From what I understand, the vast majority of windmill bird deaths in the West happen at one early and rather poorly planned windfarm in Atamont (sp?) near San Francisco. Due to poor knowledge of the time of bird migration routes, this particular facility is in a uniquely poor place as well as having a large number of pretty small windmills turning so fast the birds can't avoid the blades.

Ordinary skyscrapers are estimated to kill many times more birds than all of the more modern windfarms presently operating in the US.

NIMBY, but...
 

"Bird-strikes" into skyscrapers are devastating in numbers, but the ordinary house cat kills many more songbirds than any of today's technologies. (The relatively small island of Key West has about 40,000 housecats and is a major US flyway for migrating songbirds). :(

New coal-fired plants are to be bankrupted. :(

;) Let's take another view at Lake Winnipesaukee and "view":

Lake Winnipesaukee's first windmills should be copies of those off US coasts and be built at "The Witches".

(Improving the "view" of The Witches!)


:look:

Old Windmill in Alton
 

I just found this old postcard in McDude's gallery. It has a windmill! Can I guess for it would have been a pump for water?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...majorstat3.jpg
Click here to see the postcard in PhotoPost, where you can super-size it.

Hmmmmmm......I noticed that nobody replied to my post about the windmills out west killing THOUSANDS of birds. Mostly raptors. Golden Eagles, hawks and owls.......ground is littered with them around the windmills.
Somehow, I thought that folks who were interested in saving the planet might want to protect wildlife..................anyone care to comment??

How about a farm at the witches? We could set a good example for the cape and islands.

...gee whiz...if they can build fish ladders so the salmon can migrate up and down river around a dam.....then they should just build some big safety cages around the whirling propellers to protect the birds. On second thought....how about bird ladders so the birdies can climb around the windmills?

Out Of The Woods....
 

No worries here in the Lakes Region, FLL.


Link; http://www.currykerlinger.com/birds.htm

Thought about it.

Decided to pass on it until you posted again.

And actually, Acres Per Second did make remarks on your post (see above). So did StephenB and I believe he said something about "poor planning" on the part of the engineers. If that's the case then the company who installed those things out west should move them.

I've lived in CA and seen the hills covered by wind turbines. They're awesome to see. I believe there's a mandate in the state that calls for a certain amount of renewable energy to be supplied. I think it's smart on their part because our dependence on foreign countries supplying our oil is hurting us.

Did you watch the video I posted? It's addressed by an engineer who designs the wind turbines, when he spoke to the Alton & Barnstead school boards at a meeting. (Alton & Barnstead share a high school and have a joint maintenance agreement - both school boards meet together to manage the high school.)

There's an excellent study here: http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

And a good article about it here:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...n_misconce.php

Now, take into consideration the availability of wind, the use of a "renewable" source for energy, and a source that is local vs. being from a foreign country, like oil, and the benefits of the wind turbine far outweigh the negatives, in my opinion. I'd wager that far more damage is done from an oil spill than from a wind turbine.

Here is an interesting article about a person who put a WindMill on her land in Ossipee. The article was in the Granite State News sometime in early 2008.

