismissed as verbal virtuosity, or simply intellectual bulldust, but Alan Siddons and others make one error – there is actually down welling infrared radiation measured from the atmosphere.
Casey is right that it cannot be coming from the gases of the atmosphere, since these are cooler than the earth’s surface, so where is the measured down welling IR coming from?
Atmospheric electric currents operating in dark plasma mode. All electric currents passing through matter generate IR, or heat.
The error climate science makes is assuming that the measured down welling IR HAS to come from CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases.
It’s the plasma folks.

BS. Anything with a temperature greater than absolute zero radiates heat. In the case of greenhouse gases, they absorb and re-emit the radiation that came from earth. Energy that would otherwise leave the planet under equilibrium. So if you have more of the outgoing radiation from the earth's surface being absorbed and re-emitted, then the temperature has to go up.

How does that break the laws of thermodynamics? More energy is retained, so the earth must warm. The analogy in the article is incorrect.

The greenhouse effect is not like placing an ice cube on a counter top, or like a heat exchanger where a cool liquid is heated by counter current flow, it's like placing a blanket on top of yourself to keep warm. The blanket doesn't actually give you any heat, it just prevents you from giving off as much heat, so you warm up.

It's not that difficult a concept really...

 

[darkbeaver]

later

 

[darkbeaver]

BS. Anything with a temperature greater than absolute zero radiates heat. In the case of greenhouse gases, they absorb and re-emit the radiation that came from earth. Energy that would otherwise leave the planet under equilibrium. So if you have more of the outgoing radiation from the earth's surface being absorbed and re-emitted, then the temperature has to go up.

How does that break the laws of thermodynamics? More energy is retained, so the earth must warm. The analogy in the article is incorrect.

The greenhouse effect is not like placing an ice cube on a counter top, or like a heat exchanger where a cool liquid is heated by counter current flow, it's like placing a blanket on top of yourself to keep warm. The blanket doesn't actually give you any heat, it just prevents you from giving off as much heat, so you warm up.

It's not that difficult a concept really...

Of course the cold atmosphere radiates heat but never to a hotter mass. It's like gravity, one way only and that is down the scale. If you want two way travel then the medium must be plasma but then of course it isn't heat anymore. I think you think you don't have anything to learn about power transmission. You got a very pleasant powerful surprise coming. The blanket is dielectric.:smile:

 

[Tonington]

Of course the cold atmosphere radiates heat but never to a hotter mass.

So putting a blanket on you violates thermodynamics? I think not.

It's like gravity, one way only and that is down the scale.

This is a fundamental understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Read this DB to see clearly how a greenhouse gas does not violate thermodynamics.

 

[darkbeaver]

There is no gas called "greenhouse".

 

[Tonington]

You're right, there is a whole category of greenhouse gases. No single gas called greenhouse though.

You should write letters. Get that addressed.

 

[AnnaG]

There is no gas called "greenhouse".

roflmao

 

[Extrafire]

No, one is an exponential function, the other is logarithmic. The inverse of an exponential is a logarithm, but the functions' outcomes are not at all similar. One moves away from a limit, the other moves towards a limit, as the value of the independent variable increases..

Yeah, yeah, I know all that. What I was trying to say in my inept way was that they use similar curves, sometimes showing inverse reactions/results, sometimes with oposing results, but the same curve.

I'm now going to go back through this back and forth, maybe you'll understand at the end.



As we'll see in the next quote, you said that the skeptics pointed out that the warming should be occurring exponentially. That is plainly wrong.



What you said there is clearly that skeptics think warming should progress exponentially.

Do you get it yet? If the temperature response in the atmosphere of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is a logarithmic relationship, then why would sceptics say that the warming should have grown exponentially as emissions increased?

I'm not sure if you don't get it or if you're just playing dumb again. The skeptics were the ones who've been claiming that temperature response in the atmosphere of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is a logarithmic relationship, contrary to what the alarmists were claiming. The alarmists were the ones denying the logarithmic response, and if the alarmist hypothesis was true, temperatures would progress exponentially, which clearly they haven't. Get that? If, as the alarmists claim, our CO2 emissions are responsible for the current warming, then that warming would have been exponential. If the response to CO2 is logarithmic (and we know it is) then the current warming could not have been caused to any great extent by CO2.

