No Science To Support Climate Change

[Sonthert]

[quote name='Rani' date='31 December 2009 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1262300267' post='442782']

I don't want to thread jack so maybe send me a long PM, but why is hydrogen a joke? Is the way we're working with it a joke? Or is it's potential as a transportation fuel a joke? 'Splain pretty please.

'Rani
[/quote]

Its somewhat salient. Hydrogen requires electricity to electrolytically split water into its constituents hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is then collected and used as a fuel.

The process in a lab works fine, however:

1. The infrastructure doesn't exist to run hydrogen gas here and there. Yet. It would be costly to build, moreso than natural gas service, since hydrogen is quite reactive (and uses special materials) and quite flammable, even at low concentrations. Gas leaks would be a significant problem. We abandoned the use of hydrogen as a fuel in the 1950s. Natural gas that came into people's homes was a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. It burned with a yellow flame as opposed to the blue flames from methane from modern natural gas. Thats why old pictures of gas flames appear to be yellow, not blue. The addition of carbon monoxide made the gas more friendly, but certainly more poisonous, hence widows killing themselves by putting their heads in gas ovens. It has worked before, it can work again, is the thought of some. The scale of the hydrogen production was quite limited, however. Water gas, the mixture is called, is produced by blowing steam across red-hot purified carbon (coke). The water reacts by losing hydrogen and the oxygen getting stolen by the carbon. We would need some energy to heat the carbon up in the first place. Which requires? Petroleum energy generally.

2. Barring that, water would have to be consumed temporarily to make hydrogen. It has to be purified in some manner so we either start desalinizing sea water (which is costly in and of itself) or start using potable water which is in short supply to begin with. The power required to drive pumps and develop a usable pressure head for the water would be costly, too. (This is the reason desalinization is expensive...its not removing the salt...its getting the water to go from sea level up to an average of a 40 story building).

3. There are still problems in storage. Many metals react with hydrogen and begin the reverse process of rusting. They form metallic hydrides. Metallic hydrides are corrosive and alkaline, which limits the materials that can be used. In as much as metallic hydrides are being researched for the actual storage of the hydrogen in the first place, this point seems obviated. The point is, everything we use for gasoline and natural gas would have to be done completely over...a formidable task.

4, Other processes for producing hydrogen involve using natural gas to produce hydrogen. On the face of it, this seems reasonable. If the problem is, on the other hand, the limitation of transportation petroleum products, that puts natural gas on the priority protected list since it can be used directly as a transportation fuel and is still limited, not as much as crude oil, but much of it would be needed if crude oil reserves drop down too far.

5. Another process proposed by a company I used to work for, General Atomics, involve high temperature cracking of water using nuclear heat. Nuclear heat is of course predicated by nuclear reactions, which have some safety concerns. Additionally, the amount of nuclear isotopes capable of being fissioned is limited, nuclear isotopes are quite rare in the Earth's crust really. The cost to produce hydrogen could be quite low if you believe General Atomics. Additionally, the use of heat to crack water is possible, but prohibitive.

6. It is possible to create hydrogen the ways the Germans did to build dirigibles similar to the Hindenburg, using a reaction of metals and acids or bases to create hydrogen. The problem is that you would be using non-renewable resources to do this, a very unprofitable pursuit. As an example, reduced aluminum can be oxidized in a manner that produces hydrogen as a by-product. This is great, except the energy required to reduce aluminum in the first place is tremendous (And why recycling aluminum cans is a good conservationalist pursuit). There are hundreds of processes for liberating hydrogen. The problem is, ultimately, we live at the bottom of a great sea of oxygen. We are its slaves, chemically speaking. Hydrogen is the opposite paradigm from Oxygen. They are Yin and Yang, night and day, black and white. There are no other "oxygen" worlds in our solar system (Except: Europa, a satellite of Jupiter and Enceladus, a satellite of Saturn). Most of the other ones out there are hydrogen worlds. Titan is a good example.

7. Alternate methods for making hydrogen with yeast, bacteria and other microscopic single-celled life forms exist but are sketchy at best.