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/n...eewindmill.jpg

BY ELISSA PAQUETTE
Staff Writer

OSSIPEE — A 34-foot windmill reaches toward the sky from Cecily Clark’s hilltop acreage in Ossipee. The three, six- foot long fiberglass
blades rotate continuously downwind atop a tapered pole, producing a slight hum when the wind picks up. As the wind direction shifts, so
do the blades. Clark, a sculptor, admires the elegant design. “I always wanted one,” she says, “and the technology is here now.” A chance meeting with contractors Greg and Leonah Simon, recent residents from Nova Scotia who specialize in windmill installation, enabled Clark to fulfill her desire to run her studio on clean energy. “It’s a natural extension for me. My father was a product of the Depression. He saved tinfoil, made sure we turned out the lights when we left the room, and always emphasized conservation,” says Clark. “I can remember when we had to return our toothpaste tubes before buying a new one at the pharmacy. There was lead in them.” Clark,who has lived in the area since 1968, just beyond the Wolfeboro-Ossipee town line on Pork Hill, is a pioneer of sorts. She is the first person to generate wind energy
harnessed to the Wolfeboro Municipal Electric Department grid. Learning the process has been a challenge for her as well as Barry Muccio,
manager of the electric facility. Since the department is not under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, he had to gather
information to draft Wolfeboro’s own policy for a “net metering” pilot program. The pilot program was recently approved by Wolfeboro selectmen. The eight-page document states, “the goal will be to establish future policies which will remain consistent with prudent electrical practices set forth by the National Electric Safety Code,National Electric Code and any other Federal, State and local government codes, while offering a mutual service agreement which is legal, objective, reliable and safe to both participating parties (utility and customer).” Net metering allows a person to be connected to the grid with a meter that runs both ways. When the windmill is generating more electricity than needed, the electric meter runs backward and the electric company records a credit. When the customer’s needs exceed production, the meter reverses course. At the end of a month, there is either a bill to pay or a credit. Since there is no one else currently in her position, Clark will be a primary source of feedback over the course of the year – as well as any others who might want to emulate her. Standing on her hilltop, gazing over the Ossipee Mountain range, she points to a complex of white buildings in a clearing within the rolling, forested vista off in the distance. “They are interested in installing a windmill too,” she points out. Her neighbors also have expressed an interest. They’ll be able to
benefit from her journey through the installation steps and now, production. The anemometer on Clark’s sunroom wall tells her the highest rate of wind in a given day. Thirty to 40 mph gusts are frequent, making her location ideal for generating wind energy. Seventy mph is the highest rate she has recorded, Early in October 2007, Clark ordered her windmill. The cost? $12,000 for the fixed costs, excluding having to
hire an electrician and contractor, and wire at $1 a foot. Her windmill is 300 feet from the meter, necessitating a $300 expense for wire alone.
Trees had to be cut, a trench dug to hold a conduit for the wires, and a hole excavated for the 3,000 pounds of concrete in the six-foot deep base. The rebar cage itself, embedded in the concrete foundation, weighed 750 pounds. Every day brought excitement as the project progressed. Clark’s photo diary shows the men working with snow underfoot as winter approached. Clark terms it “most exciting” to watch the workers hoist the tower into place on its base with their gin pole, but she declares Dec. 22, 2007, the first day of operation,“ the real McCoy.” Clark can now look at her computer screen and see detailed, current information on her windmill’s productionrate. That data is interfaced with Arizona-based Southwest Wind power, a company that just started producing her Skystream 3.7 model a year ago. When
there are glitches, as there have been in the early months of the year, Greg and Leonah Simons have access to the data and are able to
communicate with the company. Soon after installation, production stopped while the inverter (the device that converts direct current to alternating current) had to be reconfigured. Currently, when the blades get to a certain speed, the turbine shuts off. The Simons are communicating with the company to resolve the issue. Clark is “unphased.” She recognizes that a venture into new territory is not without
obstacles to solve, saying, “Somebody has to be the first.” She estimates that she’ll be able to cover the electrical production for the kiln in her sculpture studio, but most important is that she is using clean, renewable energy. If there is any surplus, she has the satisfaction that other users will also be able to power their homes, even if only in part, from energy that is not polluting the air. The electric department installed the necessary meter with a kill switch to be used at any point that work needs to be done on the wires, and another meter shows her total production to date. On days when the wind is blowing, “it’s great to watch the electric meter run backwards.” Her Skystream 3.7 produced 14 kilowatt hours of electricity in a 20-hour period in March. To date, with various starts and stops, she’s produced close to 130 kilowatt hours. “I know it’s only a drop in the bucket, but it’s a step in the right direction. We should be encouraging clean energy use in some fashion.”
According to figures suppliedby the N.H. Public Utilities Commission, Clark’s wind turbine is among only 15 such units generating into
electric grids in New Hampshire. A few installations have been around since the 1980s. As for incentives, Wolfeboro voters passed a warrant article (31) to adopt the provisions of RSA72:66 for a property tax exemption of $5,000 for home owners equipped with a wind-powered
energy system. Under the state’s net-metering law, final rules have been established and are readily available online under Final Rules – PUC 900. Tom Frantz of the Public Utilities Commission urges interested parties to look at RSA362-a:9, which lists the conditions that net metering customers must follow. The Wolfeboro Muncipal Electric (WMED) Department’s pilot program adopted most of the rules set forth by the state, but as a separate entity, the department has the right to establish its own guidelines. One deviation is that the monthly base rate to customers, which stays the same in utility companies throughout the state, is currently double the rate for Wolfeboro’s net metering customers. Also, while the state’s net metering rules offer customers the opportunity to sell electricity to up to three retail customers, the
WMED draft states that the agreement with a customer will be “based on the premise of offsetting part or all of the customer’s own electrical requirements through the use of renewable energy technology.” That includes solar or hydro as well as wind. Cecily Clark is Wolfeboro’s first net metering customer, but more are sure to follow. Already, Peter Goodrich, who will be retiring in June to live full-time inWolfeboro in his solar home, is contributing to the grid too. New manufacturing and service economies are on the rise state and nationwide. Wolfeboro is on its way to going green.

