| Author |
Message |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 12:39 pm: | |
Well today the Koyoto Accord becomes offical, for those that signed on. Now the governments around the globe can institute the new carbon tax.
The worst fear I have about all these less than scientific (belief) rationals is that the biggest long term effect is to make a even bigger joke out of sutainable enviromental responsiblility.
I still remember the question I just had to ask while getting tested and licensed for handling refrigerants for Automotive Air Conditioning 10 years back. ---Just how does all that "heavier than air" R-12 make its way up to the ozone layer and do all that Ozone damage? Well it doesn't and it has not been found way up in the atmosphere either. But in the labratory it sure does it's thing on the simulated Ozone Layer. Well then just pay your annual CFC lincence fees & make money installing the new R-124A kits (chosen for it's it's extra small molecules that can onlyl leak fasster than all other suitable substatuites) , and look for your place in the tax trough.
Well all these great enviromental movements do have at least one end effect, making a joke out of anyone with enough conscience to spare to try and set a good enviromentaly sustainable example. Will the only survival question always be "how can I get more of everything" and never "how can WE ALL have more of everything"
Time to fire up my smokey old Detriot and just go with the flow! |
TWODOGS (Twodogs)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 7:48 pm: | |
more polution from one volcano than all the r-12 in the world...it's a gov. screw-up |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 5:37 am: | |
"it's a gov. screw-up"
I would ordinarily agree gov is screwed up but I seem to remember our Senate rejected this globallony 98 to 1 or so.
FAST FRED |
Pixie (Pixie)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 8:19 pm: | |
Global warming in a very real and terrifying reality that is caused by man.This is petty much a scientific fact at this point.
Our govt and moronic president did this world and this country a great disservice by not participating.
But that was to be excpected............. |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:53 am: | |
"Global warming in a very real and terrifying reality that is caused by man.This is petty much a scientific fact at this point.'
Not yet proven to even the .01% point.
What is true is that were 14,000 years out of an Ice AGE , and warming is NORMAL during that time.
The "caused by man" Pitch is the usual "progressives" that HATE Freedom , Capatilism, Voting and sucess.
CO2 is Plant food , the world is feeding a large population , and you want to REMOVE extra plant food?
Sounds like Margret Sanger , who wanted to pay the "unacceptables " (she and her pals decide) to sterilize much of the population.
Hitler had somthing along those lines TOO!
Global warming == GLOBALLONY!
Follow the Money!
FAST FRED |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 12:10 pm: | |
My point exactly "Follow the Money" Which is were all the best intentions ever end up. Which is just human nature.
My gripe with the R-12 scam- passing off make believe science as truth. These type of "lies for profit" just corrupts any ability this species might develope to help it mature enough to rebalance its responsibillity /abilty factor. Like the old saying goes about the origin of all lies or was that the "original sin" (the human habit of ending the problem resolution process with the practice of make beleive).
It is obvious that the Koyoto Accord has already become a much imporved version of the R-12 scam and is really only about transfering wealth (waisted taxation) with the only REAL achievement being enviromental conscience turned into a EVEN bigger joke than it already is.
More harm than good. I have yet to be able to draw any conclusions with all of the global warming via only fossil fuel burning "proof" presented so far. All enviromental knowledge combined does infact prove that all the fosil fuel burning is a rather insignificant factor and the global climate has always been unstable. Would this drain (Koyoto efforts) on the global gross production NOT BE BETTER SPENT on learning how to understand the drivers of climate change and develope ways to adapt to such changes(I think the "scientist" that have the heads in the Koyoto trough will disagree with me here). Is adaption not the skills we realy need for survival on Earth and elsewhere if we should ever expand our survival changes by migrateing to other planets. Isn't survival the first priorety at the end of the day. What happened to those dinosaurs anyhow? Where are they today? I guess that is what happens when your real priority is to eat and eat until you are so big your head is in the clouds!
