Kaine, Md., Del. governors back wind-power accord
AP
Wind turbines deployed off the coast of North Hoyle in Wales. Regional governors say Maryland, Delaware and Virginia can work together on offshore wind power.
The governors of Virginia, Maryland and Delaware have signed a memorandum of understanding to create a formal tri-state partnership for the deployment of offshore wind energy in the Middle Atlantic region.
“Virginia is particularly well-suited to explore offshore wind energy opportunities,“ Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said in a statement. He said developing wind is consistent with the state’s energy plan.
The governor’s office said the partnership will build on the region’s significant wind resources.
The three-state plan, through its memorandum of understanding, is to focus on joining resources and information to bring offshore wind energy to the region.
The first tasks under the memorandum of understanding are to:
—Identify common transmission strategies for offshore wind energy development in the region.
—Discuss ways to encourage sustainable demand for wind.
—Pursue federal policies to advance regional wind power.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
randy-There is a great article in WUWT (WhatsUpWithThat) on this subject.
It is titled-
McIntyre and Lindzen to appear on Finnish TV documentary-transcript.
It may not be exactly what you are looking for but give it a go.
I also recently found a slew of articles on several ancient periods where the temperature soared for no discernable reason.
These revelations are crushing the AGW theory. If you care to you could check the latest EPA and IPCC data mistakes that are starting a sort of domino effect. I hope the wheels are coming ff this particular hysterical greeniligion. Maybe then we can get back to the deadly serious business of saving the planet. Instead of making hideously expensive plans to shuffle CO2 around the globe.
I am interested in the discussion regarding the warming period during medieval times. From what I’ve heard, it was warmer back then than it is now - all without industry, automobiles, jets, freon and all of the other various villains that make up the landscape of today’s GW/CC landscape.
Anybody have any additional information on this warming period? From what I’ve heard, this particular climate cycle is trying to be whitewashed by GW/CC proponents because it is devastating to their case.
A little research can refute and or dispute all of Will’s standard talking points.
But here is just one taken from WUWT.
Colin Pain
School of Earth and Geographical Sciences.
I chose this one because it is reader friendly.
“Global warming alarmists have suggested that the ice sheets of Greenland and Antartica may collapse, causing disastrous sea level rise. This idea is based on the concept of an ice sheet sliding down an nclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater,which itself is increasing because of global warming.
In reality Greenland and Antartica ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below the melting point.
The accumulation of kilometres of undisturbed ice cores in Greenland and Antartica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base, and depend on GEOTHERMAL heat, not the climate at the surface. It is impossible for the Greenland and Antartic ice sheets to ‘collapse’.“
There are many “teams” that travel to the top and bottom of the world every year and bring back conflicting if not absolute oppositional data on what is happening in the regions.
And that conglict goes for EVERY discipline involved with AGW and climate change.
There is no consensus on any part of the “science” as a whole.
The “rabbit hole” dwellers are the ones that only read the headlines and swallow the pills perscribed by the politically motivated and globally centric IPCC.
And remember CO2 always FOLLOWS the warming.
Inconvenient truth.
Will…I agree with your own statement.
‘The climate varies.‘ Period.
I don’t deny temperature variances over the last 100 yrs or changes in different ice masses, both decreases and INCREASES; but I’m not convinced humans have that much effect.
Nor are hundreds of actual scientists.
That’s what I’m talkng about when I say there’s no science to ‘prove’ its manmade.
For example,wasn’t 1998 the hottest year on record?
And haven’t CO2 levels increased over that time span?Yet rather than a constant increase we’ve seen a leveling off or slight decrease.
You know that.And to be sure we are only talking about a less than one degree increase over the last 100 years, per all your actual scientists.
So lets don’t outlaw the internal combustion engine just yet.Rather lets rationally explore for alternative energy sources while we responsibly use the energy sources available to us today.
What’s wrong with that?
I would assume you agree with wrecking the US economy even further with Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill to combat what is still just a theory no matter what you say.