Around the lake, Gunstock Mt ski area stands out as potential windy spot to build a wind turbine. Gunstock already has numerous chairlift towers that go unused for about eight months/year. Building an introductory wind turbine somewhere up on Gunstock Mountain might be a year round energy maker?


Oops... I forgot that Gunstock belongs to Belknap County....so it has an unlimited source of money and generating income is not a problem......sorry....

Historic Windmills
 

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...1_30_42_AM.jpg

The Long Island Inn used to have a windmill too. Used I would guess to pump water?

Ummm, read up. I responded to your post already. Repeat: most of the birds killed out west are killed at one wind farm at Atamont Pass outside of the Bay area. Most folks now agree that this particular area, combined with lots of smaller, earlier generation windmills with smaller, higher speed blades, are responsible for the bird deaths. Please read up for the rest of my comments.

I read something about this...
 

Your post caught my eye. I knew I had read a similar report. I remembered where I say it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...nd-farms_N.htm

Interestingly, Gunstock approached my store (www.sustainabilitynh.com) about the possibility of installing solar panels on Gunstock Mtn. to help power their huts, etc. I pointed out that all ski areas face north, to keep the sun off the slopes so the snow stays longer, so the return on the installation would likely never equal the outlay of purchase and installation (unlike normal south facing residential solar installations, which can pay for themselves in 15-20 years (with State and Federal rebates).

Solar Panels
 

There was a good article in the Meredith News this week about a family that runs their house on solar panels (or hopes to anyway).

Click on picture below to read the article:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/n...olarPanels.jpg

I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.

You know what... I'd agree with you whole-hog if it meant we could drill on US territory.

The problem I have with our reliance on petrol isn't because I'm a "treehugger" (which is somehow a dirty word on this form) or "green". I don't suggest these things to "feel good" - but I do hate how dependent we are on foreign suppliers for our fuel.

That being said... why not more water or steam or gas turbines to create energy - it doesn't have to be solar or wind. It's hardly a warm-fuzzy thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's more about self-reliance to me than anything else.

As far as our infrastructure goes, it takes time to implement these things so that there is an impact on the power grid. The initial implementation takes upfront costs that other energy sources don't call for simply because they are "common".

I'll leave you with this graph from the NY Times about where things are going with energy (graph #1) and how much has been spent to develop new sources (graph #2):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...SOLAR2.190.jpg


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...SOLAR1.190.jpg

Graphs and article can be read (and a lot bigger, I might add!) HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html

Samiam, you just always have so much common sense!! What you say is true, however I must admit, it is kind of fascinating fooling around with these alternatives. Too bad they couldn't do more with them-make them worthwhile.

Gunstock should take their competitor Wachusetts as a green initiative. Wachusetts harness the heat from the air and water compressors use in snowmaking to heat their main lodge. Wachusetts received commendation from the fed for their initiatives.

Not only that......
 

Wachusett Mountain in Princeton, Ma is installing 2 rather large windmills on the summit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFKdARjCFM

Hope this goes through!

Clarification: The Princeton Light Dept. is installing 2 windmills on the summit of Wachusett Mountain.

Samiam

When you point out solar is only 1% and will only double to 2%, the reasonable person would conclude that power companies and big business have fought solar for years, denying it subsidies while enjoying massive subsidies of their own. That we only use 1% is a sign of our short-sightedness, not that we don't need it.

You notice petroleum declines 15% over the next 20 years. Why? Because petroleum production has been level and is beginning to decline, while energy demand keeps increasing. That is behind the spike in oil prices from $1.50 to $4.00 last year. How do we prepare to live in a future of declining petroleum availability? We should be changing as much as we can to solar and wind. That said, wind is not a very good residential resource in NH (though commercial wind is great).

If we continue to use most of the oil for warming the house and producing electricity, there will be much left in the future for transportation, etc., when we get to the point that we don't have enough to do both. Since our economy is so dependent on oil, it will be hit harder than other economies (for example 3rd world) which don't rely so much on fossil fuel when the crunch comes. We will be hit much harder than economies like Germany, which have developed solar resources much more than us.

As to your thoughts about "the global warming thing...", I am getting more and more upset over time while the deniers delay our global response to a crisis that reputable scientists are in almost complete unanimity about. Read the Limits to Growth, 30 Year update (published in 2002) and see why they continue to warm about an ecological collapse facing us if we don't focus on sustainability. We are living in serious overshoot (a technical term) where we are using resources much faster than we can renew them, and EVEN IF global warming scenarios were totally wrong (in the face of all evidence that they are right) we would still be facing massive challenges to maintain oour standard of living.

The hoodwinking is by those trying to convince us that science is not...well....science, but a mere set of untested opinions.

Science is more
 

Science is not all facts. It is also hypothesis, which IS opinion of the scientist!
Don't assume because you can call it science that it is fact!

I think it's fair to say that us "deniers" are equally upset with those of you that have fallen for this hoax. You don't need to be a scientist to see that we are cooling, not warming. This whole thing is just a scheme to let government control more and more of our economy....bet you love the new cap and trade bill..you won't even be able to start a chain saw without forking over come kind of "carbon" tax.
What's even more insulting to our intelligence is the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who scold us about warming up our car in the winter while he maintains a mansion that uses enough fuel to run 50 standard homes and crosses the country in a Gulfstream jet.......but I almost forgot...it's OK because he bought some "carbon credits" in his own company. Plant a few trees and the guilt is gone.

We need a thanks button here for that post Sam. I know I sound like your champion, I just can't help it, I usually agree with you.

I agree with you SAMIAM.

When I wake up in the morning and it’s cold out, then it’s global cooling. If I wake up in the morning and it’s hot, then it’s global warming.

All kidding aside, this is what I believe:

The Earth's rotation axis is not perpendicular to the plane in which it orbits the Sun. It's offset by 23.5 degrees. This tilt, or obliquity, explains why we have seasons and why places above the Arctic Circle have 24-hour darkness in winter and constant sunlight in the summer.

When the offset changes (wobbles) from what we believe is the norm, then the earths temperature changes to make it cooler or warmer depending on where you are located on the earth.

The sun will ultimately determine whether it’s going to be hot or cold in the future and not some wannabe global warming scientist like Al Gore.

Costs
 

I took a course and the one thing the teacher said to take from the class is "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This was a data class and the example was higher speed = more errors per second.

I think about this when I read about ZERO EMISSIONS CARS. Where does the power come from to recharge the batteries? What are the windmills made of? How do we refine the metal to build them? Where will we put them? Who pays for the land? Who wants the farms in their back yard?

Don't get me wrong every little bit helps but nothing is perfert.

Remember everything has a cost.

Nuclear?

This is fascinating.

I'd heard there were people who didn't believe in global warming despite all the scientific evidence, but to hear from one is kind of like discovering a "flat-earth-er" who really believes there is an edge to the earth. I don't personally know anyone who would admit to it - I just imagine anyone would be embarrassed to be caught making statements like that.

Just because Al Gore is a hypocrite in that regard has no bearing on whether his message is true or not, and unfortunately his message is true (as far as science can determine). Pineneedles, I do see your comment about Dr. Green's post that science is hypotheses, and you are right, just because all the evidence supports a hypothesis doesn't mean it is right. BUT it does mean you have to point out some evidence that it isn't right, and to say "its a cold October" totally misses the point. The southwest of the US had one of the hottest years recorded.... while New England took a tiny step back.

Samiam - I hear you that you feel this is a conspiracy by the US government to take more and more control. Of course, that control is being demanded by the majority of the people who saw what happened when the government pretended, in the face of massive evidence, that there was no problem. I don't want government taking control of my life, but I like even less wholesale slaughter of any environmental protection and the laying to waste of the planet my descendants will (try to) live on.

I hear Al Gore is the target of ridicule. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is that the personal attacks on him are somehow used as an explanation of why global warming is wrong. Unfortunately for you deniers, in any scientific venue, the reality of the damage we are doing to our life-support system, our planet, is documented and the evidence grows clearer every month. That is why ALL the governments of the world are coming together to take action, because those whose responsibility it is to care for their citizens are looking ahead and seeing that without drastic curtailment of carbon emissions, they will fail in their responsibilities.

Al Gore only wants to report global warming in the summer time.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2O_nMSMK0w&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v2O_nMSMK0w&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Look Shed, it's this simple to explain. First off, when we talk about global warming, it usually is meant as "man-made global warming. There in lies the rub. We have records of our climate for a whole, what, 130 years? Not much of a sample when the earth has been here, what, a billion years? The earth has warmed and frozen many times over before man ever walked on it. The itsy bitsy solar system we live in with it's itsy bitsy planets have had eons of change and will continue to till our miniscule sun burns itself out. Put it this way, there are billions of solar systems in our galaxy in which there are billions of galaxys. For you and your so called experts to call out anyone who disagrees with this absolute conclusion based on such a microscopic sample of a microscopic view is, well,v ery much like our current administration's attitude of "how dare you question anything I do?". It should scare the hell out of any open minded person.