Perhaps my problem is I compare the proof with other know facts such as the solar un-constant, natural climatic cycles, volcanoes, solar pollution that comes to Earth (comets, ice clouds, interplanetary & interstellar dust storms) and just can not achieve that "keep it stupid, simple" philospy that allows others to make descisions on week beliefs and present them as conclusive scientific facts. Childern should not make adult decissions, perhaps.
Like I said, I have heard enough in this life, I am going to go out and fire up that smokey old D.D. and no longer stop to think twice.
If you can not stop something, get behind and push. If you can not see any point in pushing, just drive away (isn't that why we put wheels under our house). |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 2:37 pm: | |
If in your travels you have the opportunity to visit areas with accessible glaciers (such as Banff, Alaska , etc..) some of the glaciers have been monitored for many years, documenting the recession of the size and the depth of the subject glaciers as far back as the early and mid 1800's, way prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine and refrigeration - as FF points out we are exiting an ice age - it is true that these glaciated areas are diminishing at a rapid rate more recently (on a micro historical level) - now an argument has been promoted by environmental groups that this has been caused by the introduction and proliferation of said internal combustion engines and freon/ozone based products - this may or may not be 'junk science' - as it was explained to me, and appears fact based, the most likely cause of a more than arithmetic regression of glaciers can be explained as accelerated diminishing of individual glaciers due to incrimental loss of mass - as an example - take an ice cube out of the freezer and place it on the counter at room temperature - the ice cube will keep its original shape and mass for some time - as it starts to melt, it initially does so slowly - as it progresses, the rate that it melts in relation to its residual mass increases more dramatically, since it loses its ability to keep its cool as a more geometric function of its mass than, as we might percieve, as an arithmentic function -
I hope I haven't been too unclear - LOL
Niles |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:33 pm: | |
Well my point is that the climate is always changeing and this is just fundemental kindergarden stuff for a species that imagines itself as civilized and evolved enough to begin migrateing away form the mother planet. Unless their is some objective to learn enough about a global climate to attempt to stabilize it,(which is totally un-natural). The same efforts are better spent on learning how to adapting to climate change. If people want to tap the endless supply of tax dollars (hu) they should spend it on the publics best intrest and not on fantasy pursuits such as a constant unchanging climate. If we want to dedicate are laws towards more sustainable developement and the conservative use of natural resources (which is wise) with mimimal enviromental impact then do it honestly, and openly. Not with make believe science and fear mongerilng and false goal, that is what religion is for, science is design to discover facts and enaable one to make inform conclusions. |
Richard Bowyer (Drivingmisslazy)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 5:34 pm: | |
niles, I was always under the impression that a ice cube melted slower when taken out of the freezer was because the mass of the ice was at a considerable lower temperature than the melting point. Once the mass reaches the melting point, then it melts at a much faster rate.
Richard |
Pixie (Pixie)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:04 pm: | |
I think you have it backwards.
Greed is the motive of those who seek to deny the facts of global warming.It just would not be economical for our govt to show some semblance of responsibility and concern for this planet, by placing emisions standards on factories and car manufactureses, researching clean and renewable fuel sources.
No,no our money is much better spent on wars and invading inocent countries for their oil.
The truth is, there are always some small group of scientists who will dispute all sorts of theories put forth by their collegues.Just like there are people ( who actualy call themselves scientists)who will deny the theory of evoluntion !
At this point the majority of reputable scientists in the world,agree overwhelmingly that global warming is definitely happening. The big dispute is wheather or not it is caused entirely,partly or not at all by man .
My own thoughts are that while it may not be entirely caused by man, it definitely is not helped,and in fact is agravated by us. We need to take steps now to reduce our emissions and investigate cleaner and renewable fuel sources.
If this means getting tough with polluters and placing strict regulations on air quality control than so be it.
We really do need the govt to step up when it comes to enviromental regulations and pass very strict laws pertaining to not just air quality,put forestry and water quality as well.
We just cannot trust this precious earth and all the beautiful,unique and complex life on it to the whims of private citizens and corporations who have no education or understanding of even the basics of ecology, and are motivated ONLY by how much money they can make.
