Saturday February 14, 2009, 6:39 pm
Hello...is sense finally creeping in? Destruction of rain forest habitat is outrageous, whether one agrees with the Global Warming Scam or not.

Our intelligent cousins, the Orangutans are being driven into smaller areas where there is fear for their survival. Orangutans are endangeded..Polar bears are not.

Which should you worry about?

Sunday February 15, 2009, 8:43 pm
There has never been any evidence to say that virgin biofuels are a reasonable solution of any sort.

Sunday February 15, 2009, 9:20 pm
Who's talking about destroying rainforests to stop global warming? No one I've heard...I don't think that's an arguement anywhere.

Sunday February 15, 2009, 10:15 pm
Hey Robert M. I just posted another article you can replicate, duplicate and steal from me so that you can go straight to the front page as my "Biofuels Boom Could Fuel Rainforest Destruction, Stanford Researcher Warns" article didn't. This one may also be a hot news item, please note it (as you did for the Biofuel article) and find a similar story so you can get the front page credit. It's called, "Sponge's Secret Weapon Restores Antibiotics' Power" in the health and wellness category. Oh by the way if you didn't interfere I would have had a front page article for the second new story I ever submitted. I'll say that's pretty good for a newcomer. Don't you think?

Sunday February 15, 2009, 10:15 pm
Maybe if we eat less meat, then we could use more biofuels. Did you know that most plant crops are used to feed animals we later eat? If we ate those plant crops directly, we would have a more abundant food supply!

But yes, biofuels when burned also emit greenhouse gases. Which is why we must move on from them soon.

Monday February 16, 2009, 5:34 pm
The Death Cult wants food turned into fuel at a time of global cooling.

The Death Cult hasn't been right about anything so far...they predicted warming and record temperatures are being set for cold.http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm

Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making

By Kesten Green, J.Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon

Abstract:
Policymakers need to know whether prediction is possible and if so whether any proposed forecasting method will provide forecasts that are substantively more accurate than those from the relevant benchmark method. Inspection of global temperature data suggests that it is subject to irregular cycles on all relevant time scales and that variations during the late 1900s were not unusual. In such a situation, a “no change” extrapolation is an appropriate benchmark forecasting method.

We used the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s annual average thermometer data from 1850 through 2007 to examine the performance of the benchmark method. The accuracy of forecasts from the benchmark is such that even perfect forecasts would be unlikely to help policymakers. For example, mean absolute errors for 20- and 50-year horizons were 0.18C and 0.24C.

We nevertheless demonstrate the use of benchmarking with the example of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1992 linear projection of long-term warming at a rate of 0.03C-per-year. The small sample of errors from ex ante projections at 0.03C-per-year for 1992 through 2008 was practically indistinguishable from the benchmark errors. Validation for long-term forecasting, however, requires a much longer horizon. Again using the IPCC warming rate for our demonstration, we projected the rate successively over a period analogous to that envisaged in their scenario of exponential CO2 growth - the years 1851 to 1975. The errors from the projections were more than seven times greater than the errors from the benchmark method. Relative errors were larger for longer forecast horizons. Our validation exercise illustrates the importance of determining whether it is possible to obtain forecasts that are more useful than those from a simple benchmark before making expensive policy decisions.

Conclusions:
Global mean temperatures were found to be remarkably stable over policy-relevant horizons. The benchmark forecast is that the global mean temperature for each year for the rest of this century will be within 0.5C of the 2008 figure. There is little room for improving the accuracy of forecasts from our benchmark model. In fact, it is questionable whether practical benefits could be gained by obtaining perfect forecasts. While the Hadley temperature data shown in Exhibit 2 shows an upwards drift over the last century or so, the longer series in Exhibit 1 shows that such trends can occur naturally over long periods before reversing.

Moreover there is some concern that the upward trend observed over the last century and half might be at least in part an artifact of measurement errors rather than a genuine global warming (McKitrick and Michaels 2007). Even if one puts these reservations aside, our analysis shows that errors from the benchmark forecasts would have been so small that they would not have been of concern to decision makers who relied on them. Read full paper here.http://kestencgreen.com/naiveclimate.pdf

See evidence that the warming in the global data bases is biased as the authors state here.http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf

Monday February 16, 2009, 10:45 pm
Ahem. Biofuels convert foodstuffs for people and animals into energy production. Now we are talking about competition cutting into available nutrition in a time when water shortages are becoming worse ( and at questionable production efficiencies ). The reasons for shortage have to so with lifestyle choices and manufacturing : not to mention agricultural chemicals polluting groundwater - or drought.
In the end of November 2006 I found where a fellow had outlined a strategy for energy self-ufficiency independent of oil imports. While it involved sequestration - which I suspect is quite mad as it ties up atmospheric oxygen in a location and state where it can not be retrieved - it was never promoted except s a model of the kind of organized planning which is necessary to tackle our energy needs.http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html