Recently 32000 degreed professionals of which over 9000 have PhDs or higher signed the Oregon Petition condemning the Kyoto Accord. IPCC has a membership of 2500. To make statements to the effect that the debate is over and the "consensus" cannot be questioned is as ridiculous as the Kyoto Accord itself. I have read the 4th. report and it is full of statements to the effect that there is a great deal more to be learned regarding this subject, so how can the debate be over. The following is just a small sample of the real truth.
Here are the real scientific facts about the effect of anthropogenic carbon on global temperatures.
Total carbon in the atmosphere at 384 ppm = 860 Billion tonnes ( Gigatonnes, GT)
Total anthropogenic emissions = 8 GT/year
Total amount of carbon recycled by plants and water =180 GT/year
Average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere = 860/180 = 4.8 years
Total amount of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere = 4.8X8 = 38.4 GT
Atmospheric Carbon per ppm is 860/385 = 2.23 GT per ppm
Increase in Carbon due to all human emissions = 38.4/2.23 = 17.2 ppm
Effect on world temperatures if the 300 ppm were doubled = 1.2 deg C
Net effect on world temperatures by all human emissions to date
= (17.2X1.2)/300 = 0.069 deg C
The Kyoto Accord is a complete farce and its sole purpose is to transfer money from developed countries to the poor countries it will do absolutely nothing to change our climate which is driven by other much more powerful forces than CO2. Our climate has always and will always cycle.
Recently 32000 degreed professionals of which over 9000 have PhDs or higher signed the Oregon Petition condemning the Kyoto Accord. IPCC has a membership of 2500. To make statements to the effect that the debate is over and the "consensus" cannot be questioned is as ridiculous as the Kyoto Accord itself. I have read the 4th. report and it is full of statements to the effect that there is a great deal more to be learned regarding this subject, so how can the debate be over. The following is just a small sample of the real truth.
Here are the real scientific facts about the effect of anthropogenic carbon on global temperatures.
Total carbon in the atmosphere at 384 ppm = 860 Billion tonnes ( Gigatonnes, GT)
Total anthropogenic emissions = 8 GT/year
Total amount of carbon recycled by plants and water =180 GT/year
Average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere = 860/180 = 4.8 years
Total amount of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere = 4.8X8 = 38.4 GT
Atmospheric Carbon per ppm is 860/385 = 2.23 GT per ppm
Increase in Carbon due to all human emissions = 38.4/2.23 = 17.2 ppm
Effect on world temperatures if the 300 ppm were doubled = 1.2 deg C
Net effect on world temperatures by all human emissions to date
= (17.2X1.2)/300 = 0.069 deg C
The Kyoto Accord is a complete farce and its sole purpose is to transfer money from developed countries to the poor countries it will do absolutely nothing to change our climate which is driven by other much more powerful forces than CO2. Our climate has always and will always cycle.
In the UK ExxonMobil have a very slick new TV ad campaign that features pictures of wind turbines.
Why should anyone believe what ExxonMobil says, until they COMPLETELY dismantle their denial machine, sack their PR department and admit IN-FULL, EXACTLY what they have been up to!
In the UK ExxonMobil have a very slick new TV ad campaign that features pictures of wind turbines.
Why should anyone believe what ExxonMobil says, until they COMPLETELY dismantle their denial machine, sack their PR department and admit IN-FULL, EXACTLY what they have been up to! Who they paid, when and what for! FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED!
The fact is that ExxonMobil has successfully delayed effective action to combat climate change through their anti-science, anti-Kyoto, anti-IPCC propaganda campaign.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Once ExxonMobil stops promulgating dies and disinformation, starts telling the whole truth, and seriously invests in renewables, then maybe, just maybe we'll start to trust them, but we're going to be very, very, cautious. FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED!
Who ExxonMobil paid, when and what for!
If intermediary organisations are involved, they must in-turn also disclose who they paid, when and what for!