We need to recognize the earth as the living breathing entity that it is and start taking drastic steps to protect whats left, before its too late.~ Pix |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 8:41 pm: | |
I wish I did have it backwards, but the terminal greed is the universal rule in all rank and file. I have resigned to that as unchangeable no matter how big a stick one cares to invent (which others can then missues).
As circumstances force me to leave my ideals behind and face the present facts, the next phase of human evolution will have to be learning to adapt to climate change, and perhaps during this long and challengeing process our insaitable greed will cause us to see how much more porit we could of had if we had put a little more effort into sustainable devolopment before it was to late.
At least those with wheels under thier homes will be able to follow the geese in the summer, we have plenty of wilderness to explore up here and I would welcome them. |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 9:30 pm: | |
Pixie,
As I am informed, your 100% opposite to the true facts. The claim that a majority of scientists support . . allegation is an urban legend fostered when a few "rogue" scientists associated with the NSA released a preliminary report, interpreted as approved by the NSA - but never submitted for peer review.
The liberal medial, in chicken little fashion, refused to print the censure and retraction by the majority of the scientists.
In the 70's the chicken little types were claiming a new ice age, now it's global warming. The fact is, the true data, collected in the fashion (away from the heat wells of expanded cities) is statistically insignificant from the aged data. Take a temperature reading from the inside of an oven in Antarctica and you same "stupid" (an accurate use of the word, not a colloquial insult) liberals would figure you're in the Sahara Desert.
There just isn't any real evidence to show that things are "broke" so don't try to "fix" it. |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 1:54 am: | |
Richard - true enough that the temperature of 'ice' can be lowered to a degree up to and approaching absolute zero - but it is my understanding (not an absolute scientific knowledge) that the molecular structure of 'ice' exhibits certain properties which maintain thermal continuity throughout its mass up to and until it reaches its melting point (32*F) - at which point it displays the thermal characterisitics as described above - if the average ambient global temperature were sub-freezing your observation would be absolutely germaine - I unfortunately used the wrong example (I do that a lot and appreciate your drawing my attention to that mistake) - the average global temperature is 58*F and not consistent with the temperature of a freezer - ergo I misled you - If you take my above noted hypothesis and apply it to the actual example there are a myriad of exogenetic circumstances which figure into the equation (geo-thermal characteristis, geo-chemical soil compositions, local/global climatic/atmospheric conditions, evapotranspiration, man made alterations, etc...) to one degree or another - the point I was attempting to emphasize was the overwhelming impact of 'global warming' due to the emergence from the 'ice age' in relation to the minor implications of the various other contributory factors affecting global temperature moderation - with or without civilization it is arguable that the current propensity for cyclical differentiation toward the 'norm' would be occuring (within some fraction of a degree) whether or not dinosaurs still roamed the earth -
Is that better?
Niles |
Vin (Billybonz)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 2:25 am: | |
I can make this short and sweet with 2 words...Leipzig Declaration, look it up.
Vin |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 6:01 am: | |
"No,no our money is much better spent on wars and invading inocent countries for their oil."
The usual Libreal WHINE ,
but missing the FACT that not a single drop of IRAC oil gets to the US.
It all goes to the Eurowimps , who are saddened by the loss of a market to Sadam .
300,000 dead every year thru torture , rape rooms , and dismemberment bothered the Euro wimps NOT a bit , as long as they could sell anything to prop up a decaying socal system, and get oil.
FAST FRED |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 9:18 am: | |
Vin's reference brings up:
"Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called "scientific consensus" that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that - contrary to conventional wisdom - there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. And to match this fact, the mathematical climate models are becoming more realistic and are forecasting temperature increases that are only 30 percent of what was considered the "best" value just four years ago." |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 11:07 am: | |
Well I am going to continue spending my resources on a house with wheels as that is my way to evolve and ADAPT to an ALWAYS CHANGEING ENVIROMENT or any other notion that may tickle my fancy such as curiostity. I won't be left to the whims of my biological constaints as I have learned from the dinosaurs example.
