Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Earth Challenge Prize

Too many people in the U.S. do not believe that global warming is caused mainly by people in pursuit of expending fossil-fuel energy. We just don’t want to face the fact that the horrendous environmental changes climate experts forecast are becoming more and more certain by the day. While we in the U.S. recklessly do nothing, some in Britain are doing a lot to get people inventing ways to solve the bad-carbon problem.

Sir Branson, of the Virgin Music Group, decided to work with Al Gore, and offer the Earth Challenge Prize:

Millions of pounds are on offer for the person who comes up with the best way of removing significant amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson launched the competition today in London alongside former US vice-president Al Gore.

He said he believed offering the $25m (£12.5m) Earth Challenge Prize was the best way of finding a solution.

A few outstanding scientists, as well as Al Gore, will be among the evaluators.

Instead of endless talk, finally something is being done about the most important problem facing all of us on Earth. A prize of $25 million will light a fire under many smart people all over the world.

Regardless of the results of this contest, we still must discover new energy sources that are sustainable. Maybe someone else will offer a $25-million prize for finding the best sustainable energy source. I hope a rich American will do this.

Posted by Paul Siegel at February 9, 2007 6:40 PM
Comment #207413


A stiff carbon tax will reward all innovators more than a prize.

The contest is a nice PR trick. Nothing wrong with it, but is no more the way to progress than American Idol.

You know that a big oil or coal firm will probably be the winner. How will the PR look then.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #207414

No environmentalist would ever support this kind of thing. Experimenting with the climate when you have no idea of the outcome is just as bad as polluting it. In fact, it may be worse… At least we know the affects pollution has on the environment.

Too many people in the U.S. do not believe that global warming is caused mainly by people in pursuit of expending fossil-fuel energy.

Actually, I don’t think anyone believes that. Now if you had said, “climate change is caused partially by people in pursuit of expending fossil-fuel energy,” you may have been right.

My advice, Paul, would be to get off the “global warming” thing (climate change is the scientific term, the globe as a whole is not warming), and focus on lowering pollution. Global warming is a political thing. Politicians uselessly argue about it to make it look like they are pro-environment when really they are doing nothing.

Is it so surprising that you can make anti-pollution laws even though there are people don’t believe in global warming? Congress hasn’t figured it out, or more likely, they just don’t want to.

Getting back to the topic at hand… I doubt such a plan would ever come to fruition, thankfully. the environment should be left alone, not messed with. We have made some changes, true, but life will evolve and adapt to them. Why change things back? How are Branson and Gore any better than the polluters? The truth is, they’re not. Climate change is climate change no matter who’s doing it.
Mankind should have as little affect on the overall environment as possible.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 9, 2007 8:21 PM
Comment #207432

I’m entering this contest.

My proposal is that Richard Branson should ground his fleet of dirty carbon-dioxide spewing jumbo jets, Virgin Atlantic, as well as its subsidiaries in Nigeria, Brussels and the US.

That man is personally responsible for emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than many of this world’s smaller nations put together. And since he is dedicated to this aim, he can actually TAKE these steps instead of just making the symbolic gesture of funding a prize which suggests measures nobody else will be forced to take.

Nobody else need enter this contest. I’ve already won it. Send me my money, Mr Branson!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 9, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #207434

National Geo funded a university study a few years back looking for potential carbon capture systems. They started by adding up all the carbon emmiters in North America and compareing the number to what was in the atmoshere. They were surprised to find that somewhere in N.America there was a carbon sink.Carbon was disapearing. After much looking they found that re-growing eastern forrest were locking up carbon at a tremendous rate. Early settlers logged huge tracts of forrest for agriculture. Later agriculture shifted furthur west to the plains states. This left the forrest to grow back and capture carbon. This is true for growing forrest. Mature forrest,as one might expect,are in balance. They give off as much carbon as they capture. The mature forrest of the west have less effect,they pointed out. One CCS that could be expanded is to increase logging and replanting.The most effective way is to use the wood products in construction so as to lock up the carbon for a long time as opposed to pulp etc.This is conterintuitive to many but valid none the less. Care in watershed and species deversity should be part of the picture as well as preservation of old growth but over all timber production increases can help the enviornment.

Posted by: BillS at February 9, 2007 10:08 PM
Comment #207435

BillS, so what you’re saying is that Richard Branson should bulldoze his hotels, record stores, production studios, and shopping malls and plant trees there instead? Let’s suggest it to him!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 9, 2007 10:14 PM
Comment #207442

Class envy from such a stalwert conservative as yourself. Heavens.
No ,but when he builds more , build with wood instead of stone or steel.I do hope you actually read what I bothered to write.

Posted by: BillS at February 9, 2007 11:00 PM
Comment #207445

BillS, this has nothing to do with class and everything to with hypocricy.

Branson is a world-class polluter who could do a million things to address this issue that he will simply never do because it would destroy his bottom line.

This is not at all unusual in today’s political landscape, where you have people like Ted Kennedy screaming for sustainable energy and then screaming again if you propose putting up a windmill in sight of his mansions.

If Branson can’t figure out on his own how he could actually do a part in reducing carbon dioxide emmission, then he ought to join OJ Simpson in his search for the “real killer.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 9, 2007 11:20 PM
Comment #207452

Amazing how the right-wingers are so gung-ho about scaling back economic progress or economic incentives are pointless when the idea comes from an environmentalist.

One of the key requirements of the plan was that the solution be able to remove significant amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere (I see a device that does that on every new car as an idea), and that the bulk of the reward money is not handed out until the solution has been in use for 10 years.

Maybe AEI should up their $10,000 reward to find a scientist who can prove the problem is all baloney.

Posted by: Steve K at February 10, 2007 9:07 AM
Comment #207454


Interesting proposal but when there is a problem there are two approaches to a solution in a method called CAPA. Corrective and Preventative Actions. To balance a system, like you’re proposing, is corrective. Corrective is a first generation “old style” solution. It is harder to maintain, requires continuous analysis and maintenance, and is subject to further perturbations. What we need is a Preventative solution, something that eliminates the root cause (excess carbon and other pollutants).

I think the tree solution, without really knowing the science of it, will have a limited impact since there are probably little areas that could grow more trees and harvesting and processing of trees is probably energy intensive. If there’s a net gain, sure, let’s do it, but this sounds unrealistic.

Jacks solutions are always free market based, i.e. make it more expensive to pollute. I agree that this will have some impact but the economy will adapt, reduce profits, force labor to lower cost geographies and where penalties are less, etc… Limited gain only, mildly corrective, lets do it.

I think Branson is correct. We need a new technology. Government is beholden to big business and can’t be trusted (certainly ours at this time, forget about China and India, etc…). My proposal is to use tides, geothermal, and other natural processes as a start. Yes, not one of these solutions will cause a dramatic change in the near future, but let’s start. Remove the use of carbon and you remove the problem (just make sure the solution isn’t worse, like nuclear waste)

‘Every journey begins with a single step’

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 10, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #207468

“A stiff carbon tax will reward all innovators more than a prize.”

Yeah, we know the government is great at properly allocating funds, that’s why the Social Security trust fund is safe and secure, and increased tobacco taxes have been used to pay for tobacco related illness, etc. Not to mention the economic impact on the ever growing “working poor” class.

It’s a nice spin though on shifting the American form of taxation from “income based” to “consumption based”.

My hat’s off to Branson. At least he’s putting his own $$$$$ where his mouth is.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 11:40 AM
Comment #207491

The prize is for a corrective measures.
Unrealistic? Hardly . The timber industry is already captureing a great deal of carbon. What I have described calls for an expansion of a current industry and an intesification of replanting. Again ,forrest re-growth is already having an a large effect.
Jacks “market approach” is carefully considered. As usual he ignores the disproportunate ill effects on the less than wealthy.That is why he is a Rep,isn’t it?
Personally I would like to see 10$ barrel tariff on imported oil real soon. Even as part of the new budget. Also the use of the SPR as a sort of federal reserve bank to keep the price stabilized at a high,but not too high level to allow capitalization of alternative industries. It is hard to build an industry when you do not know the market value of your end product.
These things are political/economic measures. The prize of course ,is technological. I have doubts. We really do not need the Wright Brothers here. Some great invention would be a boon but serious application and motivation of existing (some very old)technology promises to have a greater effect.

Do you have any documentation of Ted Kennedy complaining about windmills next to his mansion ?

Posted by: BillS at February 10, 2007 1:33 PM
Comment #207494

Sure, BillS. You have to read down a ways to see the part about Kennedy.

There was quite about this in the media when it all happened.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 10, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #207500


Like it or not Senator Kennedy is a citizen too. So, he’s all for alternatives, just not in his front yard. This is true of many, many Americans.

Here in Kansas the same people that oppose
“scarring” the landscape with wind turbines are hell bent on building new coal fired electric generation plants. So much so that counties are competing with each other, offering tax incentives, etc. It’s downright mind boggling.

So far, no single answer is “all-encompassing”, but I do believe that a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind technoligy (and possibly others) will someday give us the energy independence and environmental results we need. Then we’ll all point fingers and play the blame game over why it took so long.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment #207509

KansasDem, I realize that many Americans are like that. I’m like that too. Can’t say I’d want a windmill farm within sight of my place either.

But the problem here is that none of us can have it both ways. We can’t demand energy sources on one hand and then put up impossible barriers to creating them on the other. That’s my problem with Kennedy’ move. This “not in my backyard” mentality (because everything in somebody’s backyard) is why we continue to depend so heavily on foreign sources of energy.

Americans live in a fantasy world when it comes to energy. There is no energy source possible that doesn’t have its drawbacks.

Geothermal energy? Many of the same problems as oil-drilling when it comes to development in environmentall sensivite areas. Wind farms? They have to be massive to make any difference, which means more environmental destruction, and windmills kill thousand of birds, some of them threatened species. Harness the tides? Coastal tide areas are some the most threatened environmentally sensitive places on the planet, and you’d need to cover the coasts with unsightly destructive contraptions to use them. The list goes on.

The best solution of all is nuclear energy, and people have an almost superstitious fear of it for reasons dating from thirty year old technology. Today we could build incredibly safe reactors with multiple lines of safeguards to prevent problems, and new reprocessing technologies could reduce to insignificance the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. Also, because nuclear reactors can be built almost anywhere, they could be situated in far more remote areas than other kinds of energy plants require. But because the word “nuclear” is there, people are irrationally afraid, and so we’ve made no advances in our use of nuclear energy for decades.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 10, 2007 3:35 PM
Comment #207515


I certainly don’t totally disagree with you. My son (who farms) has been looking at solar panels for a few years and thinks this might be the year. Solar or wind, or a combination of the two could be the answer in rural areas but it’s easy to see the impossibilty of the same thing working in NYC.

The point is, it’s time to get damn serious about alternatives and/or conservation. “TheTraveler” is right about climate change not mattering in the end game. Pollution and dependence on foreign oil are enough reason in themselves to make the needed changes. It’s not going to be a “light to dark” type of change.

We can gradually phase in the changes and no one will feel any great pain or we can wait and nearly all feel a great deal more pain.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 5:41 PM
Comment #207526

We will find an alternativwe source of energy when the cost of carbon based energy gets high enough to make it worthwhile. As far as flobal warming or climate change, I don’t entirely buy the hype. A question….How much has the earth’s temperature gone up in the last 100 years. I recently heard the figure of 7 tenths of 1 degree.

Posted by: tomd at February 10, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #207530

“As far as flobal warming”


Do we want to wait until we reach flobal?

Sounds painful to me :)!

Posted by: KansasDem at February 10, 2007 8:49 PM
Comment #207542

Tomd, the debate on global warming is poisonously politicized. To the extent where it’s extremely difficult to sort the truth from the hype.

One one hand we have the business interests with an interest in minimizing the problem, and on the other we have the anti-business, anti-capitalist forces with an interest in exaggerating it to do damage to the economic system they oppose.

I was astonished to learn that there was a phase of global warming at the end of the middle age that saw warmer temperatures than we have today—after over a century of heavy industry. I was even more astonished to learn that there are scientists who have tried to suppress this information.

As far as I’m concerned, even if the threat of global warming is partially or even totally exaggerated, much of what we’d need to do to end it is what we should be doing anyway for other reasons. Even if the planet isn’t “being killed,” there are quality of life reasons for having cleaner, more efficient and renewable energy sources and practices.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 10, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #207548

Here here to your last paragraph.
Not only that but sooner or later we will run out of oil. Its just prudent to cut back usage.
Another factor that should be considered is how oil use effect our national security. Much of our military goes to securing our supply lines instead of defending Americans.

Posted by: BillS at February 10, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #207554

The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) saw temperatures vary from a baseline of about + .1 C and -.9 C respectively. Today we are .5 C above that baseline and trending higher.