8. Titan is a vast sea of methane and ethane. It is a very large body, too. much larger than our own moon. 9th largest body in our Solar System if memory serves me. It is literally a world with oceans of methane and ethane. Wonderful chemicals...if we could get them from there to here. On Titan, water forms great stones and boulders, as hard as our rocks. If we are facing a global warming problem, importing carbon sources from other planets is a definite no-no. We'd be adding to our carbon balance. Even if we didn't have a problem now, we might very well have one if we could cheaply import the equivalent of natural gas from Saturn.

9. We can also pinch hydrogen off of petroleum refineries. This is currently flared off and this is where some of the yellow flames riding the exhaust stacks of refineries come from. Of course, if petroleum is in short supply, hydrogen will then be too from this process.

10. The ultimate goal is to find a Holy Grail and find a way to make hydrogen cheaply in a manner that doesn't require petroleum and fossil fuels to produce, manufacture or transport. This is not a solution at hand, however. We are trying to run uphill (energy input and defying the rules of our Oxygen atmosphere) and do it cheaply. The energy we are mainly trying to overcome is that of entropy, that chemicals hanging around in the atmosphere for too long become burnt or oxidized...oxygenated. In a similar fashion, another process that is considered a holy grail is the conversion of methane directly into methanol. It has not been conquered either. These are roughly analogous to the alchemists of the Middle Ages trying to turn something plentiful (lead for instance) into something rare and desirable (gold generally). Right now, we need either heat or electricity to make hydrogen practically. We can use nuclear fuel as the source for the heat as I described above.

11. The best solution may lie in yet undiscovered biocatalytic processes where a living system (or bacteria) take sunlight and turn something into hydrogen. Yet, the main source we have for hydrogen is still the oxidized product of it...water. Which we need if its pure and need to use large amounts of energy to move around if its at sea level in oceans.

[Chreees]

Damn Eric I don't know if I wanna read all of your posts, lol... I'll come back later and read them... Then maybe give my input in the matter...

[Sonthert]

[quote name='LZ22' date='31 December 2009 - 04:09 PM' timestamp='1262300955' post='442785']
[quote name='Sonthert' date='31 December 2009 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1262242996' post='442674']
Oh, by the way, I am a staunch liberal. I have voted democrat every year since I could vote. I voted for Al Gore.
[/quote]

Very good points. As a staunch conservative, I actually agree with you!

I think people underestimate how powerful the Universe and Earth really is. When you take a look at all the cosmic radiation, astronomical energy from the sun, and how Earth has rebounded every single time since its existence, Man appears to be a very very minute part of the equation.

We are not even a speck. Man is insignificant and I don't think we can give ourselves that much credit to controlling so much of the natural order.

Earth is tiny...
[url="http://wienmandu.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-incredible-size-of-heavenly-bodies/"]http://wienmandu.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-incredible-size-of-heavenly-bodies/[/url]

Our solar system is tiny...
"If our solar system was shrunk to the size of a quarter, our galaxy would be the size of the entire United States"

Our galaxy is tiny...
[url="http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/papovich/courses/abell1689_print.jpg"]http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/papovich/courses/abell1689_print.jpg[/url]
Those are all galaxies and each one contains 10s of billions-trillions of stars each. This is a single galaxy cluster located 13 billion light years away from Earth. If you travelled the speed of light it would take you 13 billion years just to reach it.

Now the point of those is to put yourself in perspective. I don't think theres enough evidence to prove that man is significant enough to cause such drastic climate change on Earth when there are so many more factors in play that are just ignored.
[/quote]

I think you're mostly right here, but it might not be universally true. I remember when they passed the clean air act, before that the air was far more polluted than it is now. It wasn't an overnight thing, but it got cleaner and cleaner. In a like sense, the use of chloro-fluorocarbons was impacting the ozone layer of the Earth. Al Gore mentioned the Clean Air act in an "Inconvenient Truth" and they could see where ice core samples changed and they said:"This is the year the United States passed the Federal Clean Air Act." If we had adopted the same philosophy before the Clean Air Act, the air would still be more or less the way it was, more dirty. Mostly sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides I would imagine were reduced. Acid rain was a much bigger problem back then, too. There are certainly exceptions to this perspective that the race of men is too small to affect the Earth. Certainly a thermonuclear exchange of even limited proportions could impact the Earth significantly.

[Pernalonga]

Ok, since no one will mention the hard concrete evidence of a 40 year study...let me be the first to bring it to the table

----> "IPCC Report of the Fourth Assesment" google it /thread

[Sonthert]

I read that report, with great interest when it was released.