Again I present my synopsis- the effort would be better spent on learning to become more adaptable to change than trying to eliminate humanities effect on the enviroment (if their is any effort left over, spend it on conservation and "more" sustainable developemnet by all means). I have yet to observe any lifeform that didn't cause a changeing effect on the enviroment it occupied, weather it was alge or dinosour. THis is a basic law of survival, and includes consuming material (always at the expense of other lifeforms,individuals and the enviroment one survives in) into life for one's own survival. Sadly that is all life is about, don't waste resources trying to denie it and perhaps one will have freed up thier conscience enough to allow inventing ways to enhance survive chances in a more sustainable fashion.
One (de)evolved hippy |
Gus Haag (Mrbus)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 3:13 pm: | |
Oh, we do like to poke at hornets' nests, don't we.
I majored (but didn't finish my
degree due to the necessity of taking many classes in statistical analysis,
which causes my brain cells to commit suicide) in wildlife ecosystem
biology, so I have some opinions on the matter, as well. I know, I know
- the idea of me having an opinion about anything might be a shock,
but.....
There are studies and statistics backing every possible viewpoint. And
they're all correct. And they're all wrong. As we know, statistics can be
made to mean anything we want them to mean. In science, especially
ecosystem sciences, there are seldom black-and-white answers to large-scale
questions, and the answers are usually something that sounds as if we're
hedging: "Well, yes, no, maybe." Personally, I like to try, as much as I
am humanly able, to look at all facets and try to see a more global,
long-range view of things, with some sort of non-panicky perspective.
Fact: We are still "recovering," climatically and biologically, from our
most recent ice age. This is proven by core samplings, showing fossils
and entrapped pollens, telling us what kinds of plants and animals existed
where in prior geological eras. One of the prime real-time "labs" for the
study of plant movement is the Appalachian chain of mountains, which allows
us to see how plants "fled" against the advancing ice sheets.
In Europe, there are east-west mountain ranges, and plant species more or
less got squished up against them and many of those species were completely
wiped out by the drastic climate change and their inability to migrate
through utterly inhospitable mountains to find new range on the other side,
safe from the ice.
The Appalachians, with their north/south orientation, allowed far-north
species to seed and populate to the south, ahead of the creeping ice. The
result is that the southern reaches of the Appalachians became a Noah's Ark
of sorts for plants that originated much farther north. As the ice sheets
retreated and the climate warmed behind them, plants were able to start
expanding their range back to the north. Some of those species are only
now starting to repopulate northern areas that, according to fossil
records, were their homes prior to the most recent ice age. This would
suggest that the ice-age/global-warming cycle is just that: a natural
cycle.
(The Rocky Mountain chain, although it's oriented north-south, is so much
"younger" than the Appalachians, in geological terms, that it's not old
enough to apply to the same scenario Much of the Rocky Mountain orogeny
postdates the last ice age.)
Fact: We've most definitely fouled our own nest. Acid rain is killing
forests and fouling lakes, changing both plants and animals. "Indicator
species," particularly frogs, are showing alarming incidences of
mutation... which may well be due to pollutants... or, then again, it can
also be caused by parasitic infestation, or a combination of factors.
Fact: The planet is warming. Yeah, but paleobiology tells us it's
happened before, a number of times. We may be speeding it up with our
global messiness, or maybe we're not.
Fact: The ocean levels are rising. Yup. Again, it's cyclical. In the
Pacific Ocean is a very deep pit called the "Blue Hole." In it, scientists
have found stalactites. Stalactites can ONLY form on the ceilings of caves
or rock overhangs, since they're formed by the slow, steady dripping of
'hard' water formed when groundwater from rain encounters carbon dioxide in
the soil, forming relatively weak carbolic acid that puts certain minerals
(particularly calcareous limestone) into solution, and as it drips, for
eons, in one spot, each tiny drop leaves a miniscule amount of mineral
residue behind, eventually forming a stalactite. The stalactites in The
Blue Hole were found at the limits of a scuba dive - about 250 feet down.
Think about it. Yup. Rising ocean levels aren't a new thing, nor are
shrinking polar ice caps.