The increase over the past 100 years or so is 1.1 F, plus or minus .4 F. (Sorry to mix Centigrade in the first paragraph & Fahrenheit in this one!). Again, most of the increase has occurred in the past 50 years, and temperature is trending higher.

Loyal & Tomd,
The CO2 concentration during the past 2000 years has stayed relatively constant, going no higher than 280 ppm.

Today the concentration is 383 ppm, and trending higher at the rate of 3 ppm/yr.

The historical record, using various ice core and sediment core drillings, shows a correlation between C02 concentration & temperature.

On the more general topic, it seems to me that heavily investing to develop fusion reactor technology would make much more sense than investing in the current fission reactors. Fusion reactors are not economically feasible yet- the tech is not there- but the fuel is readily available, and the radioactive waste decays in a relatively short timespan.

Furthermore, anyone advocating fission reactors for nuclear energy would have to keep in mind that what is good for the goose is good for the gander; that it is a way of addressing a worldwide problem, a world that would include nuclear energy for Iran, North Korea, and so on.

Fission reactors are a possible solution, but not a good one, especially compared with other alternate energy sources.

None of these would remove CO2 from the atmosphere, just reduce the rate at which we add to it. Carbon sequestration can do the same, but actually removing it from the atmosphere would involve something pretty exotic.

Anyone for genetically engineering vegetation?

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #207555

Phx8, I’d be interested in seeing your sources for any of that data.

The data I’ve seen says that global temperatures were as much as 3 degrees C warmer during the Medieval Warming Period.

One thing I found interesting totally apart from the models used to decipher hisotrical climate patterns is the historical record of other very well established facts.

Such as the fact that there were no glaciers during the medieval period in the tropical Andes, but there are now, and that there were then farms in areas of Greenland which are now under permafrost.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at February 11, 2007 1:31 AM
Comment #207557

Gore’s “chicken little” rants will eventually come back to bite him in the posterior and give ammunition to those who for reasons of personal gain fight against reduced emissions.

If you look at the scientists that Gore cites for his position you will see that the vast majority are not climatologists but are instead biologists, chemists and the like.

There is a large body of actual climatologists such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Dr. Sallie Louise Baliunas (astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), Dr. S. Frederick Singer (former space scientist and government scientific administrator, who runs the Science and Environmental Policy Project), and Dr. Timothy Ball (Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnepeg) among others who point to such causes as natural earth cycles and increased solar activity which are responsible for a majority of the small increase in global temperatures.

I agree with LO, that we should indeed be looking at ways to reduce emissions for the right reasons. When you do it standing on a shaky soap box you potentialy do your cause more harm than good.

Here are a couple of related links one offing counter arguments to Gore and the other to the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Sorry but I have never been able to get the whole “link test” thing to work right.

Posted by: Kirk at February 11, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #207560

OK, If as Phx8 says the global temp has risen appx one degree in 100 years, How much of this one degree are humans responsible for? Again, I’ve heard the number of about 5%.

Posted by: tomd at February 11, 2007 2:14 AM
Comment #207561


Click to expand the temperature chart.

The warmth in Europe during the MWP might have been related to the strength of the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic.

For anyone interested, “Collapse” by Jared Diamond has a very interesting account of the history of the Greenland settlements.

Like Kirk, I found mess up links about as often as I succeed, so I usually just cut and paste. Not as elegant, but it works.

There are scientists who disagree, but I would not characterize them as a “large body.” About 1.5% of the scientists participating in the IPCC report dissented from the findings. Lindzen and Singer are among the best known dissenters.

Biologists and chemists enter the mix because their findings support Global Warming, i.e., Climate Change.

Re your link to the NSRP. Not Really Science People. The NSRP source of funding is listed as private. They do not want people to know who they represent. And both your articles mention Dr Timothy Ball, who claims to be a professor of climatology of the Univerity of Winnipeg. However, a lawsuit he filed by Ball revealed he is actually a professor of geography. And the NSRP turns out to be another Canadian energy industry creation:

And what about Baliunas?

“The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded by big coal and big oil, represent a deliberate — and extremely reckless — campaign of deception and disinformation.”

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2007 2:29 AM
Comment #207565

Ok phx8, I can play the same game.

Lets look at who funds “The Climate Institute” for instance. It is the institute used in your linked article to discredit the scientists I mentioned.

1. The Bullitt Foundations - “The Bullitt Foundation seeks to accelerate a region-wide reduction in production of greenhouse gases…”

2. Rockefeller Brothers Foundation - “This reflects the decision of our Board of Trustees to make our work on global warming a key priority during the critical decade ahead.”

3. The (Ted) Turner Foundation - “The goal of this program is to restore or mitigate the results of non-sustainable practices in order to enrich our quality of life and the health of our future communities and planet. Issues may include air, water, climate change, greenspace for community benefit and environmental health.”

Just a couple of examples.

If you are saying that the climatologists I reference would alter, fudge, change, or tailor their findings to protect their income from the energy sector, why wouldn’t the scientists working for The Climate Institute and other such organizations do the same to protect their funding from these foundations?

I guess in that light the only scientists we could trust would be those who receive no funding from anyone, but then they wouldn’t have any money to conduct any scientific experiments.

Posted by: Kirk at February 11, 2007 3:44 AM
Comment #207566

I am going from memory here- the chances of the 1.1 F + or - .4 increase being caused by natural causes is 0 - 20%. I do know the IPCC report says Global Warming is 90 - 99% likely to be caused by humanity, with a 5% chance it is dueto natural causes.

I do not like those odds.

Scietists can and should be skeptical by nature. A small number disagree about the chances of Global Warming occurring. It would be easiest to do nothing, since we do not have 100% certainty, and actually doing something would incur costs. However, ignoring the overwhelming majority of scientists runs the risks of consquences which are bad but manageable, to catastrophic.

It is not all doom and gloom, though. One thing people consistently underestimate is our ability to innovate. That is what the $25 million offer is all about, encouraging innovation. Technological innovation, change, or even mere conservation can turn predictions into laughable garbage. And I believe we are capable of making those kinds of innovations.

Whether Global Warming is occurring is a question for science. What we do is a political question. What we do might come at the expense of entrenched industries like coal and oil. But it could also create entire new industries, and open tremendous opportunities…

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2007 3:50 AM
Comment #207571

“I am going from memory here- the chances of the 1.1 F + or - .4 increase being caused by natural causes is 0 - 20%. I do know the IPCC report says Global Warming is 90 - 99% likely to be caused by humanity, with a 5% chance it is dueto natural causes.”