“Anthropogenic global warming is a theory.Your alleged ‘facts’ are based on U.N. CONSENSUS; not SCIENCE.“
So let me get this straight. You deny the scientific validity of the facts that I named:
1. The measurements showing increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These you would say are false.
2. The Greenland icecap is shrinking. You would say it is not shrinking.
3. The warming trend over the last couple of hundred years. You would say there is no warming trend.
4. Most scientists who have studied the data agree with the theory that man’s actions are a significant contributor to climate change. You would say they do not.
What do you agree with? That little girls fall down rabbit holes and take pills to become larger or smaller?
Will asked:
‘Please explain in turn the verifiable fact of several centuries rise in CO2, the Ozone layer thinning, the Greenland icecap shrinking at a hitherto unrecorded rate, the verifiable warming trend over the last century or so, and the nearly unanimous concurrence of scientists (as well as the US Defense Dept etc) that climate change is a threat.‘
But, he had already answered his own question:
‘Easy to explain. The climate varies.‘
Anthropogenic global warming is a theory.Your alleged ‘facts’ are based on U.N. CONSENSUS; not SCIENCE.
Believe it or not all the conservatives I know DON’T want to destroy the planet.We’ve got to live here too.We at least want the Earth to survive long enough for all of us to ‘get rich’, ya’ know?
In this economy, it’ll be awhile.
Anything in excess is toxic. You can breath in too much oxygen, our lifeline.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining our focus on cleaner, renewable energy. We just need to “step up our game” when it comes to other things as well.
“Please explain the three cooling trends especially the one in the 70s which had nutjobs screaming we are going to freeze.“
Oh. I might add that in the 1970s while Newsweek magazine ran a sensational story about global cooling, actual scientists were accumulating the data that has persuaded almost all actual scientists that we are in the midst of a climate change crisis caused by humans. This is another canard tossed out like a fish to the dittohead seals by the likes of Rush Bimbo.
http://weblogs.marylandweather.com/2008/10/exploding_myth_of_1970s_global.html
iggy-of course you are absolutly correct.
The planet is being distroyed by all manner of pollution.
While the globe is obsessed with the debatable effects of CO2 the other forms of deadly pollution are largely being ignored.
CO2 is not a toxic gas.
Wow. There’s a lot of very strange science being promulgated here—all, of course, by those untrained in the sciences. Where to begin?
“I prefer real sources not Wiki anyone can write it.“ Yes, and anyone can correct its errors, which is more than one can say for the comical “real” source I’m supposed to bow down to—a link to a blog post on the German version of the Wall Street Journal site that is sourced from “Marketwire.“
I suggest you think about sources a little more deeply.
Mikeyt’s androcentric denial of a hundred years of environmental and ecological science is also droll—so very retarditaire it reeks of medieval theology: “Will, what you clearly don’t understand is there is a hierarchy of the species. Human is No. 1 because we are capable of more than all other species. Fish is about No. 72 because it’s not capable of doing as much.“
I would ask for the usual specific example: “the rights we give fish so hamstring so many areas of society and human life it’s sickening.“ Is this just Glen Beck holding up the little fishy on TV and ranting? Fess up. You get your science from an alcoholic radio shock jock with a HS education.
Goodbye, Mikey, and thanks for all the fish.
“Please explain the three cooling trends especially the one in the 70s which had nutjobs screaming we are going to freeze.“
Easy to explain. The climate varies. Please explain in turn the verifiable fact of several centuries rise in CO2, the Ozone layer thinning, the Greenland icecap shrinking at a hitherto unrecorded rate, the verifiable warming trend over the last century or so, and the nearly unanimous concurrence of scientists (as well as the US Defense Dept etc) that climate change is a threat.
It’s worth noting that where you measure a trend depends on your starting point. If you begin with the warmest year on record (like the HS educated alkies and drug addicts who run the wingnut discourse on this topic do) it’s easy to “prove” a cooling trend.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement