Comments on: Chu calls for ‘a new industrial revolution’

By: stever

stever — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:32:31 +0000

“We need a new industrial revolution,” Chu said.

…we all loved to see the plan

By: Dr. J

Dr. J — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:59:09 +0000

What the devil does Venus’s atmosphere have to do with proving human CO2 is causing global warming? Perhaps you should research further than Wikipedia and accepting what Chu, Gore, and Harry say about it. They are not experts by any wild stretch of even their imaginations, and their educational qualifications in that regard are sorely lacking.

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:52:38 +0000

“Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth’s atmosphere while the pressure at the planet’s surface is about 92 times that at Earth’s surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth’s oceans. The density at the surface is 65 kg/m³ (6.5% that of water). The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

By: Dr. J

Dr. J — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:51:43 +0000

Again, CO2, human or otherwise, has NEVER caused climate change in the highly researched and documented 4.5 billion years of earth’s history. It is always a follower and minor feedback source, NOT the cause. This fact is alwyas conveniently left out of Chu, Gore or any other political science talk. Chu, Teague, Gore, Pelosi, etc. are using fear and misleading science half-truths to push a left wing political agenda of regulation, taxation, and increased government control over our lives, freedoms, and choices. And Teague using an energy conferemce to operate a partisan fundraiser? Shame on you Harry, universities are supposed to be non-partisan enclaves of higher education and learning, not political fundraising.

By: jbaca16

jbaca16 — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:16:31 +0000

Here is the last paragraph of the GOP news release

Teague will chair his two-day “Re-energize America” conference at the New Mexico State University campus today and tomorrow. Keynote speaker Chu created controversy when he proclaimed earlier this year that global warming could wipe out California agriculture by the end of the century. Jones, an environmental activist and author of a book endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore, chronicled his journey toward communism in a 2005 interview.

Ergo, all dems and climate change scientists are commies.

By: QuestionAuthority

QuestionAuthority — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:04:09 +0000

>>>Secretary Chu was very impressive.”

I’m sorry I missed seeing his presentation.

>>> He showed the graph I have seen before of eath temperatures from the 1850’s to present,
>>>plus one I have not seen before, showing carbon atmospheric concentration (from Artic ice core
>>> samples) from 800,000 years ago to present and correlating the peaks with the ice ages.

Did he also mention that Temperature changed first, both at the peaks and the troughs of
this correlating graph? If not, he was being misleading. CO2 variation did NOT play a part
in ice age onset or retreat. CO2 may influence temperature but the glacial cycle record
has nothing to do with it.

>>>The concentration of carbon on the graph rose spectacularly in the last century, looked like at least
>>> 10x the previous cyclic rises.

>>>He also said the Ice Age average earth temperatures were only six degrees centigrade (that’s
>>>around 10 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than normal, and that the predicted average INCREASE in the
>>>next 100 or so years would be 4.5 to 5 degrees centigrade, and asked, do we want this kind of
>>>increase?

Did he explain why the rate of warming has been so much less over the last thirty years when
global warming is reputed to have occurred? The IPCC claims the best estimate for the
-low- scenario should be 1.8 degrees C per century. And guess what? NONE of the global
measures of temperature indicate a warming rate of even this low scenario, much less than
these numbers you cite.

(Wiki the IPCC fourth assessment report to see this)

>>> I recorded the speech, will try to pull together a more detailed summary later this week.
>>> Really sad that the Republicans call an intelligent assessment of the facts “activism.”

We can say global warming is real – the last thirty years have warmed.
We can say global warming is exaggerated – the warming has been below even the low end, -AND-
We can say gloabl warming is decreasing – the 15 year trend is lower than the 30 year trend.
and the 10 year trend is lower still than the 15 year trend.

These are facts, not activism.

My take on ‘activism’ is summed up in this quotation:

“the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – HL Mencken

By: wedum59

wedum59 — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:43:35 +0000

Secretary Chu was very impressive. He candidly laid out the arguments for global warming and for its being human-caused. He showed the graph I have seen before of eath temperatures from the 1850′s to present, plus one I have not seen before, showing carbon atmospheric concentration (from Artic ice core samples) from 800,000 years ago to present and correlating the peaks with the ice ages. The concentration of carbon on the graph rose spectacularly in the last century, looked like at least 10x the previous cyclic rises.

He also said the Ice Age average earth temperatures were only six degrees centigrade (that’s around 10 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than normal, and that the predicted average INCREASE in the next 100 or so years would be 4.5 to 5 degrees centigrade, and asked, do we want this kind of increase?

I recorded the speech, will try to pull together a more detailed summary later this week.

Really sad that the Republicans call an intelligent assessment of the facts “activism.”