Thanks for the response, but that’s not what I’m asking. If the temperature has gone up by say 1 degree for simplicity’s sake, over the past 100 years, how much of that 1 degree are we as humans responsible for? How much of that 1 degree increase is due to natural causes?

Posted by: tomd at February 11, 2007 8:10 AM
Comment #207573

Don’t get me wrong I think the 25 million contest thing is a great idae. He is getting fantastic publicity and it won’t cost him anything for the forseeable future. I also think it’s great to keep the environment clean and I think technology will lead the way. I am skeptical of global warming.

Posted by: tomd at February 11, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #207587

Here is an article on the Medieval Warm Period…

and one on the politics of global warming.

Posted by: traveller at February 11, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #207684

Eventhough to a human being, a temperature change of only seven tenths of a degree might seem not worth the time, we aren’t talking about humans, we’re talking about the ecological community, in which a couple degrees could have catastrophic results.

Posted by: KP at February 12, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #207703

Sorry to say, with this Admnistration nothing will be done to do anything concerning global warming. The ultra-right talking headswill continue to claim that global warming is a fantacy. The big oil and gas people control the Bush Administration. We can just hope a Democrat will win in 2008 and this country will have a President who believes that we are the stuards of the world not its abusers.

Posted by: C.T. Rich at February 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #207738

Eventhough to a human being, a temperature change of only seven tenths of a degree might seem not worth the time, we aren’t talking about humans, we’re talking about the ecological community, in which a couple degrees could have catastrophic results.

Posted by: KP at February 12, 2007 08:20 AM”

KP, I appreciate the response, but that’s not what I was asking. I was asking how much of that change of appx one degree over the past hundred years are humans responsible for? We aren’t the only force causing the earth’s temp to rise. We agree that the temperature has risen appx one degree over the past 100 years. I’ve heard claims that this was caused by humans and I’ve heard stories that it was caused by natural events like changes in the sun. I think probably the truth is somewhere in between. Surely there have been studies done to show how much we have contributed to the increase and how much was natural.

Posted by: tomd at February 12, 2007 4:23 PM
Comment #207746

Does anyone know how to submit an entry in the contest? I have a simple and in-expensive idea that could easily remove a billion tons of carbon dioxide.

Posted by: Paul Cyr at February 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Comment #208385

Don’t be so sure that Ted Branson isn’t doing anything about climate change. In fact one of the first things said by conservatives whenever someone discusses someone like Al Gore is: “WHAT ABOUT AL GORE’S PRIVATE JET?! IT SPEWS MORE CARBON THAN…” The implication is that he should be swimming and bicycling across the world when he gives his talks, but seriously, he does something called “carbon offsetting” to pay for the environmental cost.

Branson only recenly realized the whole global warming thing, when he already had his established business. He’ll probably begin to take steps to make his business more energy-efficient, but it’s not proof he’s a hypocrite if he doesn’t all of a sudden give up his business and donate all the proceeds. Since his main business is air travel anyway, people who use it would just use a different airline.

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2007 4:25 AM
Comment #208386

“One one hand we have the business interests with an interest in minimizing the problem, and on the other we have the anti-business, anti-capitalist forces with an interest in exaggerating it to do damage to the economic system they oppose.”

The first part of what you said is correct, however I haven’t ever seen any evidence, NONE WHATSOEVER, that anyone who proposes solving global warming is actually doing it soley or mostly because they oppose or favor a certain economic system.

As much as you right-winges hate to admit, people who care about the envirnonment are doing it because they care about the environment, not because they have some siniser motive to destroy capitalism. It doesn’t even make much sense, if you really hate capitalism join some communist party, environmentalism doesn’t itself have anything to do with hatred of capitalism.I read an article soon after an Inconvenient Truth came out about saying how Al Gore’s sinister motive was to roll back industrial civilization and destroy our economy, all with no evidence of course. However if you do some research Al Gore in fact loves technology and is on Apple’s board of directors.

The people anyway who claim to support economic growth by opposing global warming solutions are really doing it only for a few key industries anyway. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out if we ignore the whole problem, we won’t have an economy left anyway.

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2007 4:34 AM
Comment #208387

Of course we need new technology, but we also need regulation and incentives. Simply doing nothing but say new technology will solve it, is what the Bush administration has been doing the last few years, and it doesn’t work. People and businesses won’t adopt, or invest in, renewable energy unless they gain a significant financial benefit. Also, it’s unlikely nuclear energy should be a main focus. There are safety problems with widespread nuclear adoption, even if plants are safe, no one wants all that waste stored anywhere near them (maybe there should be some kind of slogan, if you don’t want a windmill in your backyard then how about used uranium). Uranium itself is far from infinte, we’d just replace one limited resource with another. Nuclear plants are extemely expensive to run, renewable technology like solar panels and windmills, once placed, cost almost nothing to operate.

There’s no comparison between climate “skepticism” funded by Exxon-Mobil and climate researchthat funded by those environmental groups. Those groups don’t have any direct financial interest in it, oil companies (which are not non-profit of course), would directly lose money if people used less oil. The reason those groups support research in it, and reduction in greenhouse gases is because of things like global warming in the first place. They didn’t just decide they hated greenhouse gases and so they’d make up global warming. The fact is there are many environmental problems to work on, there wouldn’t be any benefit to make up global warming if it wasn’t true.

Also, anyone who thinks the scientists (the vast majority of real scientists who support global warming) are somehow reactionary or alarmist knows nothing of how scientists work. They by nature of their work are conservative and cautious (conservative I mean when it comes to facts not necessarily politically). If a scientist publishes something that doesn’t have evidence, or draws the wrong conclusion, it’ll immediately be critiqued and drawn apart. Science is only about finding the truth, no one becomes a scientist for money. This doesn’t mean every now and again someone does some kind of fraud, but to see what happens when that occurs look at the Korean scientist who a year or two ago claimed to successfully clone a human. He was immediately debunked and discredited by the rest of the scientific community. The idea that all the legitimate climate scientists are all purposely perpetrating some kind of mass fraud is, frankly, ludicrous.

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2007 4:48 AM
Comment #208404


“As much as you right-winges hate to admit, people who care about the envirnonment are doing it because they care about the environment, not because they have some siniser motive to destroy capitalism. It doesn’t even make much sense, if you really hate capitalism join some communist party, environmentalism doesn’t itself have anything to do with hatred of capitalism.”

That’s some display of naivete.

Here’s an amusing opinion piece with links to others.

