Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Creekster, I will admit that this story almost made me recoil in horror. But it was more of a groan combined with a double face-palm.

We are worried what a State Senator says from the state of Kentucky as representative of what a majority of people who tend to vote GOP think?

Let's address the first point. He has a little power in the backwater state of Kentucky. Who gives a flying f...?!

Topper, I am sorry that my groan and face palm upon reading that story have upset you so much. That was very insensitive of me. I shudder to think how you would have reacted had I actually recoiled in horror. Yikes.

[Uncle Ted]

Of course the Cap Codites wouldn't let wind farms be developed blocking their scenic views.

But now that Teddy is dead the Cape Cod wind farm looks like it may be going forward... with little help in the way of financing from the federal government:

Funds and New Timetable for Offshore Wind Farm in Massachusetts

BOSTON — Cape Wind, the much-delayed offshore wind farm project proposed for Nantucket Sound, said Wednesday that it had received a new loan commitment that would allow it to finish its financing this fall and begin producing power by 2016.


“We expect to complete project financing in Q3,” Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for Cape Wind, wrote in an email, referring to the third quarter. “We will begin construction (on land) shortly thereafter. We will begin ocean construction in 2015 and commission the project in 2016.”


The timetable is the latest in a series of projected target dates from the company since it first proposed the wind farm in 2001. It has had to move back the dates at least four times in recent years because the financing has not been in place or because of legal or regulatory obstacles.


It still faces various hurdles, and opponents question whether it will be able to meet this new deadline.


Cape Wind has long held out the promise that it would become the nation’s first offshore wind farm, using 130 large turbines to provide clean, renewable energy for 75 percent of customers on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.

But in a decade-long drama, it has been fiercely challenged: by wealthy homeowners who say it would ruin their views; by businesses that fear substantial rate increases; and by fishermen who say it would interfere with their catches.


Jim Gordon, Cape Wind’s president, announced Wednesday during an offshore wind conference here that the company had received a new loan commitment of $600 million from the Danish Export Credit Agency, or EKF.


“EKF is a very knowledgeable and experienced investor in the offshore wind industry, and they recognize that Cape Wind makes sense both economically and environmentally,” Mr. Gordon said.


Combined with commitments of $200 million from Pension Danmark, a Danish public pension fund, and $100 million from the engineering company Siemens AG, which would manufacture the wind turbines, Cape Wind would appear to have barely raised $1 billion for the project, estimated to cost $2.6 billion.


The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi is also an investor, but its contribution has not been made public. Cape Wind is also hoping for a $500 million loan guarantee from the federal Energy Department, but otherwise, all of its financing comes from overseas.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the major opponent of Cape Wind, continued to cast doubt on whether the project would move forward. Cape Wind still faces five federal lawsuits filed by nearly a dozen parties that are challenging federal permits, Audra Parker, the alliance’s president, said.


Questions also remain about Cape Wind’s “overpriced” power contract with Massachusetts utilities, she said, adding that those contracts are to terminate at the end of 2015 if Cape Wind has not begun construction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us...etts.html?_r=0

It seems the "environmentalists" there in Cape Cod want to live in the dark. Texas, which is already kicking the nation's butt when it comes to wind power, may have an offshore wind farm before the good folks in Massachusetts get theirs.

[byu71]

But now that Teddy is dead the Cape Cod wind farm looks like it may be going forward... with little help in the way of financing from the federal government:


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/us...etts.html?_r=0

It seems the "environmentalist" there in Cape Cod want to live in the dark. Texas, which is already kicking the rest of the nation butts when it comes to wind power, may have an offshore wind farm before the good folks in Massachusetts get theirs.

That's because Texans aren't arrogant or hypocritical like the libs up in the NE.

[byu71]

You are amusing despite your condescension in an unintentional way. Profanity is not a sign of anger. Are you sooner s crazy twin brother?

No worry in being called anti-something by JL. Just understand if you have a different opinion than he does you are either ignerant or anti something. Anti science is a lot better than being called, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-people of color, anti-poor, anti-immigrant.

[Uncle Ted]

Global warming is actually being caused by the Earth's magnetic field collapsing?

Forget global warming, worry about the MAGNETOSPHERE: Earth's magnetic field is collapsing and it could affect the climate and wipe out power grids

• Earth's magnetic field has weakened by 15 per cent over the last 200 years
• Could be a sign that the planet's north and south poles are about to flip
• If this happens, solar winds could punch holes into the Earth's ozone layer
• This could damage power grids, affect weather and increase cancer rates
• Evidence of flip happening in the past has been uncovered in pottery
• As the magnetic shield weakens, the spectacle of an aurora would be visible every night all over the Earth

Deep within the Earth, a fierce molten core is generating a magnetic field capable of defending our planet against devastating solar winds.


The protective field extends thousands of miles into space and its magnetism affects everything from global communication to animal migration and weather patterns.


But this magnetic field, so important to life on Earth, has weakened by 15 per cent over the last 200 years. And this, scientists claim, could be a sign that the Earth’s poles are about to flip.


Experts believe we're currently overdue a flip, but they're unsure when this could occur.
If a switch happens, we would be exposed to solar winds capable of punching holes into the ozone layer.


The impact could be devastating for mankind, knocking out power grids, radically changing Earth’s climate and driving up rates of cancer.