That is wrong. Emissions are growing exponentially, but since the response is logarithmic, that means that the expected increase in temperature (or more precisely the radiative forcing) should be linear, and it is.

No it isn't. Firstly, I'm not sure if emissions are growing exponentially, but if they are it is at the early, nearly flat part of the graph. And while the temperature response is logarithmic, it is at the later, nearly flat portion of that graph. We aren't starting at zero ppm here.

 

[Extrafire]

BS

Exxon(before the Mobil) put millions into getting the whole climate change denial movement going almost two decades ago, hiring hacks like Fred(secondhand smoke doesn't kill) Singer to set up some of the same "institutes" that are behind the garbage attacking the genuine research now.

And green technology is in it's infancy, anyone who claims it comes anywhere close to rivaling the fossil fuel sector is either permanently stoned, deranged or part of the fossil fuel industry.

Fighting climate change is ultimately about monopoly busting unless you can find some way to corner the market on sunlight, good luck with that one genius.

Back in the '90's the forest industry of BC was the cause du jour of the environuts, and they put out a lot of propaganda about it. Lots of half truths, misinformation and outright lies. The forest corporations eventually decided to form a group to counter them with truth, and they formed the Forest Alliance of BC. All the major forest companies were members and others could purchase individual, family or corporate memberships. Thousands of people did, and my family and my company became members too, but the vast majority of the funding came from the huge forest industry members. Part of their mandate was to ALWAYS tell the truth, because we knew that any lie, no matter how small, would be used to destroy their credibility. They were never caught in a lie, by the environmentalists sure were.

Similarly there is nothing wrong with oil companies defending their industry and countering the propaganda from their opponents. If the source of the funding makes you suspicious, all well and good, but that in itself isn't enough to discredit them. For that you need to be able to point out exactly what they say that isn't true, and that's something I don't think you can do.

But oil companies know that they're going to sell their product anyway, if not here then elsewhere in the world, and they've realized that there's big money to be made in the global warming industry, so they've jumped on that bandwagon now. I'm sure you've noticed that even though people participate in earth hour and claim to want to fight global warming they still keep driving their cars and running their furnaces. So do you, I'll wager. They know you're all talk and no action, you aren't about to give up your quality of life, and they might as well make even more money off you through the global warming industry. Sucker!

By the way, funding for the global warming alarmists is thousands of times higher than for the skeptics.

 

[Extrafire]

My god you're right, where do I sign up for the "oil is life" indoctrination you've so obviously incorporated into basic your personality?



Once again I'm astounded, imagine Gore actually putting his beliefs into action, so what if the science is overwhelmingly behind him not to mention the obvious evidence from everyday life that billions around the world have been experiencing in the last couple of decades.

:lol: Fool! The truth is more like Gore having put his scam into motion with no science at all behind him (see that Brittish court case) cashing in on it big time.

Do me a favour, go outside tomorrow and look up...that big thing in the sky, it's called the sun. It puts out more energy in a second than we could use in the foreseeable future. Solar cell technology has been around for decades and is getting better and cheaper all the time, same with storage.

Like solar power huh? check this out.

First, let me say I’m a fan of solar power when done correctly and without financial carrots hung out for electricity generation that entice abuse of the system. I put solar on my own home.
Bishop Hill points out that some solar power installations in Spain were producing power at night.



He writes of what was thought to be a joke:
…The prices paid for green energy were so high that it appeared to be profitable to generate that energy by shining conventionally fuelled arclights on the solar panels.
But finds truth to be stranger than fiction:
Although the exact details are slightly different there is now an intriguing report of the scam in practice. The text is based on a machine translation of the original German text:

After press reports, it was established during inspections that several solar power plants were generating current and feeding it into the net at night. To simulate a larger installation capacity, the operators connected diesel generators.
“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said one industry expert to the newspaper “El Mundo”, which brought the scandal to light. If solar systems apparently produce current in the dark, will be noticed sooner or later. However, if electricity generators were connected during daytime, the swindle would hardly be noticed.
​

As I said last time around, this is the insanity of greenery.

The insanity of greenery | Watts Up With That?

Mass heating and natural lighting have been around for millennia, plasma drilling technology is opening up geothermal power potential, biomass and tidal power are also developing as well as wind.

There's a plethora of alternatives if we could just get past the political blockage of the fossil fuel lobby.