Posted by: traveller at February 16, 2007 11:19 AM
Comment #208501

Well, I think I’ll trust what real scientists are saying over some no-name online newspaper I’ve never heard of. Could it be any less credible, it’s even worse than Fox news. If that’s where Republicans get there news, no wonder they keep thinking Saddam had a connection to 9/11. It has a link to some scam to get Ann Coulter’s latest book for free. When it comes to certain issues like oil use, global warming, and the Iraq War, no one has proven themselves less trustworthy, than the right-wing blogosphere. Even then, that particular article is just a typical smear piece. How exactly does Nancy Pelosi using a private jet prove that the scientific data is wrong? She herself has never even been a big advocate on global warming (unlike Al Gore), and the reason collective action like regulations and new technology are required, is precisely because nothing one person does in their personal lives will have a significant impact on the problem

Posted by: mark at February 16, 2007 11:22 PM
Comment #209914

comment to post no. 207746
official web address is:

Posted by: neno at February 28, 2007 3:35 AM
Comment #211665

The reasoning , logic and explanations are vast but the thought is plain simple . The solution will address the problem directly and also make sure that the Fossil Fuel Era comes to an end .

Fossil Fuel Era + Dirty Green-House gases

Solution ( invention ) ends the Fossil + removes the already existing dirty Green-

Fuel Era House gases


Fossil Fuel Era ended + No more dirty GH Gases for the future

Hence there is to be a combination of 1 ) designing or working out The Fuel , which ends the Fossil Fuel Era , and 2 ) which also removes the dirty GH Gases . So the inference is clear

( crystal ) –

‘The Fuel’ is to comprise of the existing dirty GH gases itself .

And in its working ‘The Fuel’ should not produce any more dirty GH Gases .

Meaning it ( ‘The Fuel’ ) is to be preserved , it should not be burnt , undergo combustion , or decompose or change form in its working or for example - in contact with the Atmosphere

Hence ‘The Fuel’ is to be a working Fuel made up of existing dirty GH gases

- a working fluid for the transfer of heat , from hot to cold and from cold to hot , thus based on the basic principles of conduction and convection , thermal and solar radiation , capture of heat , heat exchangers etc.etc..

Thus we have a Heat Engine – whose internal working fluid is composed of the existing dirty Green House gases .

All Energy sources ( actually whole of life itself ) have to have an example , a duplication in nature , of Planet Earth ; and it is factually so indeed . Wind Energy , Combustion , Thermal Energy , Hydro-power , Geothermal , Ocean Wave , Ocean Current , Ocean Tide capture , Bio-Gas , Bio-Mass , Bio-Fuels , Solar Energy , Nuclear Fission ( no more examples are needed ) , have a ‘nature’s example’ . Meaning to say – they are not alien to Planet Earth

( very obvious indeed ) .


Now we have to look for a grand principle governing Planet Earth which resembles , duplicates , uses , echos , parallels , fits , matches or replicates ( we need the thesaurus here ) the above requirements , as closely as possible .

So now we have to look for a natural principle of Planet Earth which in its lesser , extreme or finer modifications can be used as a Heat Engine – and whose internal non-expendable working fluid is composed of the existing dirty Green House gases

Is there any grand principle of Planet Earth , like Plate Tectonics , evaporation , rainfall , like the phenomenon of wind formation , ocean current flow , solar rays heating Planet Earth , bio-gas production , combustion , etc.etc., lying neglected and un-tapped ? Is it possible that some grand principle of Planet Earth is un-utilised , under-rated , mis-understood , ignored , just assumed as such , and not fully analysed as an energy source ? The world may say ‘no chance’, ‘impossible’ , ‘nonsense’ , but that hardly matters – for the answer is ‘yes’ .

First read ‘stage’ one at -

( The following has been placed in simple language as the understanding of the basics of science is taught at say Grade 6 to 8 in the U.S. )

The Inter - Link of Vacuum , Pressure and Gravity .

The functioning of the Models devised by us ( a simple anti-gravity Heat Engine ) ,

is in the immediate , seemingly dependant on the evaporation of water . However in the background , there are other forces acting , and these need a seperate mention . The three forces worth considering , are those of Vacuum , Pressure and Gravity . The various combinations are - Vacuum and Pressure , Vacuum and Gravity and Pressure and Gravity . So let us first study these combinations , in relation to the working of our Model .

Vacuum and Pressure .

The Vacuum we use in our Models , comes from the Pressure , of the Earth’s Atmosphere . To enunciate , let us consider the state of Vacuum , where there is no Atmosphere . For this , let us go to Space . We know the emptiness of Space . So empty that Light emitted by Stars , long dead , is still reaching us . This means that there is no Matter in Space . Otherwise the

“Atmosphere” ( matter evenly dissipated in Space ) would have consumed these Light Rays . An ordinary Vacuum filled container such as an incandescent bulb when broken on the surface of Planet Earth collapses inwards because of the Atmosphere rushing in . A similar incandescent bulb , Vacuum filled on Planet Earth would not collapse inwards , if broken similarly in space .

The above two facts tell us that the vacuum pull inwards in a container is infact dependant on the atmospheres heaviness which is termed as Atmospheric Pressure . Also another simple fact stated is that on a Planet with a weak or light Atmosphere a strong Vacuum force would not be created . The vacuum force too would be weak .

Consider it in another way - a Vacuum to what ? This simply tells us that Vacuum’s we create on the surface of Planet Earth are relative to the Pressure of Earth’s Atmosphere. If there were no Atmosphere , there would be no Vacuum . So the Vacuum of our Model is relative to the operating Pressure . The more powerful the operating Pressure the greater the Vacuum in our Model ( being relative ) . So can we assume that our Models will give a better performance , in a higher operating Pressure ? For this let us for the moment , leave out the effect of the increased Pressure on the Evaporation of water .

Well the Gravitation force of the Earth is not increased or decreased by the operating Pressure. So Gravity being the same , the increased operating Pressure will create a greater Vacuum force , inside the Model , once the Top Container is cooled , as compared to - when we have a lesser operating Pressure ( using the same gross evaporation of water ) . This greater Vacuum force thus created , is to defy Gravity which lies un-changed , and not Pressure , which has increased , in the working of the Model . Therefore the Model’s will work more efficiently . This may be understood even otherwise by reference to the Toricellian Vacuum , whose pull is greater at higher Pressures , and hence a longer Mercury Column is supported .

It may be agrued that the Mercury Column in Torricellian’s Experiment , rises due to the Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere . This is correct in itself , but tells one half of the story . What if we have air in place of the Torricellian Vacuum ? Now the Mercury Column cannot rise as much ( upwards ) , because the trapped Air exerts a backwards force on the rising Mercury Column . So it is correct to infer , that the presence of a Vacuum is very essential , to hold the Mercury Column in place . This Vacuum is a definite force ( inwards ) , and not just the emptiness of Space . So we find that our Vacuum is relative to the operating Pressure . Also the very existance of Vacuum is dependant on a Pressure system . Our Vacuum reference is very different to the “emptiness” of Space . The emptiness of Space would have been a Vacuum , if the emptiness of Space had been contained in a larger Pressure system .

Vacuum and Gravity .

The Vacuum and Gravity consideration is vital from the angle , that we have a Vacuum force in our Model , defying Gravity . Let us also consider the degree of Vacuum being used by us . We have seen that our Vacuum force is a mild one . Simply by condensing Vapours of a Liquid , and that too by a Temperature difference of about 15 Degrees Celsius we are able to generate a Vacuum pull , which easily defeats the force of Gravity of Planet Earth . Basically , without going into the details , at this stage , we know that the Vacuum pull generated by us is a mild one . Mild one compared to what ? This mild term is with reference to the world of Vacuums . So we find that a mild Vacuum , easily defeats the gravitational force of Planet Earth . Why does this happen ?

Well since we are dealing with a mild Vacuum , obviously the explanation does not lie in saying that the Vacuum force , over-powers the Gravitational force of Planet Earth . The culprit ( it is a bonus to us ) is the weak Gravitational force of Planet Earth . It is better to say that the Gravitational force of the Earth , lets itself be over-powered by a weak Vacuum . If Planet Earth had a much much greater Gravitational force , and a very light Atmosphere , our Models would not have worked . Let us for a moment discuss a point , although its relevance is not direct . Consider the maximun force of Gravity , of the Earth , which we have to deal with ( on the surface of Planet Earth ) , and compare it with the ultimate Vacuum which we can create ( on the surface of planet Earth ) . This comparisn is essential , to realise a very important point , mentioned later , in this Chapter itself .

As far as the maximum force of Gravity ( of the Earth ) is concerned , this is known to exist at the poles . Now let us see the ultimate Vacuum , which we can create on the surface of Planet Earth . Without going into degrees , simply consider the fact that - Metal evaporates in higher stages of Vacuum , such that Stainless Steel 316 grade is recommended for high Vacuum systems . So we have such a powerful Vacuum , on the surface of Planet Earth , that it can make the Atoms of metal leave their co-hesive bonding ( match this with the statement later on that it is the Hydrogen bonding force of water which is the limiting factor to the Transpiration height of water , and not the vacuum pull of evaporation . If the hydrogen bonding force between water molecules was greater than actual , then the vacuum pull by the evaporation of water would drawn up water that much higher ) .

This means that the Vacuum force which we can create on our Planets surface , is of a very high degree . And where does this Vacuum come from ? As discussed earlier , this Vacuum force is relative to the Pressure of the Earths Atmosphere . So this means that the Vacuum force ( from the Pressure of Planet Earth’s Atmosphere ) , which can possibly be generated on the surface of Planet Earth , is far greater than the Gravitational force of Planet Earth , if such a comparisn can be made .

Pressure and Gravity

Well to understand this relationship ( if one exists ) let us consider our Models internal working , before it is sealed . For this it is best to consider Torricellian’s Experiment . The relationship of Pressure and Gravity is amply demonstrated here , and requires little explanation .

The Column of Mercury being supported ( 76 centimeters ) is due to the inter-play of Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere ( pushing the Mercury Column upwards ) , and Gravitation pull of the Earth ( holding it down at 76 Centimeters length ) . But what about our Model ? As we have seen , our Model is sealed , and this means that we have cut off the role of the Atmospheric Pressure , from the internal working of our Model . Hence we find that Pressure and Gravity are not apparently related to each other in the working of our Model . The relationship , and link up of either ( Gravity and Pressure ) , is through Vacuum .

Let us now combine all the three elements of Gravity , Pressure and Vacuum and see the

Link-up of the three . The theme to follow is that - the Earth’s Gravitaional pull is limited in content . And it would not be out of place to say that - in the relative field of Gravity , it is a weak force in any case . Now we need a force to oppose Gravity . To state again , we have a limited Gravity of the Earth to contend with . But the opposing force , of Vacuum , is so strong ( in its ultimate creation possible on surface of Planet Earth ) that it ( the ultimate Vacuum ) can even get the Molecules of metal to free themselves of their co-hesive force ( just as in the maximum lift height of Transpiration when the chain of water molecules being pulled up ‘snap’) .

So what we do is that - by the evaporation of water , get a Vacuum force which is weak in the field of Vacuum , but stronger than the weak Gravitational force of the Earth . This means that an elementary Vacuum is in fact , turning out to be stronger than the weak Gravitational force of Planet Earth .

Next stage

It is a considered thought that every invention or discovery made came from a realistic imagination applied to some prior idea . It is a self-undertaken study of ‘Heat Engines ’ , of Solar ‘Thermal Plants’ and by a deeper understanding of a simple anti-gravity heat engine , which was attempted to be placed in the context of Transpiration .

( Quote ) – “There are several “ultimately important” biological phenomena that together have done most to change the face of the earth. Transpiration is one of them.* Indeed, so importantly that were transpiration not to exist, life as we know it would not exist. Vascular plants are THE efficient photosynthesizers making up the bulk of plantlife, upon which members of the other kingdoms feed. Interestingly, while the overall phenomenon of water movement from the roots up to the leaves is well known, how it happens has been a matter of conjecture for nearly two centuries. “ ( Un-Quote )

The concept displayed in these models appears under various chapters , seemingly un-connected to each other . Considered individually these chapters concern elementary science but put together to an objective the results are simply electric . The conceptual placement of this energy output / fuel is therefore of an array of natures principles .