‘This is serious business’, Richard Holme, Professor of Earth, Ocean and Ecological Sciences at Liverpool University told MailOnline. ‘Imagine for a moment your electrical power supply was knocked out for a few months – very little works without electricity these days.’

The Earth's climate would change drastically. In fact, a recent Danish study believes global warming is directly related to the magnetic field rather than CO2 emissions.

Radiation at ground level would also increase, with some estimates suggesting overall exposure to cosmic radiation would double causing more deaths from cancer.


Researchers predict that in the event of a flip, every year a hundred thousand people would die from the increased levels of space radiation.


'Radiation could be 3-5 times greater than that from the man-made ozone holes. Furthermore, the ozone holes would be larger and longer-lived,' said Dr Colin Forsyth from the Mullard Space Science Laboratory at UCL.
[...]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545465/Forget-global-warming-worry-MAGNETOSPHERE-Earths-magnetic-field-collapsing-affect-climate-wipe-power-grids.html

We are screwed.

[byu71]

Global warming is actually being caused by the Earth's magnetic field collapsing?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545465/Forget-global-warming-worry-MAGNETOSPHERE-Earths-magnetic-field-collapsing-affect-climate-wipe-power-grids.html

We are screwed.

What do the scientists think? I am not going to worry until I hear there is a concensus among them about this. My guess is there won't be a concensus because then the talk would shift to GW caused by this instead of by man.

I do appreciate Woot allaying my fears about an astroid hitting us. I look forward to hearing from him on this situation.

[Topper]

I just don't underhand the logical fallacy of holding what an isolated idiot says as representative of how a much larger group thinks.

[byu71]

I just don't underhand the logical fallacy of holding what an isolated idiot says as representative of how a much larger group thinks.

If your audience is naive or uniformed (note that is different from dumb or unintelligent) the logic is they will not understand you are talking about a lone wolf idiot. If you have allies like a compliant media, it is much easier to spread the false impression. I understand why they do it and why some people fall for it.

I don't understand why intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, scientific people pass it along though.

[Topper]

If your audience is naive or uniformed (note that is different from dumb or unintelligent) the logic is they will not understand you are talking about a lone wolf idiot. If you have allies like a compliant media, it is much easier to spread the false impression. I understand why they do it and why some people fall for it.

I don't understand why intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, scientific people pass it along though.

Returning to the topic of this thread.

The real reason why the "science" is contested politically is due to the fact that many within the scientific community gravitated predominately toward one political party. If the scientific community had gravitated equally, it would not have become so divisive. Part of the problem for that is, as woot points, technologically, we don't have the tools to correct the aspects causing the damage to the atmosphere. Hence, you gravitate to the party which desires to control industry as opposed to the party less likely to regulate industry. It is not entirely party related. I would suspect, in West Virginia environmental concerns which limit coal take a back seat no matter the party. Government does not work in an equal handed manner but seeks to allocate and re-allocate power in a brusk, disruptive manner. The solutions which politicians grasp for to "solve" the issues are opportunities for more power reallocation. Whenever you do that, you have political conflict.

[Jeff Lebowski]

No worry in being called anti-something by JL. Just understand if you have a different opinion than he does you are either ignerant or anti something. Anti science is a lot better than being called, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-people of color, anti-poor, anti-immigrant.

I don't recall ever calling you anti-anything. I just did a search and couldn't find anything there either. What the hell are you talking about?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Returning to the topic of this thread.

The real reason why the "science" is contested politically is due to the fact that many within the scientific community gravitated predominately toward one political party. If the scientific community had gravitated equally, it would not have become so divisive. Part of the problem for that is, as woot points, technologically, we don't have the tools to correct the aspects causing the damage to the atmosphere. Hence, you gravitate to the party which desires to control industry as opposed to the party less likely to regulate industry. It is not entirely party related. I would suspect, in West Virginia environmental concerns which limit coal take a back seat no matter the party. Government does not work in an equal handed manner but seeks to allocate and re-allocate power in a brusk, disruptive manner. The solutions which politicians grasp for to "solve" the issues are opportunities for more power reallocation. Whenever you do that, you have political conflict.

You've got your cause-and-effect all mixed up.

[byu71]

I don't recall ever calling you anti-anything. I just did a search and couldn't find anything there either. What the hell are you talking about?

Uh, I just read my post and I don't think I said you called me anti? I am sorry if I upset you and made you swear because you made an assumption.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Uh, I just read my post and I don't think I said you called me anti? I am sorry if I upset you and made you swear because you made an assumption.

So you were just rambling incoherently as usual? Got it. My bad.

[byu71]

So you were just rambling incoherently as usual? Got it. My bad.

Either that or again you fell in love with your own interpretation of what someone said. When caught, your usual escape is to belittle. LOL on doing a search finding you never belittle.

[Topper]

You've got your cause-and-effect all mixed up.

My perception is that Democrats are more likely to use regulation to curb industry. Republicans are more likely to seek less regulation of industry. Scientists find some of what consumers and industry do needs to be curbed in order to reverse, if possible, damage done to the atmosphere. The party which loves to regulate grabs onto the the findings of science in order to justify another power grab. If the findings were reversed mandating less regulations, Democrats would reject the findings. However, the scientists could have alleviated this problem by going to work with industry to help find easier ways to make the transition.