Fact: We have a seasonally-changing "hole" in the ozone layer, which
protects us from solar radiation.
...However, since the phenomenon was only discovered a couple of decades
ago, we have no way of knowing whether this is a natural part of the
planetary climatic cycle, the fault of our aerosols and whatnot, or a
combination of factors. Most likely it's a combination of factors and if
we can do something about it, perhaps by getting rid of avoiding aerosols,
then we definitely should.
Fact: The "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide is increasing. However, we
can't say for certain which factors outweigh others in this regard. Yes,
combustion of fossil fuels - all of which contain lots of carbon -
produces carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants - and trees in
particular - consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, but we're hacking
down the rainforests that many climatologists and biologists call "the
lungs of the planet" (and there's a whole subsidiary rant on this, in
regard to how deforestation unbalances the ecosystem and causes a domino
effect of local and global changes). Urban forestry experts are unhappy
with cities and homeowners for planting smallish trees, such as crab apples
and crape myrtles, which do fairly little gas exchange, compared with, say,
a large maple tree or ash, something covered with many cubic yards of
leaves. Perhaps we should be boycotting any wood products that come from
forest-endangered areas, and also planting as many large, air-cleaning
trees as we can.
So. There are lots of facts. And there are lots of "yeah buts."
Do we need to limit global pollution? Probably yes. Should the US be taking
steps to limit pollutant production Hell yes. Since there's a new health
warning every day, I should think limiting and cleaning up pollution would
go a long way toward improving the population's health.
And is the Kyoto Treaty the best way to ensure that humanity cleans up its
collective act? Highly doubtful.
And if the US refuses to join in, exactly what penalties or sanctions or
whatever will our country suffer at the hands of pact-member countries?
Well, probably nothing, in real terms. After all, we have the money and
goods that other countries want and need. When a pact-member country
suffers a disaster or discomfort of some sort and needs our help, I doubt
they'll sanction the US for having not joined the club on this treaty.
Nations, as a group, don't exactly have a track record of playing well with
others. And none of them has all that great of a track record for adhering
to treaties. If we were to sign off on this treaty, is would curry some
international goodwill, but I don't exactly have any high hopes that the
agreement will have much real effect on the global environment in the long
run.
Frankly, I think that, before we go running down the streets and screaming
that the sky is falling, we each need to look at our own daily behavior and
make some fairly painless modifications.....
Use paper grocery sacks instead of plastic. Even things made with recycled
plastics are going to contain some new plastic, and therefore petroleum
products make up a good part of its composition. Petroleum products are not
a renewable resource, at least not in practical terms (they may renew
themselves *eventually,* but it won't happen within any time period
meaningful to humans). Trees are a much more immediately renewable
resource. And re-use your paper grocery sacks as often as possible until
they get too worn, then use them for something else, like holding your
newspapers for recycling. And if you don't really need a bag for just a
few groceries, then don't take one at all, or bring a cloth tote bag along
when shopping.
Shut the lights and TV and stereo off when you leave the room. Save
electricity whenever and wherever possible.
Turn down the heat and put on a warmer sweater and throw another quilt on
the bed. In the summer, turn off the AC and use a fan unless it's
absolutely miserably hot and humid. Sometimes ya just gotta turn on the
AC, no matter what your scruples say.
When practical to do so, use pump-spray products instead of aerosols.
Don't use artificial fertilizers that can run off into surface water and
unbalance the hydroecosystems that clean our planet's water as it makes its
way to the aquifers where we get our drinking water.
Don't irrigate (sprinkle) any more than necessary. Every bit of introduced
surface water (i.e., any source of water other than rain falling on your
lawn) deposits a tiny bit of mineral salts on the surface of the soil and
washes away nutrients (rain from a thunderstorm, on the other hand, is high
in soluble nitrogen, which plants need). Eventually these salts can form a
crust that is toxic to most plant life. Imperial Valley, as well as much
of the world's other irrigated arable land, is already showing disastrous
signs of mineral-salt toxicity from a combination irrigation and artificial
fertilizers with little or no organic-matter soil amendment to restore
fertility and critical soil organisms. The process is called
desertification and can be seen at its most advanced stage in the Sahara,
which was once the "world's breadbasket" before homo sapiens unbalanced it.
