Global Warming is very Correct.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Sanny - 15 Jan 2008 16:47 GMT Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole and Artic ice is melting very fast.
But a few people used to say Global Warming is not true as Antartica with 90% ice of world is not melting fast.
But yesterday I read Antartica ice is also melting but not as fast as the Artic Ice. Incase Antartica Ice is gone sea will rise by 20 Meters.
Now we know 80% of the land in our earth is in North Hemisphere and North above the equater create maximum pollution that is the reasion North Pole Ice is melting faster than Antartica.
As ice starts melting water flows in place of ice. Ice reflect 90% of the light back to the space as a mirror. But water absorbs light and helps more warming.
Within 10 years we will se a huge difference in global Climate. This year In India the cold was very low. I remember last year temperature touched 4-5' C But this year It was at 14-15' C There was a difference of 5' C.
In future due to Global warming very big Hurricanes will attack large part of country. And the whether will be very tough.
Bye Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Sanny - 15 Jan 2008 16:54 GMT > In future due to Global warming very big Hurricanes will attack large > part of country. And the whether will be very tough. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html You can read & Discuss this Topic at: http://www.getclub.com/Show/view.php?best=Discussion&itemid=15&lang=en
Bye Sanny
Uncle Al - 15 Jan 2008 18:12 GMT > Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole > and Artic ice is melting very fast. Tell Boston, MA about Global Warming.
There are tens of thousands of books demanding the inevitability of scientific socialism. How well did that work out? Was Aristotle's science correct for its bloody adoption by the Church of Rome? Was Tommy Aquinas correct? Which of Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan is correct - and then convince a Buddhist.
(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith
Faith is destroyed if it works. If you have faith you can only be denied. Test of faith!
1) That which supports corruption supports corruption. 2) That which ignores corruption supports corruption. 3) That which contradicts corruption supports corruptionn - test of faith! 4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unqualified to comment - and must be destroyed lest god(s) take offense.
[snip maunder]
> Within 10 years we will se a huge difference in global Climate. Christ is coming back - just you wait. It's only been 2000 years.
> In future due to Global warming very big Hurricanes will attack large > part of country. And the whether will be very tough. Idiot.
The Carribean's two years post-hurricane Katrina have been amonst the quietest hurricane years in 100 years despite predictive strident vociferation to the contrary. Test of faith.
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dr. Henri Wilson - 15 Jan 2008 20:37 GMT >> Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole >> and Artic ice is melting very fast. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >quietest hurricane years in 100 years despite predictive strident >vociferation to the contrary. Test of faith. We don't have to be reminded that the world is full of idiots who always run from truth. Self delusion is a form of masochism. Do you walk on hot coals as well?
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating frame. Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?
Saul Levy - 15 Jan 2008 18:55 GMT Sorry, but that just won't happen (any of it)! There is NO global warming. The ice age is returning!
Climate changes. Always has, always will.
Saul Levy
>Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole >and Artic ice is melting very fast. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Bye >Sanny Bret Cahill - 15 Jan 2008 20:21 GMT > Now we know 80% of the land in our earth is in North Hemisphere and > North above the equater create maximum pollution that is the reasion > North Pole Ice is melting faster than Antartica. CO2 and other gases get distributed all over the globe very rapidly from the winds.
If you release any CO2 in Texas you might as well be releasing it in Australia as far as the global warming is concerned.
Antartica and Greenland aren't melting as fast at the Artic Ocean because land separates the ice from warm ocean currents.
. . .
> As ice starts melting water flows in place of ice. Ice reflect 90% of > the light back to the space as a mirror. But water absorbs light and > helps more warming. We just need to make clouds in the morning that rain out in the evening leaving dry air at night.
It doesn't matter where we make the clouds, anyplace where it is cheap.
> Within 10 years we will se a huge difference in global Climate. This > year In India the cold was very low. I remember last year temperature > touched 4-5' C But this year It was at 14-15' C There was a difference > of 5' C. Isn't that 10 C?
Everyone is probably a global warming denier to some extent. No one wants to hear THIS kind of bad news so we all lie to ourselves.