Block? What block? They're in on it, getting all those subsidies from the taxpayer (that's you) to further enrich them. Are you that unaware of the billions of taxpayer dollars that go into alternatives? The problem is while they can be used and do supplement, there's nothing that can replace fossil fuels. Someday there will be a replacement for most fossil fuel uses, but it will be more like a Mr. Fusion than anything being developed now. And it's a long way off.

I was refering to a limited ownership of what is really a common resource, where is my share of billions being made by the oil industry? Remember that record profit Exxon Mobil had in the second quarter of 2008 where it made $1,500 a SECOND, if I have to live with the consequences of too much CO2 in the atmosphere then I want my share of the good times, send me the damn check.

You already havfe your share of the good times. You get cheap energy, all kinds of amenities, plastics, and conveniences from the availability of fossil fuels. Not only that, the governments take a huge share of the money in taxes and royalties, and they don't do a thing for it, they don't explore, drill, transport, refine or market anything, they just take a huge chunck of the cash that's generated. They get more for doing nothing than the oil companies get in profits. If you want a share in their profits, the solution to that is simple too. Buy shares.

 

[Slim Chance]

My god you're right, where do I sign up for the "oil is life" indoctrination you've so obviously incorporated into basic your personality?

You already have signed-up through your heating bill, electricity bill, many of the consumer products you consume, transportation, etc, etc.

It takes a special kind of eco-hypocrite to preach your particular brand of doom and gloom when in fact, your lifestyle (and possibly your life) are entirely dependent on fossil fuels.

Do me a favour, go outside tomorrow and look up...that big thing in the sky, it's called the sun. It puts out more energy in a second than we could use in the foreseeable future.

Are you referring to that "big thing" that heats the planet?.. Maybe even causes the globe to warm, as in "global warming"?

There's a plethora of alternatives if we could just get past the political blockage of the fossil fuel lobby.

Have many of the "plethora of alternatives" have you incorporated into your life? On that note, have you disconnected your natural gas, refused to consume energy from any company that uses coal or gas? How about cars/buses or any other kind of transport that uses fossil fuels (and that includes buying goods/services that rely on fossil fuels)?

What's that you say - you haven't cut-off those services and DO rely on those evil hydrocarbons?

There's no political force or intervention that is stopping you and your ilk from abandoning fossil fuels. The only barrier is you and your desire not to spend a ridiculous amount of money on inconsistent and unproven technologies... That and you're a hypocrite.

You're problem is you've simply chosen to shut your eyes to the alternatives.

The alternatives are not viable at this point in time.. Period... You can piss and moan all you like about what "should" be, but in the end, you have to live in reality, don't you?

I was refering to a limited ownership of what is really a common resource, where is my share of billions being made by the oil industry? Remember that record profit Exxon Mobil had in the second quarter of 2008 where it made $1,500 a SECOND, if I have to live with the consequences of too much CO2 in the atmosphere then I want my share of the good times, send me the damn check.

You'd support the consumption of oil/gas if you were paid by them, eh? So this is about money then isn't it?.. More specifically, you benefiting financially... Let me ask you; do the hydro-electric companies send you cash? How about the wind farms - are they sending you your share from this common resource?.. No?.. They haven't sent me mine either.

Here's a clue for you champ... You want your slice of the pie? The answer is simple; get together a bunch of money and go out and start an oil company (or wind farm, etc). Unless you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is, then your words are shallow and ineffective.

Your (above) comment doesn't surprise me; you're an eco-hypocrite. If it generates cash in your pocket, then it's A-OK, right?.. If they don't pay up, then you'll rail at the heavens about the inequities in life.

How quaint.

 

[Tonington]

The alarmists were the ones denying the logarithmic response, and if the alarmist hypothesis was true, temperatures would progress exponentially, which clearly they haven't.

So, cite someone who claimed that Extra. It shouldn't be hard.

It's funny...I've never seen a document claiming that the earth was going to warm exponentially. Sounds like a straw man to me, which wouldn't be unusual.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

... And the likes of Gore, Suzuki, WWF, Greenpeace, the UN, the IPCC etc have likely put in tens if not hundreds of millions into developing a wealth transfer agenda based on fraud, misrepresentation, a complete refusal for public debate and questionable science.

Sounds to me like you think the worlds wealth belongs to the petrochemical industry.

Let's put this in context, $100 million would have been a half a days PROFIT for one company, Exxon Mobil, in the second quarter of 2008. This from an industry that has a history of environmental distruction on a mammoth scale as we're watching right now in the Gulf as thousands of gallons of oil gush into the ocean every day. The same company responsible, BP is pressurring the Canadian government to relax regulations on drilling in the Arctic. Exxon that has made such huge profits fought for years to keep paying damages in the Prince William sound oil spill. Thousands of people in North America die of respiratory and heart disease associated with smog every year, for those reasons alone we should be switching to cleaner more sustainable energy sources.


When you factor in Global Warming which has been established beyond a reasonable scientific doubt by widespread temperature reporting from thousands of sites worldwide, including surface sea temperature, marine air temperature, land surface temperature and atmospheric temperature up to 20km then the case for moving to a clean energy model becomes overwhelming.


I guess if you're solidly behind a industry that has seen too many spills to count been the motivation for wars like the one going on in Iraq now and has held the rest of us over a barrel for years then it doesn't matter what the evidence on this issue says, you'll always come out attacking those who threaten your golden goose. But we're not being held over a barrel any longer, we're being held over a fire by one of the most cynical industries in the world and the longer it goes on the worse the damage done.

 

[GreenFish66]

Well Said colbalt kid ..

Some will never get the bigger picture unless it includes a dollar sign ...I call it " Economic Global warming" ....Think about it Economists..Where did your system originate?...

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

You already have signed-up through your heating bill, electricity bill, many of the consumer products you consume, transportation, etc, etc.

It takes a special kind of eco-hypocrite to preach your particular brand of doom and gloom when in fact, your lifestyle (and possibly your life) are entirely dependent on fossil fuels.

I'm not preaching doom and gloom, I'm talking about taking the necessary steps to avoid it. I could care less about profits going to an industry that has seen its day and needs to be relegated to the history books. Science and technology has moved on and we're still stuck witht the same cheap and dirty energy dependence we had a century ago.

The only reason the funds aren't going into developing a sustainable clean energy model is the political and economic power wielded by the fossil fuel industry and those who support it. Look at what happened when alternatives we tried like zero emmission vehicles in California or alternate oil production like with thermal depolymerization. The auto and petro-chemical lobby got together and used the courts and politicians to remove any threatening technology. Look at people like Phil Cooney who was virtually an Exxon representative inside the White House rewriting scienctific papers that caused concern about CO2 emmissions. If we're not given an alternative, then don't point the finger of blame at me, I can't afford the millions it takes to put a friendly government in power but the one of the wealthiest industries in the world can.

Are you referring to that "big thing" that heats the planet?.. Maybe even causes the globe to warm, as in "global warming"?

What are you saying now, it's all the suns fault, you're so deep in denial you can't accept any responsibility for the industry you so obviously support.

Have many of the "plethora of alternatives" have you incorporated into your life? On that note, have you disconnected your natural gas, refused to consume energy from any company that uses coal or gas? How about cars/buses or any other kind of transport that uses fossil fuels (and that includes buying goods/services that rely on fossil fuels)?

What's that you say - you haven't cut-off those services and DO rely on those evil hydrocarbons?[/quote]

I live a very modest life in material terms, I'm not the one who's argument is almost solely based on the profit motive.

There's no political force or intervention that is stopping you and your ilk from abandoning fossil fuels. The only barrier is you and your desire not to spend a ridiculous amount of money on inconsistent and unproven technologies... That and you're a hypocrite.

Give me a break, transforming our society to a cleaner more sustainable model isn't going to happen overnight and it's going to take massive investment. It also means that the current structure, you know the one with people like you at the top has to go. The significant barriers to change are on a systemic level, so the soultion to change also has to be on that level. As long as the industry responsible for teh problem is pumping out disinformation on about the same level as CO2 then it needs to be challenged.

I'm doing the best I can given the limitations of the situation, what exactly are you doing, what is going to be you're response when the bill for us all comes due? Sorry I was wrong, too bad entire ecosystems have dissappeared and the conditions for life have become marginal for hundreds of millions, here's a few handouts from the people who brought you the problem. Only so much blame can be laid on the heads of the consumer when you have a producer as powerful and determined to keep its wealth and priviledge. Your arguments remind me of the claims made by many supporting the tobacco industry"it's the smokers fault, they can stop any time they want", whi cares that the tobacco industry spent a fortune lobbying and researching ways to stay in business. This is no different, even president Bush admitted in 2006 the his nation was addicted to oil.