You will note that their proof that global warming is occurring consists of "It is unequivocal".

This is in no way concrete evidence. It assumes that global waring is occurring and that these results are ones we can expect. It still lacks the basis to prove these things to be true.

The disconnect still remains. There is a correlation, albeit weak, that CO2 levels and global temperatures are related. They assume, that CO2 leads to increased temperatures, but its just as easily true that increased temperatures from other factors increase CO2 levels. The preexisting studies on the matter of CO2 affecting the global temperature seem to be much less extreme or "alarmist". A doubling or tripling of global CO2 levels could produce increases of 1-3C. I haven't seen a study to back up these dire increases in global temperatures. Now, going back to the logical fork, if CO2 levels are rising (not including the amount added because of human activities) because of increasing temperatures, and not the other way around, then solving the problem may be impossible at best, irrelevant at least. That is, if the majority of CO2 increases are caused not by man, by by nature, then we are faced with a situation that cannot be solved. Not to mention that their predictions would be wrong.

What this comes down to is, does periodic cycles of the Sun and its radiation output affect the climate? Absolutely, its been proven time and again. Not only that, its sensible on an intuitive level. Why then are we so quick to dismiss a period of higher solar radiation as the cause and attribute it to CO2? The Sun operates on an 11 year cycle, the maximum solar output (most sunspots) occurred is 2002-2003. This, corresponds to our most recent "heat wave". The Earth takes time to cool and heat up, the day with the most solar radiation reaching the Northern Hemisphere is June 22, but the hottest months are August-September. So, it might follow that 2005 might be the hottest year following the maximum in solar output. During the 70s, when the scientists were predicting a new ice age from man-made greenhouse gases, this corresponded to the minimum in solar activity in the 70s.

It would also be reasonable to observe that there are periods of increased an decreased temperatures over even longer periods of time, beyond solar output. They occur over periods of hundreds of years. If our main source of data for temperatures is only for the past 150 years or so, can we base trends on that? It might be a little precipitous. We might be entering a warmer period than we've seen for a long time. Not normal, in terms of mankind, but not abnormal in terms of the Earth Again, since man's contributions to CO2 are certainly less than half of the global CO2 production, it would seem that increases in CO2 are caused by more than just our contributions...

Ask yourself this question. I noticed that there's a correlation between baldness in men and the wearing of hats. Similar to the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Temperatures and CO2 levels go up, amount of baldness and number of hats go up. Is it reasonable to assume that wearing a hat causes baldness? It can't be determined without more research. We might find that bald people like to prevent sunburn by wearing a hat. To assume that the increase in hat wearing increases baldness is absurd without more evidence. This is the same line of logic the global warming people have used. Global temperature and CO2 levels are increasing. More CO2 produces a higher temperature is the assumption made. We're making CO2, so we're contributing to the problem. The studies on the matter say the opposite...CO2 doesn't affect temperature that much. CO2 amounts to 2.5% of the Greenhouse Effect. They ignore this and say its the CO2.

As a side point, in an Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore mentions the increase and decrease in CO2 in the atmosphere on a yearly basis. He correctly attributes this to the tilt of the Earth. The Northern Hemisphere gets more sun, chlorophyll-bearing plants suck up more CO2, the levels go down. Unfortunately, he also claims that since the Northern Hemisphere has more land (and more trees), the low points corresponds to our Northern Hemisphere summertime. This is, on the face of it false or misleading. a huge percentage (80-90%) of the oxygen in our atmosphere (and ~ 80-90% of the CO2 consumed) is produced (consumed) by life on the oceans, microscopic phytoplankton in the oceans making up 50% of all photosynthesis in the oceans. The oceans make up 71% of the Earth's surface. The land is somewhat covered in photosynthetic organisms, but the ocean is covered with it, in microscopic and macroscopic organisms. Therefore, the low point would correspond to summertime in the Southern Hemisphere, where more sunlight is hitting the oceans. These types of scientific stupidity also call into question the whole science of the matter if something that basic can be gotten wrong by the unofficial spokesman of climate change (and winning a Nobel Prize for it, too).

As another point, it is entirely possible that other human activities are increasing the Earth's temperature...and CO2 levels...but CO2 and related human gas emissions aren't it. Could it be possible that the deforestation of Amazonia and in the Pacific Rim are causing climactic change? Sure. and Its a lot more plausible than the CO2 connection.

[Decapitated Toy]

holy jebus i didnt feel like reading all that... as im fond of my 2 cents. of course we have a negative impact on the planet because we are taking all that nasty stuff IN the earth and putting it into the atmosphere. i do think its blown out of proportion though... yes the ice caps are melting.... yes its our fault... yes from our emissions but i would say the ice breaker ships we use to search the poles are up there on the problem poll... i mean the more surface area the more condusive to heat right? of course the planet does have heating and cooling cycles but we sure as sh*t aint helping. i havent done all the in depth reading im sure some of you have but my old man is a science teacher and i learned a thing or two from him plus i work for the newspaper so i do keep up. i think we are slowly headed in the right direction... we do need to (and i hate to say it) go "green" but i also think that thining the herd(DARWIN AWARDS!!!!!!) isnt a bad idea!

[Decapitated Toy]

it wouldnt let me edit my post so here is the
p.s.
oh and hydrogen is the way of the future i know the west coast has a full network of fueling stations that are affordable and they have built machines that make hydrogen on the spot that are no bigger than a fridge and (in a home unit) can cut you total power bill up to 50% opossed to an electric car raising your power bill. also batteries like those in electric cars are DEATH to the enviroment from making them to recycling/ disposing of them.. sure its green right up until you have to replace it and then you are(dramatization) mainlinging toxic gruel into the earth. im still really rooting for the underdog of compressed air cars.

[spectrum055]

Well as I see it, from how my mom had said when she was a kid it was Global Freezing...and then now Global Warming... With those two things, I would think it a change the earth is making..something natural Granted we do have a lot of cars driving around which would be speeding it up..but hell I like my cars and I like them comfortable not mouse cars for people who are 4ft something.

That is pretty much how I see it...though with this you can see that it is a great great money maker ... I mean if you made something slapped a green sticker on it you could be rolling in the cash... ; )

[rahl071]

[quote name='Decapitated Toy' date='10 January 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1263151135' post='444360']
it wouldnt let me edit my post so here is the
p.s.
oh and hydrogen is the way of the future i know the west coast has a full network of fueling stations that are affordable and they have built machines that make hydrogen on the spot that are no bigger than a fridge and (in a home unit) can cut you total power bill up to 50% opossed to an electric car raising your power bill. also batteries like those in electric cars are DEATH to the enviroment from making them to recycling/ disposing of them.. sure its green right up until you have to replace it and then you are(dramatization) mainlinging toxic gruel into the earth. im still really rooting for the underdog of compressed air cars.
[/quote]

How can using water electrolysis reduce your electric bill? Or are they using one of the other above methods to split it?

[Decapitated Toy]

[quote name='rahl071' date='10 January 2010 - 09:09 PM' timestamp='1263182994' post='444443']
[quote name='Decapitated Toy' date='10 January 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1263151135' post='444360']
it wouldnt let me edit my post so here is the
p.s.
oh and hydrogen is the way of the future i know the west coast has a full network of fueling stations that are affordable and they have built machines that make hydrogen on the spot that are no bigger than a fridge and (in a home unit) can cut you total power bill up to 50% opossed to an electric car raising your power bill. also batteries like those in electric cars are DEATH to the enviroment from making them to recycling/ disposing of them.. sure its green right up until you have to replace it and then you are(dramatization) mainlinging toxic gruel into the earth. im still really rooting for the underdog of compressed air cars.
[/quote]

How can using water electrolysis reduce your electric bill? Or are they using one of the other above methods to split it?
[/quote]

i believe they use natural gas to make the hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to heat and create electricity for your home and fuel for your car
i read a little about the honda in another article that, for the life of me, i cant find now... here is an overview.
[url="http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm"]http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm[/url]

[Decapitated Toy]

[url="http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=4344"]http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/article.aspx?id=4344[/url]

[Sonthert]

Yes, but as Natural Gas is in the class of Fossil Fuels, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to convert fossil fuel energy to hydrogen energy. First, there are losses inherent in the conversion, so using natural gas as a transportation fuel would be superior to using hydrogen made from natural gas (methane). It also makes it an unsustainable fuel source at best. They want to sell you hydrogen fuel thats made from fossil fuels, to make us think you're doing something for the environment, in reality its perpetuating the cycle of depleting fossil fuels. We need a transportation energy source that is independent of petroleum. Some experts I have heard on the matter have said that there is no way currently to make hydrogen a fuel source...it can only be derived by using larger amounts of energy. Other experts have said that small amounts of energy can be arrived at, but either way, its scraping the bottom of the barrel.

In terms of hydrogen being derived from electricity, this makes some degree of sense over a short term solution, since electricity should be less of a problem. On the other hand, it still uses water.

Why read information? Just go ahead and keep believing what you want to.

[Decapitated Toy]

natural gas is the main way hydrogen is made TODAY..... as we build our wind, wave, and solar grids it will become much more feasible for it to become a much larger, cleaner, and more affordable industry. however if we dont put stock in it it will never blossom just like(i know a stretch) the betamax/vhs wars. betamax was hands down the better format but without the public behind it it was destined to fail. you can call me a fool now... im alright with it!

[Sonthert]

Wind and wave technologies are marginal at best. They produce electrical power anyhow, we are looking for a transportation fuel or a bridge between transportation fuel and electricity. Solar has potential for electricity. Hydrogen is supposed to be a bridge between electricity and transportation fuels, but to produce in quantity satisfactory to even compete as a transportation fuel can't be accomplished without using fossil fuels by current technology...which is the point of using hydrogen. The pro-hydrogen side certainly would like you to buy into their technology, its not hydrogen's fault, its a lack of infrastructure or the dominance of the oil industry. Its not. If it was feasible, it would have been developed. If there's gold in the hillside, we'll rip the hillside open to get to it. There's no gold there. The nuclear angle might be OK to make hydrogen, but the world reserve of nuclear fissionables is not unlimited either. It might be more convenient to turn nuclear electricity into hydrogen by electrolysis.

Lots of these alternative energy sources want to convince us to invest in them. Thats their job, they have a financial interest in it. If industry saw potential in it, they would be jumping at the chance to buy in...there are mavericks out there.

Why don't you read my points regarding hydrogen and then get back to me? How can you be in favor of something when you haven't read both sides of the argument? Just a thought.

Lets put it this way. The Germans went to a lot of great time and expense to make hydrogen to fill dirigibles with. They would have much preferred to use helium (although it is less buoyant), but the United States wouldn't sell them any. They were desperate for transportation fuel throughout WWII, and hydrogen production was well known, but it hasn't progressed a ton since then, and they still didn't use hydrogen.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='12 January 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1263332171' post='444831']
Wind and wave technologies are marginal at best. They produce electrical power anyhow, we are looking for a transportation fuel or a bridge between transportation fuel and electricity. Solar has potential for electricity. Hydrogen is supposed to be a bridge between electricity and transportation fuels, but to produce in quantity satisfactory to even compete as a transportation fuel can't be accomplished without using fossil fuels by current technology...which is the point of using hydrogen. The pro-hydrogen side certainly would like you to buy into their technology, its not hydrogen's fault, its a lack of infrastructure or the dominance of the oil industry. Its not. If it was feasible, it would have been developed. If there's gold in the hillside, we'll rip the hillside open to get to it. There's no gold there. The nuclear angle might be OK to make hydrogen, but the world reserve of nuclear fissionables is not unlimited either. It might be more convenient to turn nuclear electricity into hydrogen by electrolysis.

Lots of these alternative energy sources want to convince us to invest in them. Thats their job, they have a financial interest in it. If industry saw potential in it, they would be jumping at the chance to buy in...there are mavericks out there.

Why don't you read my points regarding hydrogen and then get back to me? How can you be in favor of something when you haven't read both sides of the argument? Just a thought.

Lets put it this way. The Germans went to a lot of great time and expense to make hydrogen to fill dirigibles with. They would have much preferred to use helium (although it is less buoyant), but the United States wouldn't sell them any. They were desperate for transportation fuel throughout WWII, and hydrogen production was well known, but it hasn't progressed a ton since then, and they still didn't use hydrogen.
[/quote]



Problems with h2 are simple

impractical with existing technology, safety questionable, inefficient conversion process.
Nazis and helium.... hmmm... the German zepplin program ended in 1939. The airships had little to do with WW2, I guess I am not getting your association.

WW2 era Germany relied heavily on coal-to-oil conversion to supplement petroleum... the Eco-freaks have done their best to put the end to any coal-sourced energy products. Moreover, by WW2 Nazi Germany was heavily reliant on hydroelectric generation-yet another source of nearly pollution-free energy the eco-twits have stood in the way of.

As for H2, it's not a steel-friendly energy.
1)The water really does damn little good for iron/steel components.
2)It will not fuel existing reciprocating-piston engine designs. Maybe propylene additive may help, most likely not.
3)have to add a catalyst-neutral flame colorant of some form.

In the end, by the time you have generated the hydrogen with current widely available technology, the energy-efficiency is already in question. Then, after adding a propylene-type additive to get the fuel to operate at a dynamic CR above 5:1, and a flame colorant to reveal any combustion to rescue personell/general public, you have little more than a hard-to-handle fuel that won't operate in a current piston engine, is unsafe, and corrosive... yippie, sign me up for that!



Wind... that is my favourite.
It seems this state has decided to take a big gulp of warmie-koolaid, and buy 11 giant wind turbines. They must have really worked well! Ever since they were put up they haven't generated a milliwatt. It seems Minnesota is a.. er, "no-spin-zone" and it's been too cold for them to work!
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/minnesota-wind-turbines-wont-work-in-cold-weather/

Those things work well! Seems the warming is gone.


[b]
Speaking of which... Anyone find AlGore under one of those record-giant snowbanks in DC? Or did he fly his private jet out of the deep-freeze after buying a carbon offset from himself? [/b]

[Sebastian]

A climate change meeting was canceled in D.C. due to snow. Ironic?

[Sonthert]

Yes, now its not Global Warming...its climate change...now we can expect that weather, because of Climate Change, is going to be variable...more variable than it has been in the past. WTF? Seriously? The weather is going to variable and changeable? What are we going to do? If weather, by definition is changeable or variable...how does it get more so? If I shuffle a deck of cards until the deck is random...can I get the cards more random? When one side starts changing the definitions....they are definitely yanking on your balls. It generally means its obvious that its wrong and they are trying to protect their idea despite obvious empirical evidence to the contrary. Ironically, the last climate change scare (when we were supposedly entering a new ice age) from the 70s ended when the cold spell passed and it started getting warmer.

Scotsman: I was saying the Germans used hydrogen because they had to...they would have preferred to use helium. Hydrogen posed its own problems.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Sonthert' date='14 February 2010 - 05:17 AM' timestamp='1266146231' post='451362']
Yes, now its not Global Warming...its climate change...now we can expect that weather, because of Climate Change, is going to be variable...more variable than it has been in the past. WTF? Seriously? The weather is going to variable and changeable? What are we going to do? If weather, by definition is changeable or variable...how does it get more so? If I shuffle a deck of cards until the deck is random...can I get the cards more random? When one side starts changing the definitions....they are definitely yanking on your balls. It generally means its obvious that its wrong and they are trying to protect their idea despite obvious empirical evidence to the contrary. Ironically, the last climate change scare (when we were supposedly entering a new ice age) from the 70s ended when the cold spell passed and it started getting warmer.

Scotsman: I was saying the Germans used hydrogen because they had to...they would have preferred to use helium. Hydrogen posed its own problems.
[/quote]

Damn Eric, I can't tell if you are a warmer, or not from that post.

I am still waiting for the 1970's forecast for NY to be under a mile of ice to come true. Some would call that "urban renewal"


The real defect with the whole warmie argument is that is started as "global warming", at that time they all said the "science" is 100% proof that the climate is warming. Remember captain ozone, (aka algore) who was sitting on a hydro-lift predicting these massive temp changes? Now, when suddenly there is no proof of global warming at all, over the last 15 years, the warmers want to change the name to something totally ambiguous in order to keep their empty-headed activists buying the koolaid, all in the name of protecting their profiteering. The only way to change it's name is to change what the "science" (and BS fake records) were absolute proof of 5 years ago. I like to think the average American is smart enough to see through that political trickery. Indeed, it would seem the public won't buy changing the healthcare takeover to "insurance reform" or global warming trying to bullshit-morph into "climate change".

German use of H2 as energy was limited to minor experimental applications. It was never a viable concept to the Nazi era. I fail to see what zeppelins have to do with climate change-I must be missing your point somehow. One point, however, Germany used very few soft-envelope airships (aka dirigibles), They liked rigid ships.