The fact is that ExxonMobil has successfully delayed effective action to combat climate change through their anti-science, anti-Kyoto, anti-IPCC propaganda campaign.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Once ExxonMobil stops promulgating dies and disinformation, starts telling the whole truth, and seriously invests in renewables, then maybe, just maybe we'll start to trust them, but we're going to be very, very, cautious.
Fuel consumption from Hummer specifications - Note that the mileage is NOT detailed in the specifications, but it is possible to calculate approximate figures from the the fuel tank capacity and range figures. But exact driving conditions and the driving cycle under which these were obtained are unknown.
Figures have been rounded to one decimal place.
But it is unlikely that these involve a lot of stopping and starting, which has a big effect on fuel consumption from driving in traffic or short journeys!
So the real fuel consumption could actually be a lot worse than these, depending upon circumstances, such as driving style, vehicle loading, gradient and terrain conditions.
However, these figures are bad enough!
2003 HUMMER H2
The 2003 version does not state fuel economy figures but it does state
“RANGE (MINIMUM): 350 miles+”
Source:http://www.elcova.com/h2/2003info.html
Which is350 miles /32 gals = 10.9 mpg
2004 HUMMER H2
"Cruising range (miles / km at an average of 30-40 mph (48-64 km/h) over a hard surface and rolling terrain): 310 / 499 miles". Therefore no stopping and starting or short journeys.
http://www.elcova.com/h2/specs.html
Which is 310 miles /32 gals = 9.7 mpg
2007 Hummer H2 SUT
"Driving the Hummer around the city, on the highway and off-road, the observed fuel economy was 9.3 mpg."
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116879
Gas Mileage of H2
On BBC's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson reported that the H2 offered mileage of ~3.5 mpg* offroad in the desert and as low as 1 mpg** on road.
* From memory.
** When accelerating on a tarmac / asphalt road.
The figures were obtained from the H2's own computer.
In the UK petrol (gasoline) costs 10.27 USD per Gal. US or £1.27 per litre.
That's 328.64 USD to fill its 32-gallon gas tank!
Recently 32000 degreed professionals of which over 9000 have PhDs or higher signed the Oregon Petition condemning the Kyoto Accord. IPCC has a membership of 2500. To make statements to the effect that the debate is over and the "consensus" cannot be questioned is as ridiculous as the Kyoto Accord itself. I have read the 4th. report and it is full of statements to the effect that there is a great deal more to be learned regarding this subject, so how can the debate be over. The following is just a small sample of the real truth.
Here are the real scientific facts about the effect of anthropogenic carbon on global temperatures.
Total carbon in the atmosphere at 384 ppm = 860 Billion tonnes ( Gigatonnes, GT)
Total anthropogenic emissions = 8 GT/year
Total amount of carbon recycled by plants and water =180 GT/year
Average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere = 860/180 = 4.8 years
Total amount of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere = 4.8X8 = 38.4 GT
Atmospheric Carbon per ppm is 860/385 = 2.23 GT per ppm
Increase in Carbon due to all human emissions = 38.4/2.23 = 17.2 ppm
Effect on world temperatures if the 300 ppm were doubled = 1.2 deg C
Net effect on world temperatures by all human emissions to date
= (17.2X1.2)/300 = 0.069 deg C
The Kyoto Accord is a complete farce and its sole purpose is to transfer money from developed countries to the poor countries it will do absolutely nothing to change our climate which is driven by other much more powerful forces than CO2. Our climate has always and will always cycle.
Recently 32000 degreed professionals of which over 9000 have PhDs or higher signed the Oregon Petition condemning the Kyoto Accord. IPCC has a membership of 2500. To make statements to the effect that the debate is over and the "consensus" cannot be questioned is as ridiculous as the Kyoto Accord itself. I have read the 4th. report and it is full of statements to the effect that there is a great deal more to be learned regarding this subject, so how can the debate be over. The following is just a small sample of the real truth.
Here are the real scientific facts about the effect of anthropogenic carbon on global temperatures.