In increasing degree of importance we may sample some of these chapters . World Book Encyclopaedia , Volume 2 , page 116 ( United States of America , 1987 Edition ) , Chapter - Barometer ,

( Quote ) - ” A mercury Barometer , works on the same principle as a device invented in 1643 by the Italian physicist Evangelita Torricelli . Both devices consist of a glass tube of mercury inverted in a reservoir of mercury . Changes in air pressure cause the mercury in the tube to rise and fall . In the mercury barometer , a scale beside the tube shows the pressure . ” ( Un-quote )

World Book Encyclopaedia , Volume 20 , Page 272 ( United States of America , 1987 Edition) , Chapter Vacuum ,

( Quote ) - ” Vacuum’s have many practical uses . Gases and liquids tend to flow from areas of high pressure to those of lower pressure that is , into a vacuum . Drinking liquid through a straw involves this principle . Sucking on the straw produces a partial vacuum inside the mouth and in the top part of the straw . The greater pressure of the air outside pushes the liquid up the straw . ” ( Un-quote )

So one thing is very clear - that the Gravity of Planet Earth is easily defeated by a most elementary and mild vacuum . Secondly it is very clear that the empty space at the top of the Torricellian column should be considered not just as an empty space but rather as a very powerful force in comparisn to the Gravity of Planet Earth it opposes .

The Plant World - World Book Encyclopaedia of Science , ( United States of America , revised edition 1987 ) , page 20 , Chapter is Transpiration ,

( Quote ) ” The transpiration stream therefore comprises the movement of water into and through the roots , along the xylem vessels , and through the leaf cells to be evaporated or transpired through the stomata of the leaves. The water in the conducting tissues passes up the plant partly because of the Osmotic “root pressure” , partly because of the capillary effect of the narrow tubes and partly because of the osmotic “suction pressure” from the leaves .”

( Un-quote )

Physics Today-The World Book Encyclopaedia of Science (United States of America , revised Edition 1987) , Page 33 Chapter - Properties of Solutions , explanation to an illustration showing osmosis in trees ,

( Quote ) ” Trees obtain water by their roots , the surface layer of which is semi-permeable membrane through which water passes into the more concentrated contents of the cells within . The water then passes up the tree and is lost through tiny pores in the leaves . This process ensures that the roots do not become water logged . ” ( Un - quote )

The Plant World - World Book Encyclopaedia of Science , ( United States of America , revised edition 1987 ) , page 19 , an explanation to an illustration of transpiration -

( Quote ) - “Transpiration - the loss of water vapour through the stomata located primarily on the underside of a leaf - acts rather like a suction pump which draws water up a plants xylem vessels from the roots to the leaves The tension created is sufficient to transport water to the top of the tallest trees . Stomata are pores , each one edged with two guard cells which enable them to open and close , depending on external conditions such as humidity and temperature .” ( Un - quote )

( Quote ) - “COHESION-TENSION THEORY .What is currently believed to be the mechanism of water ascent to the tops of trees? Most researchers currently accept a mechanism known as the “cohesion-tension theory”. This theory proposes that water is actually “pulled” up trees by the action of transpiration (evaporation from leaf surfaces). This, of course, results in the water columns being stretched and placed under considerable tension much like pulling on a rubber band. For the water columns to continue their pull they must not break or snap when stretched.

Most fluids could not handle the tension or stretching necessary for water uptake. Water however, has many unique physical and chemical properties. One of these properties is cohesion or how one water molecule clings to another. Water has very high cohesive forces and when confined in small tubes (like the xylem of trees) it can be subjected to very high tensions before the columns break. In fact, if the cohesive forces of water are lowered, for example by adding soap to the solution, the water columns break quite easily and flow is disrupted. ”


So, as one water molecule evaporates from the leaf (transpiration) another is pulled in and so on down the stem. The tension in the xylem lowers the water potential which allows the tree to pull water in from the soil, unless of course the soil is at a more negative water potential. The drier the soil the more tension that is required to pull water in from the soil. When the soil is moist (water potential close to zero) water flows easily into the root and up the stem. As the soil dries (water potential becoming more and more negative) the tree has more difficulty drawing in water. This eventually results in a lack of water and decreased growth.

The cohesion-tension theory stipulates a driving force and a continuous column of water that is contained in small vessels” . (Un-quote )

( Quote ) – “The plant expends no energy to lift xylem sap by bulk flow. Instead, the absorption of sunlight drives transpiration by causing water to evaporate from the moist walls of mesophyll cells and by lowering the water potential in the air spaces within a leaf. Thus, the ascent of xylem sap is ultimately solar powered.” ( Un-Quote )

Inference drawn from a reading of such explanations to Torricellian column , Vacuum’s on Planet Earth , Osmosis of trees , Transpiration etc . , lead one to conclude that the principles on which an anti-gravity Heat Engine functions ( ) are natures principle’s on a capillary and molecular scale .

Does it then mean that one of nature’s truest and grandest concept lies un-tapped by mankind , where the fuel was the simple evaporation of water , and therefore a perfect fuel ?

The principle of Transpiration is singularly explained by the cohesion of water due to hydrogen bonding transmitting the upward pull along the entire length of the xylem to the roots and hence the ascent of xylem sap is ultimately solar powered.

However in the whole process – there is also an inter-play of the following factors –

1 ) Vacuum .

2 ) Pressure .

3 ) Gravity .

4 ) The inter-play of Vacuum , Pressure and Gravity .

5 ) Capillarity .

6 ) Osmosis .

7 ) Evaporation .

8 ) Humidity .

9 ) Wind flow.

10 ) Solar Heating .

11 ) Potential differences .

12 ) Moistness of the soil .

13 ) Root pressure .

14 ) Selectively Permeable membranes .

15 ) Type of plant .

( and many more factors )

The point stressed here is that we have no dispute or enmity with the Principle of Transpiration - but amongst ourselves there are dis-agreements . Hence there is to be a basic acceptance in proceeding any further .

That there is principle of “Transpiration” , is an un-deniable fact , and which is singularly explained by the cohesion of water ( due to hydrogen bonding transmitting the upward pull along the entire length of the xylem to the roots hence the ascent of xylem sap is ultimately solar powered ) but ( the principle of Transpiration ) also displays a combination of many other forces at play and it is these forces that mankind has to use in designing the next generation fuel ; it is the latter half of the preceeding statement which needs a discussion , being based as it is , on a singular projection in this entry .

For those individuals who say that the principle of transpiration is no example to work upon , the answer is – right – you are correct . Thank you . Now may we proceed with this report .

The rest of the report is written taking into account the above admission of a deviant assumption to a otherwise purposeful approach .

So now we have an amended statement to make –

That a grand principle of Planet Earth – “transpiration” – in its finer and extreme modifications / adaptations is to be used as a Heat Engine – and whose internal working fluid is composed of the existing dirty Green House gases .

