there.

that's better.

you never have explained why the bunnypants administration went to such pains to suppress its own climate scientists.

why is that?

and why do you leap to defend someone who changes the title of the article to conform to your dogma?

is that part of atheo's deal with mike rivero? ...atheo has a quota of global warming denial articles to post here, in exchange for having his personal blog picked up by whatreallyhappened?

and why doesnt atheo post these warming denial articles on his own blog?

there's something rotten in denmark

...that, despite the title change, the article posted here goes on to substantiate claims of global warming.

what kind of program are you guys running here, when you post articles that contradict your position, but change the title of the article, and post snips from it, that will mislead people into thinking the article supports your position.

quote from the article...

climate change may eventually deplete natural resources, make it more difficult for people to live off the land, and disrupt the global food supply.

"That will mean declining socioeconomic status and quality of life across the world," North said, and "depression, demoralization, disillusionment."

strange

You have never explained why governments the world over are repeating this 'nasty carbon' mantra like there is no tomorrow. You have never explained why this dubious theory gets pride of place in the media. You have never explained why if this whole business is so serious, the only tangible solution proposed is more taxation. You have never explained why those who shout loudest about this 'environmental menace' are silent when it comes to real, tangible environmental threats. You have never explained why the climate change lobby seem to think individuals are to blame, and never, ever criticise the wasteful practices of business and particularly those of globalised trade.

This climate change nonsense is nothing more than a half-baked theory that is being used as an excuse for more control and more taxation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with tackling the pollution of our planet.

What atheo does with his own blog is his business. It has nothing to do with this site. If you have questions about it, then direct them to him.

...and you guys are so confused you cant even decide whether it's warming or not.

one day it's termites and cowfarts causing the warming, the next day we're headed into an ice age.

the facts and the physics and the science and the observations are working against you, and all you can do is grasp at straws and hope you can bamboozle people into believing you.

pretty lame performance

I realize he needs a quotient of true articles to make it easier to digest his Pentagon plane mantra, but why associate yourself with a known gatekeeper. Besides, WRH crashes our bandwidth every time he pimps this site.

Judas Goat Rivero - the Pentagon gatekeeper!

you could be right: he might be some kind of pentagon guy...

at first, i thought he was a limited hangout guy sponsored by the AEI/exxon lashup, but then he posted this map, which kinda spells everything out.

but then, once in a very great while, an ad for exxon appears on whatreallyhappened.

then, because of his criticism of israel, i thought he represented a faction of the oil companies who were opposed to israel, but still had an interest in denying global warming.

he's pretty damn silent on peak oil, too.

so he's oily, for sure... and the exxon ads point at exxon supporting him... but then why does he post stuff naming exxon as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 PNAC project?

it's a mystery.

...to pick up my articles? ...i was talking about atheo posting warming denial articles here in exchange for rivero picking up articles from atheo's blog.

...the_big_wedding, and it somehow got past rivero...

but that still doesnt explain why he posted that letter naming exxon as a co-conspirator, unless that got past him, too.

...the more you dig, the deeper you get.

I didn't mean to imply that you wanted your articles on his site, but that's the way it came out.

i mean, the bullshit started within minutes, and the small amount of stuff that leaked out before the agenda was written in stone has been fucked over so bad by disinfo agents that i quit paying attention to it.

the fact remains, whatever happened, the tech exists, and existed then, to enable the PNAC people to do 9/11, in accordance with their wish list published just before they were installed into positions from which they could make their wish list a reality.

meanwhile, on balance, you've got to give rivero some credit for his information on israel.

...that renders him incapable of facing the truth about global warming and peak oil... i mean, it's a pretty bitter pill to swallow that maybe our western so-called civilization has been a horrific mistake, and is too goddamned dumb to figure a way out of the pickle it's in.

anyhow, if he's got some hangup that way, it would get him off the hook for being a shill.

that psychological haywireness doesnt fit so good with the rest of his act, though... not nearly as well as it fits alex jones, who seems to be a complete loose cannon with delusions of grandeur.

that's about all i can say.

it's just too damn bad that the most important event of the last few decades can be better understood if you factor in global warming and peak oil.

meanwhile, it's a physical fact  that the co2 molecule is a warming agent, and we're putting 30 gigtons of them into the air every year.

Nanotubes help turn carbon dioxide and water into natural gas.

The nanotubes helped to turn water vapour and carbon dioxide inside a chamber into methane.Nano Lett.

Researchers have used sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water vapour into a range of fuels faster than ever before, thanks to a nanotube catalyst.

Materials scientist Craig Grimes and his colleagues at Pennsylvania State University in University Park have used hollow titania (titanium dioxide) nanotubes around 135 nanometres wide and a tenth of a millimetre long to catalyse the reaction. Scientists have used titania nanoparticles to speed up this process before, but Grimes and his colleagues were able to generate hydrocarbons around 20 times faster than that achieved in previous studies, thanks to some clever chemistry.

The researchers added a little nitrogen to their nanotubes and loaded copper and platinum nanoparticles onto the surfaces. On its own, titania works best as a catalyst for this reaction in ultraviolet light. But adding nitrogen and copper to the mix shifts the preference of the titania tubes to visible light, Grimes says. And the copper and platinum nanoparticles are thought to speed up the latter stages of the reaction.

The reaction itself also takes place inside the nanotubes, which are hollow and have a large internal surface area thanks to their thin 20-nanometer-thick walls.