Total carbon in the atmosphere at 384 ppm = 860 Billion tonnes ( Gigatonnes, GT)
Total anthropogenic emissions = 8 GT/year
Total amount of carbon recycled by plants and water =180 GT/year
Average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere = 860/180 = 4.8 years
Total amount of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere = 4.8X8 = 38.4 GT
Atmospheric Carbon per ppm is 860/385 = 2.23 GT per ppm
Increase in Carbon due to all human emissions = 38.4/2.23 = 17.2 ppm
Effect on world temperatures if the 300 ppm were doubled = 1.2 deg C
Net effect on world temperatures by all human emissions to date
= (17.2X1.2)/300 = 0.069 deg C
The Kyoto Accord is a complete farce and its sole purpose is to transfer money from developed countries to the poor countries it will do absolutely nothing to change our climate which is driven by other much more powerful forces than CO2. Our climate has always and will always cycle.
In the UK ExxonMobil have a very slick new TV ad campaign that features pictures of wind turbines.
Why should anyone believe what ExxonMobil says, until they COMPLETELY dismantle their denial machine, sack their PR department and admit IN-FULL, EXACTLY what they have been up to!
In the UK ExxonMobil have a very slick new TV ad campaign that features pictures of wind turbines.
Why should anyone believe what ExxonMobil says, until they COMPLETELY dismantle their denial machine, sack their PR department and admit IN-FULL, EXACTLY what they have been up to! Who they paid, when and what for! FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED!
The fact is that ExxonMobil has successfully delayed effective action to combat climate change through their anti-science, anti-Kyoto, anti-IPCC propaganda campaign.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Once ExxonMobil stops promulgating dies and disinformation, starts telling the whole truth, and seriously invests in renewables, then maybe, just maybe we'll start to trust them, but we're going to be very, very, cautious. FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED!
Who ExxonMobil paid, when and what for!
If intermediary organisations are involved, they must in-turn also disclose who they paid, when and what for!
The fact is that ExxonMobil has successfully delayed effective action to combat climate change through their anti-science, anti-Kyoto, anti-IPCC propaganda campaign.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Once ExxonMobil stops promulgating dies and disinformation, starts telling the whole truth, and seriously invests in renewables, then maybe, just maybe we'll start to trust them, but we're going to be very, very, cautious.
Fuel consumption from Hummer specifications - Note that the mileage is NOT detailed in the specifications, but it is possible to calculate approximate figures from the the fuel tank capacity and range figures. But exact driving conditions and the driving cycle under which these were obtained are unknown.
Figures have been rounded to one decimal place.
But it is unlikely that these involve a lot of stopping and starting, which has a big effect on fuel consumption from driving in traffic or short journeys!
So the real fuel consumption could actually be a lot worse than these, depending upon circumstances, such as driving style, vehicle loading, gradient and terrain conditions.
However, these figures are bad enough!
2003 HUMMER H2
The 2003 version does not state fuel economy figures but it does state
“RANGE (MINIMUM): 350 miles+”
Source:http://www.elcova.com/h2/2003info.html
Which is350 miles /32 gals = 10.9 mpg
2004 HUMMER H2
"Cruising range (miles / km at an average of 30-40 mph (48-64 km/h) over a hard surface and rolling terrain): 310 / 499 miles". Therefore no stopping and starting or short journeys.
http://www.elcova.com/h2/specs.html
Which is 310 miles /32 gals = 9.7 mpg
2007 Hummer H2 SUT
"Driving the Hummer around the city, on the highway and off-road, the observed fuel economy was 9.3 mpg."
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=116879
These are probably the most accurate figures.
Gas Mileage of H2
On BBC's Top Gear, Jeremy Clarkson reported that the H2 offered mileage of ~3.5 mpg* offroad in the desert and as low as 1 mpg** on road.
* From memory.
** When accelerating on a tarmac / asphalt road.
The figures were obtained from the H2's own computer.
In the UK petrol (gasoline) costs 10.27 USD per Gal. US or £1.27 per litre.
That's 328.64 USD to fill its 32-gallon gas tank!
Pages