They did it again 28 Jul 2011 @ 17:30Posted by Supreme General Rayegun in : Enviroweenies , add a comment
Someone has ONE AGAIN proven that the Goreacle, a.k.a. OwlBore, has been lying.
I know, I know….tell us something we all DIDN’T know.
This time, the folks doing the telling are the neighbors just south of the Southern Command – NASA. Seems a couple of their rocket scientists have laid their version of a smackdown on the Goreacle cultists.
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
That last sentence got a smirk outta me. I got to thinking “Who’s holding the doo-doo bag now Goreacle?”
But wait, it gets better!!
Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
Great info and all, but the really good part is knowing that the cultists are in some corner huddled in the fetal position sucking their thumb!!!
SIDE NOTE: Yeah, the reporter for Forbes that wrote this is stuck on the word “alarmist”. -1 on diction.
Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.
The one thing that kept coming back to me as I read this article was, “Did they include measurements from over DC and WhollyWeird cause that’s a lotta hot air that gets generated from those two parcels of land”. Then again, there’s the explanation for the heat dome we’ve all been hearing so much about these past couple of weeks.
More sewage from the Gorebecil 30 Jul 2008 @ 09:35Posted by Supreme General Rayegun in : Enviroweenies, I'm callin' SHENANIGINS , add a comment
Most of you probably saw or heard about the ranting, which we all promptly flushed down the crapper. Because we all know that’s exactly what the rant is — crap. Well ReasonOnline has a piece up on what the Gorebecil really meant by the fact that the U.S. must go “green” within 10 years.
Here’s a sample of the real “green”:
According to the Energy Information Administration, the existing capacity of U.S. coal, gas, and oil generating plants totals around 850,000 megawatts. So how much would it cost to replace those facilities with solar electric power?
Let’s use the recent announcement of a 280-megawatt thermal solar power plant in Arizona for $1 billion as the starting point for an admittedly rough calculation. Combined with a molten salt heat storage systems, solar thermal might be able to provide base load power.
Crunching the numbers (850,000 megawatts/280 megawatts x $1 billion) produces a total capital cost of just over $3 trillion over the next ten years.
Yes folks, that’s “Trillion” with a capital “T”. As if the current budget deficit isn’t enough, the Gorebecil in all his Gaia-enthralled intelligence just forgot to mention the cost. How quaint.
Apparently since the Gorebcil can afford to spend $16,533 a month of “green” power at his house (if you call it a “house” when it’s big enough to make Jed and Granny Clampett jealous), then he has zero problems with his conscience telling US FOLKS IN FLYOVER COUNTY that we HAVE to go 100% green on electricity production within 10 years.
Just who the fark does this pie-stuffed fatso think he really is??? Yo Al, in case you haven’t noticed YOU are getting as fat as the electric bills your fat arse is generating in that house of yours.
If you’re so damned pissy about getting the U.S. on green electricity in 10 years, how about coughing up some significant levels of “green” CASH for the project?
What’s that? You only tell us what the fark we need to do, it’s not your place to fund your ideas (brain-dead as they are)??
Here’s a thought Gorebecil. Why don’t you, Breck Boy, and Hitlary all go investigate the lack of “green” electricity, love children, and universal health care in HELL. Be sure to take some sunblock, I hear the ozone hole is pretty big there. The people there are just screaming for a visit from a group like that!!!
All you Prius freaks can well….. 17 Mar 2008 @ 14:08Posted by Supreme General Rayegun in : Enviroweenies , add a comment
As this article from the Times Online shows, the Toyota Prius ain’t all it’s cracked up to be. Seems the Germans still have a couple of tricks up their sleeves. Then again, when you note that BMW already has a diesel engine in it’s racing program for Formula Le Mans and the American SCCA series you get a good clue as to where the Germans are taking the technology from.
Here’s the raw numbers from the test for the BMW:
Model BMW 520d SE
Engine 1995cc, four cylinders
Power 177bhp @ 4000rpm
Torque 258 lb ft @ 1750rpm
Transmission Six-speed manual
Official fuel/CO2 55.4mpg / 136g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 8.3sec
Top speed 144mph
Road tax band C (£115, USD 193)
Price £27,190 (USD 45,701)
Fuel used on test 10.84 gallons (50.3mpg)
Fuel cost £54.19 (USD 91.08)(diesel)
Here’s the numbers for the Prius:
Model Toyota Prius T Spirit
Engine 1497cc, four cylinders
Electric motor 50kW/67bhp
Power 77bhp @ 5000rpm
Torque 295 lb ft (motor) 85 lb ft (engine)
Transmission CVT automatic
Official fuel/CO2 65.7mpg / 104g/km
Performance 0-62mph: 10.9sec
Top speed 106mph
Road tax band B (£15, USD 25, alternative fuel)
Price £20,677 (USD 34,754)
Fuel used on test 11.34 gallons (48.1mpg)
Fuel cost £54.64 (USD 91.84)(petrol)
As you can see, that’s nearly a full 2MPG better for the BMW even though the BMW engine is almost 500cc larger. Sure, it’s more expensive to buy than the Prius, but that less than £7,000 (USD 11,765) difference can easily be made up in fuel savings.
Suck it envirowhackos!!!!