Personally I don't drive any more, I live in a small suite in the city use mass transit and travel very little, I have limited means to alter my life any further, what are you doing?

The alternatives are not viable at this point in time.. Period... You can piss and moan all you like about what "should" be, but in the end, you have to live in reality, don't you?

BS

Look at the electric car example in California, people want to change if they get a chance. There are photo voltaic roffing tiles, I can imagine a house with those and solar cell siding on the southern exposure with other energy saving technology able to produce more power than it uses. How about electric cars with solar cells built into the skin of the vehicle that charge while you park them during the day, any deficit in charge can be made up by the energy produced from you're home. There was the thermadepolymerization that I talked about thta was never really given a chance in the US, wind power, tidal power and so much more.

Those are just starting points, as long as we're led by politicians like Harper who are little more than oil sector lobbiests in place then what are the chances any real effort is going to be made to deal with the problem. We don't even really talk about it at a national level with the conservatives in place, instead Canada earns condemnation from most of the reat of the world for trying to sabotage any change beforeit starts.

At the very least I'm looking for an alternative to an issue that most informed people understand is crucial to our future.

What do you believe in besides continued greed for its' own purpose. It makes no sense to me to stay commited to a path that leads over a cliff.

 

[Slim Chance]

Sounds to me like you think the worlds wealth belongs to the petrochemical industry.

If it's the petrochemical industry that is generating the wealth; then yeah - it belongs to them.

Let's put this in context, $100 million would have been a half a days PROFIT for one company, Exxon Mobil, in the second quarter of 2008.

The typical socialist rant that blindly sees only profit and ignores the amount of the investment or the risk associated with generating the profit... Just as long as you get your free ride, niceties and free lunch, right?

This from an industry that has a history of environmental distruction on a mammoth scale as we're watching right now in the Gulf as thousands of gallons of oil gush into the ocean every day. The same company responsible, BP is pressurring the Canadian government to relax regulations on drilling in the Arctic.

Here's a thought for you - try, for just one nanosecond to see the big picture... I can understand that it will be near impossible for someone that can't see real life as it is, but try..... The biggest, ongoing and largest destruction of the environment relates to the development of urban centers.. That means you are part of the problem cobalt_kid.

Thousands of people in North America die of respiratory and heart disease associated with smog every year, for those reasons alone we should be switching to cleaner more sustainable energy sources.

So what.. Many more die from famine or obesity-related issues... Should we ban gas/diesel and starve 'em out even more?

On that note, I see that you are hiding from my earlier question regarding what YOU have personally done... I noticed that you didn't break your arm patting yourself on the back about how you don't use any natural gas or drive/ride in vehicles that use hydrocarbons. But I do see you demanding that "something" be done.

Hypocrite

When you factor in Global Warming which has been established beyond a reasonable scientific doubt by widespread temperature reporting from thousands of sites worldwide, including surface sea temperature, marine air temperature, land surface temperature and atmospheric temperature up to 20km then the case for moving to a clean energy model becomes overwhelming.

The "science" isn't settled.. You just want it to be.

I guess if you're solidly behind a industry that has seen too many spills to count been the motivation for wars like the one going on in Iraq now and has held the rest of us over a barrel for years then it doesn't matter what the evidence on this issue says, you'll always come out attacking those who threaten your golden goose. But we're not being held over a barrel any longer, we're being held over a fire by one of the most cynical industries in the world and the longer it goes on the worse the damage done.

The oil industry counts on people like you to continually support their business' by perpetually buying their products.

Whine all you like, but each time you drive your car, heat your house or buy anything that was transported by car/truck/plane/boat/rail; you put more cash in their jeans.

get off your high horse already and either DO something about it, or stop your moaning.

 

[GreenFish66]

Green/Clean Tech is now ..It Is the Future...

Get with the times or be left behind...

Consumerism and over consumption has no future...

New /Better ways/solutions are here/are always needed ...

The Light is Green..The Future is Clear ...Green/Clean Tech .:smile: