Hydrogen or Clean Coal - which is the bigger sham?

2009-03-19T13:18:00.000-07:00

This is just a forewarning, I'll be trying to put up an article on why hydrogen and clean coal are just kick-the-can-down-the-road shams that will do nothing to improve the environment, nor gain us anything substantially in energy independence.

Some Twit on Twitter, who supposedly is a "hydrogen specialist" got my attention, and asked me why I thought "hydrogen is a myth". I'll get into that.

Just a heads up.

EcoDuck

In Synch - Not the band, either

2009-03-16T21:13:00.000-07:00

Look for another bunch of idiots to start pushing this load of crap upon the public, trying to prove human-caused climate change doesn't exist.:

"The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down....

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.

I've already seen two places on the net so far today where well-known denier websites are publishing this as "truth", one of them the wackfest wattsupwiththat.com.

I emailed the folks at RealClimate.org and asked them what they thought and I got this back from Gavin Schmidt at GISS/NASA:

I guarantee that few of the people quoting this study have even read the
abstract, let alone the paper "http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf"
, and have absolutely no idea what is being
discussed. A quick read is sufficient to discover that a) this is a
discussion about how the climate reacts to forcings, not whether it does,
and b) doesn't look at GCM output (and so can't really assess whether GCMs
are in some way deficient), and c) explcitly states that the authors
expect the long term trends to continue to warm. How this supports the
idea that GW is false is completely beyond my ken. It proves rather (once
again) that there are plenty of people who can type faster than they
think.

gavin

Another day, another bunch of idiots. Thanks to Gavin for clearing this up.

EcoDuck