Further we have seen that transpiration is essentially designed to be an anti-gravity principle , hence we incorporate this characteristic as follows -

That a grand principle of Planet Earth – “transpiration” – in its finer and extreme modifications / adaptations is to be used as an anti-gravity Heat Engine – and whose internal working fluid is composed of the existing dirty Green House gases .

Regarding the ‘Technical Viability’ of ‘the Solution’ – no questions need arise . Heat Engine Technology is very well understood , the world over . How to convert the existing dirty GH gases into a working fuel is again a question requiring much thought and inspired only by the acceptance of the basic planning presented here . Applying the worked upon and locally suited invention to the ‘Solar’ and ‘Heat Zones’ of the world , especially to vast area within the Tropics , is not a difficult task . No such solution is offered here for the ‘cold zones’ of ‘the planet’ .

In the end we re-capitulate the major thrust statements , as a simple question answer session with the entry ‘answer’ at the end .

1 ) Will there be a next generation fuel era ? Yes .

2 ) Is there a grand principle of Planet Earth which will give us the next era fuel ? Yes .

3 ) Are ‘you’ ( entrant ) sure ? Very sure .

4 ) Is it possible to de-link the re-capture of the existing dirty GH gases from the atmosphere from the designing of the next era fuel ? No .

5 ) Are there examples of anti-gravity heat engines ? Yes .

6 ) Have ‘you’ ever constructed an anti-gravity heat engine ? Yes .

7 ) Has the technology been developed by ‘you’ to convert the existing dirty GH Gases into a working fuel for an anti-gravity heat engine ? No chance .

8 ) Is the electricity generated from an anti-gravity Heat Engine comparable in cost to that generated from fossil fuels ? No and Yes .

‘No’ in the immediate economic world , and ‘Yes’ if the cost of the Earths climate is estimated .

9 ) Is there a combination of extremely un-equal forces on Planet Earth , which we can use to our advantage ? Yes .

11 ) Name them ? Vacuum and Gravity .

( A monumentous question for scientists )

12 ) Is Hydrogen–bonding of water molecules the key concept behind the success of Transpiration in tall trees ? No.

13 ) Then what ? Vacuum pull .

( As an explanation upto 10 meters or so , the water column will support itself , and for an explanation beyond this level , it is the vacuum pull of evaporation which drives the water molecules upwards in tall trees and where-as the Hydrogen-bonding between water molecules is in-fact the limiting factor as beyond a height – the chain of water molecules will snap . Whereas even beyond this ‘snapping’ height – the Vacuum pull is still available for use . Reversely speaking – if the Hydrogen bonding was stronger , the water column would rise further )

14 ) Is the principle of Transpiration , in its greater modifications and accessories , usable as a fuel ? Is this formulation the next Era fuel ? Yes , but since this is more a matter of opinion and less of science , individualized answers are welcome .

15 ) Does the entrant know how to go about the process claimed in this entry ? Most certainly yes , in all its completeness . ( The limitations of Heat Engines , The Carnot Cycle , do not limit man’s ingenuity , they are only a challenge to him )

( For to he who knows it all , it is child’s play – metaphorically speaking . For the problem solver , the master , the king of matters – never strains himself , the artiste only enjoys his work , even the impossible . ‘It’ is simply a part of him .

The talk in the world , for some time now , is

- of Carbon-Di-Oxide levels being increased in the atmosphere ,

- of the absorption of this Carbon-Di-Oxide by the oceans remaining an un-determined study ,

- of Global warming ,

- of record setting weather extremes ,

- of Polar Ice like the Larsen Ice Shelf of Antartic melting ,

- of Planet Earth having come into a period of Climatic instability which may cause economic,

social and

- environmental dislocation ,over the next century .

- of rising sea levels that could inundate low lying coastal areas where the heaviest section of

the world’s population lives ,

- of attempting to reduce Carbon-Di-Oxide emission levels to ward off a 4 to 5 Degree

Celsius rise in Global temperatures , about equal in magnitude to the temperature difference

between the last Ice Age and the current Climatic period .

As the plain simple evaporation of water and thermal exchange of heat by conduction and convection principles are nature to Planet Earth and so very safe to deal with , the proposal is to alongside effect this un-believable grand correction to the energy usage problems of humanity . The proposal is therefore to guide the energy industry of the world afresh in the way we see it .

The points of view in this entry are not negotiable nor arguable , they are FACT . The world may think otherwise , and that is no consideration for the views expressed here .

Regards ,

Vikrant Suri

(Quote ) – “It is not the amount of work one puts into one’s research, but the quality of the time you devote. Many of the Nobel-winning experiments took very little time and energy to do. What made them landmarks in science was the fact that they took a look at something from a different perspective. Most of the experiments were elegantly simple. They were condensed right down to the fundamentals of logic: “if…, then….” What is more is that they applied that logic to very momentous questions. You might define such questions as pertaining to characteristics of a large sector of the universe. “ ( Un-Quote )

**************** The End ******************


1 ) ‘The Fuel’ – the supposed Fuel which replaces the Fossil Fuel Era fuels .

2 ) GH – the dirty Green-House Gases

3 ) ‘The planet’ – refers to Planet Earth

4 ) ‘The Solution/s’ - refers to - how to design an alternate fuel which will substantially

replace the Fossil Fuel Era .

0091-172-93160-09612 ,

0091-172-2749921 , 2607524 , 2609622

Posted by: vikrant suri at March 12, 2007 11:24 PM
Comment #214666

(Quote ) – “It is not the amount of work one puts into one’s research, but the quality of the time you devote. Many of the Nobel-winning experiments took very little time and energy to do. What made them landmarks in science was the fact that they took a look at something from a different perspective. Most of the experiments were elegantly simple. They were condensed right down to the fundamentals of logic: “if…, then….” What is more is that they applied that logic to very momentous questions. You might define such questions as pertaining to characteristics of a large sector of the universe. “ ( Un-Quote )

Posted by: vikrant suri at April 2, 2007 9:54 AM
Comment #216065

I would like to participate in “Earth Challenge Price” what do I do?

Best regards

Ove Loland

Posted by: Ove Loland at April 11, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #216770

Will it be possible to forward us with the revelant department of Sir Richard Branson who is offering the $25M prize for eliminating/reducing Co2 from the atmosphere. I think we may have answer to such an apparatus, but do not wish to proceed until we are assured that this offer is not a hoax.

Will appreciate your service
Kind Regards

G Barnes
520 Goavn Mbeki Ave North End
Port Elizabeth
South Africa

Posted by: G Barnes at April 16, 2007 10:14 AM
Post a comment