Don't waste water.
Plant trees, especially big ones.
Now my lunchtime is over, so I'm forced off this soapbox.
Gus Haag |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
If those some of those European Flowers you sited had Converted Coaches they could have visited the Appalacian montains and survived until the ice melted!
I am not going to miss my lunch for this unresolveable "law of life", so I will keep this short.
Someones always has to pay the price for survival. It took me many years to accept this fact and deal with the guilt that confound my consciene with perplexity. Perhaps one day we will be technological enough to develope "star treck replicators" but until then it is just a matter of converting life forms (ie -the lettuce I am about to kill and use to sustain my life until supper). Such miriacles will not be developed until we creat a situation that warrants such effort (nothing left to eat and no place to grow the food). Simple supply and demand rules.
If you can not stop something, get behind and push - you will stand a better chance of influenceing the direction of the fall. |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 5:50 am: | |
"Acid rain is killing forests and fouling lakes, changing both plants and animals"
And the REASON for the acid rain is the imbecills that demanded the "smoke" to look clear from power stacks.
The fly ash that nutralized the acids were easy to trap , so the smoke would be clear.
"We have a seasonally-changing "hole" in the ozone layer, which
protects us from solar radiation. "
Not any more the "hole" is back to its normal seasonal varations , with no help from banning refrigerants , not enough time to get UP to the stratosphere.
" The planet is warming. Yeah, but paleobiology tells us it's happened before, a number of times"
True but the difference in sun output is about 99% of the cause (man wasnt here that many millions of years ago with Ugos).
So anything we do that changes the perhaps 1% of mans hand marks is kinda minor.
FAST FRED |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:31 am: | |
Somewhat true Fast F , which brings me back to what I see as the only real potentail for Koyoto ; easiy money for some, difficult expense for others and further moral decay sanctified by various government.
It would be better if the same effort was directed towards affordable energy efficency technologies for the sake of profit rather than pie in the sky goals that turn notions of sustainable developement into a farse. |
Doug Dickinson (Dougd470)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:06 pm: | |
Hmmmm good subject - even if it is off topic.
We are rapidly becoming a society of obsessive compulsive and reactionary people. We recact to somebody saying something and push that direction full throttle until someone says something different. Look at the war in Iraq - we invaded based on what now boils down to one persons information and a ton of opinions based on that.
I agree with Fred's observations on the Ozone fiasco. What a bunch of crap that whole ozone thing was. We actually reacted to a lot of opinion, and no solid facts. Look where it got us.
Now, having said that, I am all for clean air, trees, and clean water and I think we need to focus on that. We can do that by picking up our trash, learning about alternative fuels (like greasel) and making sound decisions based on good evidence. We still have a lot to learn.
Weather has only been studied for the past 120 years or so. That is all the records we have to work with in most cases. How do we say "that was a 500 year flood" when we really don't know? It is a scientific guess folks! I have a National Georgraphic magazine from 1967 that has an article about "global cooling". YES, our environment is changing all the time. Expect global warming. Expect climatic change. That's the way things happen. We aren't going to change much about that.
My opinion
Doug
St Louis MC9 |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:31 pm: | |
Doug - true enough - but macro climatic variations are calculable based on geologic evidence - my original post was an attempt at first hand anecdotal evidence of the glacial changes that have occured prior to both the advent of 'environmental science' and the industrial revolution -
FF - points out one of the greatest factors determining our climatic condition - the Sun - activity on the surface of the sun has the most dramatic palpable influence on the conditions affecting the surface of the Earth - I don't know how or if we will ever be able to control those affects -
But as mentioned on this board and others - we still teach our children that oil comes from dead dinosaurs - and until we discount and reject all "studies" backed by people with political/social agendas and begin to deal in science on an above board level we will constantly be arguing "junk science" - JMO -
Niles |
Doug Dickinson (Dougd470)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:31 pm: | |
Niles (and a few others lurking out there)
Geologic evidence is only what has already happened. While it may INDICATE what is going to happen, it is still only a reference. Single references can be quite dangerous. Cyclical changes in climate are only approximated in history. The simple facts is - we don't know. We are still guessing.
I think the industrial revolution and climatic change are more coincidental than causitive. Is that what you were getting at?
By the way - did you know that a weather forcaster's efforts and "guess" as to weather are not much more than 50% accurate at the 5 day point? So much for 120 years of studying the weather.
As for the sun - there is more that we DON'T know that what we know. Our knowlege base is severaly lacking - so much so that we cannot make what I consider intelligent decisions much of the time. In radio, we know certain cause and affect, but we are still learning a lot!
My $0.02 worth
Peace
Doug
St Louis MC9 |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 5:49 pm: | |
So that is what happened to the dinosaurs, they turned into petrolium oil(although their are other scientific beliefs as too how oil was formed and what it was fromed from)to how and what and ended up n my bus tank.
I knew I started this thread with the bus in mind (long live our coach conversion obsessions). This talk has been good! |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 5:53 am: | |
The most recent take down of the Trial Lawers may be a real help to the country , esp transportation.
The hassle is always how to store energy , with fewest losses, (Hydrogen sucks here) and the ability to get a rapid recharge into a simpletons traveling machine.
The liability issue has prevented the best solution from todays teck.
A Flywheel!
The "modern: flywheel runs in a sealed air removed housing in magnetic bearings at turbo+ speeds.
Constructed out of carbon fiber tha ability to store hundreds of HP and get them out with a DC motor- gen is on the shelf.
A "gas stop" would entail driving over a pad and an electric sensor would engage the "gas stations" spinner into the flywheels drive.
A HUGE electric notor will easily re spin the vehicles flywheel , you pay for the ergs used and are off for the next 400 miles.AT home you could simply plug it in to the wall, overnite.
The downside of ourse is in a severe crash that HP in the package could be released all at once , to the great delight of the vultures.
There IS hope at last tho that the scum of the earth (not currently inside prison) will find it harder to grow rich on everyones back,Trial Liars for Hire.
FAST FRED |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 12:57 pm: | |
Perhaps those surplus trial lawers could be turned into fuel the same way dinosuars were converted?
Sorry Fred but I am guessing a bus portable sized flywheel spining with enough kinetic energy to propel a bus 400 miles might just be in danger of creating a singularity (black hole) unless shielded with anti-gravity. The required anti-gravity shielding would be better applied to make the bus "fly or levate" between the fuel stops as you could gain energy efficeny by eliminating rolling resitance of road/wheel travel.
However modest flywheel application to store braking engery may have merit for stop and go transit use. I am guessing that the existing Regenerative Braking flywheel designes have failed to be cost effective and that is why they are not used.
If you want to talk efficency why not capture and convert all that wasted 2/3 of engine waste heat that goes out the exhasut and cooling system. A system that would be within the technological graspe of this era might employ the use of a flash boiler (resonably safe as it does not store massive & dangerous amounts of energy like a large conventional boiler)capturing all that waste heat and converting it to steam pressure that feeds a compact turbine or steam vane rotor (like a air motor) "engine" coupled to the engine.
If I had the resources I would certainly prototype such a system and test it on my coach,( my credit cards are melting and I just don't seem to have the will to earn profit anymore). As I have wanted to try this for many years on a highway truck or coach. I amonly reminding you all of what you have all ready know and if their is anyone out there that is capable of making it, great. Their isn't really "anything new under the sun"
Fast F, your humerous and constructive satire does inspire me to share what little I do have , and this appears to be a most worhty "think tank" to contribute too. |
FAST FRED
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 5:41 am: | |
The flywheel was proposed for autos , not RV's.
Yes,
Liars for Hire could probably be rendered for their fat content .
Would be noisy and smelly tho!
FAST FRED |
|