Global Warmists back off on prediction

[bluesdave]

tw, when you mentioned GWB I assumed that you were singing your usual song about misspent government funds. I apologise if I took your comments out of context - although it is interesting that you then sang that song in your next post.

I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine. Some fellow Aussies are involved in this research, and also here. Here is a press release from a few years back that summarises some of their research.

The CSIRO is also involved in hydrogen research.

And then of course there is this link that I posted a few days ago, and you guys chose to dismiss as nonsense.

So guys, you surely can see that there are people out there trying to find some answers, and it seems to me that they are making progress. It is going to take many years of research before we see really solid results.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think it's important to keep in mind there is and never will be a magic bullet. There has to be many parallel solutions, tailored to the local, for energy conservation/production.
Looking for a one cure fits all is the surest way to kill progress because as soon as they find a solution that's economically viable, research money starts to dry up.

[bluesdave]

Thanks Bruce. I could not have put it better myself.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I knew later last night that I should not have used the compression of hydrogen as an example. I agree that it is a poor example. I was simply trying to say that hydrogen can be produced relatively cheaply, utilising the output from recycling systems. I should have mentioned solar cells. Sure, they are not suitable for all locations, but down here we have plenty of sunshine.

Yes, hydrogen may have usefulness as a battery. For example, some use hydrogen stored at low pressure to collect solar energy. Whether efficiencies can be improved upon is unknown. Promising but completely unknown. But hydrogen was obvious never an energy source. Obviously if only because George Jr said otherwise.

Hydrogen even in a car (as a battery) may have potential. Fuel cells were never an energy source. The concept has potential as a battery. But the naive promoted fuel cells as some kind of fuel. Some are experimenting with hydrogen storage materials. However restrictions such as excessively high temperatures and weight have made those technologies currently completely impractical. The point remains - hydrogen never was a viable fuel. However many who heard a president say otherwise in his State of the Union address therefore should have immediately known it must be a lie - and believed that lying president anyway.

Any potential solutions based in hydrogen are at least a decade away. Today we should be implementing what can work - that has potential proven in prototypes. GM - the classic example of failure - could not make a hybrid even when paid to in 1996? Again, directly traceable to the many who still believe in 'magic bullets' rather than identifying or addressing a problem.

The problem is not about 'magic bullets'. The problem is about *efficiency*. Some who promote or deny either global warming or energy problems simply forget where this entire discussion and solution lies: doing more with less. No communication major, lawyer, or business school expert can even guess how that solution might be implemented. Solutions must be defined by those who come from where the work gets done.

Who is the enemy of innovators? They are lead by George Jr and his band of anti-Americans. No exaggeration. No song. No political agenda. Just solid science fact. Just blunt and politically incorrect reality. This problem was identified repeatedly with numerous examples in Perverting science for politics.

Why did so many forget what we need - efficiency? Notice who was perverting that reality with his 'message' - also called propaganda, spin, lies, or preachings of Rush Limbaugh. Promoted hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' caused others to ignore the real question: "how do we increase efficiencies?"

There is no way to avoid a major reason why this hydrogen myth was promoted – George Jr. At best, hydrogen may help solve another serious problem - short term energy storage - a battery. There is no viable alternative to petroleum fuels.

[bluesdave]

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK. I am also not sure of how many there are - I know it is only a small number. At least it is a start. I'm not saying it is the final solution.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

tw, I hate to rain on your parade, but Sydney Buses (ie. NSW State Government buses), have been using hydrogen fuelled buses for, I think, two years. I cannot find a link on their website, but I think they are working OK.

You are confusing 'working OK' with 'working efficiently'. How many times did I use that word 'efficient'? Also a question that demands numbers.

Bus can work inefficiently to be working OK? Did you grasp references to 'thermodynamic efficiency' in multiple posts? What is hydrogen's pressure in its tanks? Did you read the part where less than 2 out of 10 units of energy are available for productive work? How many miles on a 'tank' of hydrogen? Even GM's EV-1 electric car worked OK. So what happened? Why was EV-1 a complete disaster if it worked OK?

Why do I post this concept repeatedly - and must now repost it again?

Where are those cleaner cars operating on natural gas? They also worked OK. Most every home already has natural gas pipes to 'refuel' their car. What happened to another technology that was working OK? Or was everything OK except the technology?

The Challenger also worked OK everytime previously. Therefore Challenger was safe to launch? Nothing wrong with that reasoning either? We are killing Al Qaeda in "Mission Accomplished". Therefore that war is working OK?

Defined was a larger problem about George Jr supporters who fail to think logically AND who avoid the fundamental problem - 'efficiency'. How many times was the word 'efficiency' referenced?

Do we use ten gallons of gasoline to get less than 2 gallons into a car? And then only 0.3 gallons does productive work? Do you call that increased efficiency? Welcome to your bus example. Did the english major who reported on those buses forget to think like a patriotic American - provide important facts - especially numbers? Why did she forget to provide basic numbers? Maybe she was reporting for Murdoch meaning that shorting of facts to promote an agenda is acceptable? Or maybe we can blame it all on her? But when she does not provide underlying facts and numbers - just like George Jr - then who is to blame for believing her?

Nothing is politically correct anywhere in this post. Instead it is blunt honest. Asked are some damning questions. If those buses are working OK, then where are these numbers? Why are they doing what no one else has been able to accomplish? GM's EV-1 electric car also worked OK. Where is it today? In piles. GM eventually bought them all back. But EV-1 also worked OK.