You da man!! Very well put!

AND........."Drill Baby Drill"

Insert "Thanks" here.
Very well said SS.

Oh this is going to be good, if we can keep it civilized and to the point and our webmaster indulges us.

My problem with windmills is they are not economically viable without large subsidies (read taxpayer payments) to offset the costs. Take away these subsidies and no one in their right minds would pay for them. I believe solar suffers from the same issue, although long term maintenance and endurance may allow it to reach a point of break even with out subsidies.

The Global Warming issue, now called Global Climate change (easier to defend) is a sham as far as I am concerned. I was hoping for a little global warming as I watched the Patriots trounce the Titans. The problem I have with cap and trade is the HUGE cost to families if it is enacted, for a very minimal impact if I accept the premises of the bill and anthropogenic climate change.

Not to throw water on the party, and SIKSUKR nailed it when he said "man-made global warming", but there are geology findings that point to periods of the earth's history, and I'm talking 10s of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years ago where warming and cooling has been influenced by carbon and other particulates in the atmosphere. Although we may be contributing to warming, it is an amount that is so miniscule in comparison to other natural occurences, like volcanoes. This should be the meeting point for both sides of the arguement. I do think the global warming thing has been blown way out of proportion and we should be concerned about the general overpopulation of the earth and concentrate on how we can feed and shelter future generations using our God given natural resources but keep an eye on where our next source of energy will come from and try to develop them. But that does not mean abandon nuclear, and fossil fuels, on the false premise that the earth will be destroyed in 50 or 100 (pick a year) years.

Not to mention sunspots and slight wobbles in earths rotation that have a far more reaching effect than man has had. I'm not saying we should not develop cleaner forms of energy. We absolutely should, have already done so, and will continue to but not at the end of the gun!

Particularly a gun held by the likes of Al Gore. Wait a minute, given his inaccuracy with quotes like "I invented the Internet", maybe his inaccuracy is just as bad with a .357. Fool would probably shoot himself in the foot.:laugh:

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Poor AL, he tries, but most of us can see right thru him.


The earths rotation and angular location to the sun plays a big role in our temperatures. Any variance from "norm" and we can/should expect changes.


Excellent points!!!

And don't forget about Greenland. No, not the town in NH, but the country up north. Currently covered under a sheet of ice. You may be asking yourself "Why would anyone name a country that is buried under ice Greenland?". Well, the answer should be clear...Greenland has not always been covered by ice. Back when it was Green, there were very few humans (if any at all) influencing the climate in any way. Interesting, eh? ;)

For information on the "climate change denier" movement, see http://www.realclimate.org/, an organization formed by climate scientists appalled at the lies being put out (I'm not talking about "disagreements" I'm talking outright lies) to persuade the public that the scientific community was not in substantial agreement about climate change.

To the comment that volcanos put out a lot of CO2... yes they do... but nothing compared to what humans put out.

"Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide. It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about a factor of 1000 smaller than the sum of the other natural sources and about factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.. .Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year." From Wikipedia

So Pineedles - it seems your idea that volcanoes put more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity is just plain wrong.

Now there are natural feedback loops that can handle increased carbon dioxin:

"The good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.

The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.

“These feedbacks operate so slowly that they will not help us in terms of climate change … that we’re going to see in the next several hundred years,” Zeebe said by telephone from the University of Hawaii. “Right now we have put the system entirely out of equilibrium.“

Zeebe notes that, “the average change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 600,000 years has been just 22 parts per million by volume.” Humans have run up CO2 levels 100 ppm over the last two centuries!

In the ancient past, excess carbon dioxide came mostly from volcanoes, which spewed very little of the chemical compared to what humans activities do now, but it still had to be addressed.

This antique excess carbon dioxide — a powerful greenhouse gas — was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which take in the chemical….

The natural mechanism will eventually absorb the excess carbon dioxide, Zeebe said, but not for hundreds of thousands of years."

Additionally, it seems the carbon dioxide level has been below the current level for at leat the last 600,000 years.