The researchers filled steel tubes with carbon dioxide and water vapour, covered the end of the chambers with a film of their nanotubes, and capped the containers with a quartz window to let light in. The closed chambers were then set outside on on the university campus on sunny days from July to September 2008.

When light falls on the nanotubes, they release energetic charge carriers, which split the water molecules inside them into two reactive components — hydroxide radicals and hydrogen ions. The hydrogen ions combine to form hydrogen gas. The researchers don't yet understand exactly what happens next, but they think that the carbon dioxide also splits to form oxygen and carbon monoxide, which then reacts with gaseous hydrogen to form methane and water.

The devices generated roughly 160 microlitres of the hydrocarbons per hour per gram of their titania nanotubes, a rate at least 20 times higher than in previous studies done with ultraviolet light. The findings are published online in the journal Nano Letters1.

Physical chemist Michael Grätzel at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne in Switzerland says that the results "are fundamental work that shows that nanotubes might get you a better conversion efficiency than prior approaches". He points out that the efficiency of the catalyst is still quite low, but is optimistic that further work can improve it.

"This is clearly very nice work, with some excellent science," says electrochemist John Turner at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado. But he cautions that other solutions for dealing with carbon dioxide may prove more viable.

Commercial processes are already available that use carbon dioxide to make a mixture called syngas, which can then be converted to liquid hydrocarbons in a process that can run continuously. But with the new nanotube devices, the chambers would have to be replenished with carbon dioxide and water from time to time to keep the reaction going. "Why do you want to take a nice continuous process and turn it into an intermittent one by coupling it with solar [energy]?," he asks.

But the researchers argue that their process could be made continuous if carbon dioxide and water vapour could be passed through the nanotube film and the methane fuel collected from the other side. Even with their current nanotubes, Grimes calculates that a reflector that concentrates sunlight on a square metre of the nanotube film could yield 500 litres of methane over the course of eight hours.

Grimes, however, agrees that the production rates are still quite low — "to date we are not going to save mankind", he says. But he hopes that depositing copper nanoparticles more evenly onto the surfaces of the nanotubes and making other improvements will help boost their conversion rates by a factor of several thousand. "I believe this can be commercially practical with a given concentrated carbon dioxide source such as coal plant," he says.

onstream fast enough to do us some good.

Grimes, however, agrees that the production rates are still quite low -- "to date we are not going to save mankind", he says.

But he hopes that depositing copper nanoparticles more evenly onto the surfaces of the nanotubes and making other improvements will help boost their conversion rates by a factor of several thousand.

"I believe this can be commercially practical with a given concentrated carbon dioxide source such as coal plant," he says.
 

Make methane while the sun shines

if they can take co2 out of the air to make more fuel, that's heading in the right direction, i guess.

"to date we are not going to save mankind", he says.

the problem is, from my warped point of view, is that mankind didnt need saving, and was doing okay, for hundreds of thousands of years before they discovered oil.

of having a primative mind.

i should have said...

but primitives dont spell so pretty good.

uzbekistan time?

the debate isnt over because the israeli americans and exxon are hiring hookers "scientists" to prolong the debate.

and it's nice to see you using your privileged status to insert comments in places where normal posters cant reply directly.

...scuzzy tactics.

but maybe you dont have any choice, seeing as how the facts, the logic and the physics are all stacked against you.

he responds to an emailer who says...

"I disagree that the Israel that has been called into existence today has a right to exist."

rivero replies...

"in the real world, selling the idea that Israel has to be shut down isn;t very practical."

yugoslavia was shut down, so was the soviet union... so maybe rivero is the ultimate limited hangout defender of israel.

it's still a mystery.

...is post the science again.

in the meantime, all you got to show is dubious "science" most likely cooked up by shills for the israeli americans, exxon, heartland, the heritage foundation and other energy company shills.

you cant decide whether it's warming or cooling, you post one haywire theory after another, cooling one day, warming the next... and the only thing that matters is ---the only consistency you show--- is your denial of man-caused warming.

meanwhile, it's just a plain fact that co2 is a warming gas, and it's a fact that mankind is shoving about 30 extra gigatons of co2 into the air every year.

and that's just how it is, no matter how badly you foam at the mouth.

... the government-funded global warming gravy-train produced 'science' all you want, it won't change a thing. Do they pay you establishment shills well?

As for me not being able to decide whether it is warming or cooling, I've never said either. It is climate. It changes, for f&%ks sake. It always has, it always will. You are right, though, I don't buy into the AGW excuse for fascism. I am only too well aware of REAL environmental problems that are going unaddressed while money is poured into this thinly disguised excuse for eugenics and more robbery from the poor by the rich (taxation). I'll personally eviscerate anyone who DARES suggest to my face that I lighten my pocketbook to enrich those involved in the ill-named carbon trading scam.

Oh, and before you jump to the conclusions you global warming climate change evangelists have a tendency to jump to... I don't drive an SUV, the small amount of driving I do is done in a berlina with a medium-sized engine. I made a decision to cycle or walk to work long before the climate change ninnys started preaching their new religion. I seriously don't need a bunch of fucktard zealots telling me how to live my life.

...a global catastrophe doesnt mean the catastrophe isnt gonna happen.

meanwhile, back to basics: is co2 a warming gas, and are we or are we not putting an extra 30 gigatons of the stuff into the air every year?