So what would ignoring increasing carbon dioxide levels do to us? At 800 to 1000 ppm, the world faces multiple miseries, including:

1. Sea level rise of 80 feet to 250 feet at a rate of 6 inches a decade (or more).
2. Desertification of one third the planet and drought over half the planet, plus the loss of all inland glaciers.
3. More than 70% of all species going extinct, plus extreme ocean acidification.

"Imagine sea level rise of nearly 20 inches a decade lasting centuries — a trend perhaps interrupted occasionally by large chunks of the West Antarctic ice sheet disintegrating, causing huge sea level jumps in a span of a few years. And imagine that by 2100, we lose all the inland glaciers, which are currently the primary water supply for more than a billion people. Now imagine what future generations will think of us if we let it happen."

But come to think of it, if science doesn't mean anything to you...then showing the results of scientific research won't either...

One further thought. Suppose that its true that "natural processes" over the long run cause more effect on the CO2 rate than humans do (as several have suggested). So, what if natural processes lead to an increase in the CO2 rate to say 800 ppm. If human activity has added another 200 ppm after that, then we would have put ourselves over the edge into extinction, whereas if we had done what we could to reduce emissions, maybe we would have survived. People's arguments on natural CO2 processes always seem to imagine them in opposition to the effect of human activity but they are just as likely to synergize and more rapidly increase the impact of human caused emissions.

Goody, my favorite topic.
Shed, the statement above shows your political bias on this topic. Calling people who have a reasoned honest disagreement with you "deniers" or "flat-earthers" is really offensive. It is a typical Liberal tactic. It infers that skeptics are like Holocaust deniers and hinders any constructive conversation.

You really don't know ANYONE who is skeptical about AGW? Wow, you don't get out much. There are thousands of scientists that are skeptical. Climatologists, meteorologists, physicists, astronauts and more. You can see that many posting here are also skeptical. Many members of the IPCC itself now don't agree. How, in good conscience, can you ignore and discard their concerns? Any theory you present can be disputed and debated. Problem is, Liberals aren't listening (see Algore shutting off the mike of a questioner). Like you, they simply DECLARE the conversation over and won't even listen to other points of view. This is science?

You also imply that people you know may have doubts but you don't "know anyone who would admit to it". Do you realize what you are saying? Apparently the suppression of non-PC scientific opinion has been accomplished. How low we have sunk when a scientist doesn't dare speak his opinion.

I could get into an extended debate about the very foundations of the AGW theories but what's the use if you've already closed your mind? It is very doubtful that Co2 is the problem here. There is a direct correlation between sun activity and climate change. The connection between Co2 and AGW is highly debatable. 97% of the Co2 on the planet comes from fires, decomposition and volcanoes. Lakes like Winnipesaukee and oceans are huge factories of Co2. They pump it out in mass quantities.

The real endgame for AGW worshipers is to tax and control. While Liberals plot to burden businesses with new taxes and regulations that will further cripple our economy while having minimal impact on climate, emerging economies like China are building power plants like there is no tomorrow. They know that without energy there can be no growth and prosperity. They know that they need oil and electricity. They will drill anywhere (even off our coasts) and do what is necessary to ensure their economic growth. Too bad we won't. While we refuse to create any energy China and others will become the economic superpowers and will laugh at our feeble attempts to control the climate.

Nothing is settled, nothing is beyond debate. Defend your beliefs vigorously but don't demean or discard opposing opinions. Most likely they are not completely wrong and you are not completely right.

I'll bid 30,000 scientists
 

I have pulled some excerpts from an an article in Carbon Offsets Daily. You can find lots of information out there, no matter which side of the arguement you are on, but 30,000 scientists? Come on! They went out of their way to sign a petition!

Here's the link.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/ca...woes-15421.htm

It may be of interest to you to know that over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition which denies that human- produced CO2 or any other greenhouse gas is causing or will cause dangerous warming of the planet.

What does the evidence actually show? The global temperature record starts in 1856 showing a warming trend until 1880 then cooling until 1910; warming again until 1942, then cooling until 1975 (scientists were concerned we were heading for an ice age); warming again until 1998 and currently cooling again.

All of this while CO2 was steadily increasing in the atmosphere.

Where is the correlation? Surely if the UN theory is right, temperatures should show an increasing rise along with CO2; it simply is not there. Furthermore with CO2 currently increasing at roughly two parts per million per year, temperatures certainly should not be dropping now as they are.

We should be seeing an alarming increase but it is simply not there. This brief period of history completely destroys the whole man-made global warming scenario being caused by human CO2 output. It also destroys the current computer-climate models as none of them predicted the current situation.