Kind of like the futures trader who wants a disaster big enough so he can make a killing but not so big as to shut down the futures market.
AGW might shut down the market.
> In future due to Global warming very big Hurricanes will attack large > part of country. And the whether will be very tough. One theory on hurricanes in the [natural] greenhouse effect results in lower entropy radiation from earth into space. To make up for that we would need to increase entropy on earth with constant 100 mph winds. The increase in entropy, however, comes from mixing dry desert air with moist air so we only need a few hurricanes a year to make up the deficit.
As arid areas get larger as some GW models predict, then maybe even fewer or weaker hurricanes would be necessary to increase entropy.
Water wars are a lot more scarey than any hurricane, however.
The worst thing of all is ethnic based geo wars like they have in Africa.
Bret Cahill
Tim - 16 Jan 2008 13:48 GMT >> Now we know 80% of the land in our earth is in North Hemisphere and >> North above the equater create maximum pollution that is the reasion [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Antartica and Greenland aren't melting as fast at the Artic Ocean > because land separates the ice from warm ocean currents. Huh?. If you release it in Texas and it gets to OZ why does it bypass Antartica and Greenland?
> . . . > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Bret Cahill Uno - 15 Jan 2008 21:14 GMT Global Warming may not be accurate. It can be correct if we look at The Earth alone. I have a theory about solar warming. The solar system is warming. There were many reports on warming on Pluto and many planets in our system at the same time. The reason of warming in our solar system is not CO2.
> Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole > and Artic ice is melting very fast. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html Benj - 16 Jan 2008 21:33 GMT > Global Warming may not be accurate. It can be correct if we look at The > Earth alone. I have a theory about solar warming. The solar system is > warming. There were many reports on warming on Pluto and many planets in our > system at the same time. The reason of warming in our solar system is not > CO2. Which is why it is so important to start concentrating on the causes of global climate change right now! The problem with the political CO2 myth is that it very effectively distracts from finding REAL causes. If we concentrate on imaginary causes for the profit of the few, then later when we are in deep sh.t, we find that we still won't have a clue as to what to do to fix the problems.
I go nuts everytime I watch the TV "news" and they carefully describe this or that observed aspect of global climate change, but instead of a pitch that says, "We really should have some people looking into the causes of this" all we get is a CO2 "political zinger" on the end of the piece noting how it's all caused by CO2 and how we need to implement that imaginary "cure".
I hate to be the negative one here, but you people should know that many earth systems are feedback systems and as such have limited stability. If you push them into an unstable zone, even by well meaning acts, the people of the earth are going to be in for some VERY tough times! Heads in the sand will not save your a.ses! Say wait! That includes MY a.s as well!
Saul Levy - 17 Jan 2008 01:37 GMT The causes of whatever global warming is actually occuring is:
The end of an ice age
The Sun
That's all. Nothing we can do about either one.
Saul Levy
>> Global Warming may not be accurate. It can be correct if we look at The >> Earth alone. I have a theory about solar warming. The solar system is [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >tough times! Heads in the sand will not save your a.ses! Say wait! >That includes MY a.s as well! G=EMC^2 Glazier - 17 Jan 2008 23:04 GMT Cactus Saul You are so out of touch with good thinking its not funny Because of CO2 the Earth is not radiating enough heat into space. CO2 is acting like an insulator Heat is trapped. Think Venus,and you might get the picture. Think why the Earth has heated up so fast in the last 55 years. Think man think Bert
V - 16 Jan 2008 17:30 GMT > Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole > and Artic ice is melting very fast. Actually humanity faces much bigger problems than climate control. The massive problem facing the world in the not so distant future will be that of peak oil as we are rapidly running out of ALL fossil fuels as well as uranium, food and water.
And in the long run, global warming may be good for us. You see, we wont have much fuel to heat our homes, so at least we wont freeze to death as much in a warmer climate.
Have you ever thought about how much your homes are dependent on natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water? Well, we will run out of natural gas in the next few decades, just after have we depleted our crude supplies.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Natural-Gas-Energy/dp/1931498539
I'm sorry for the polar bears and the penguins, but this is how mankind operates by living outside of natures intended means. All our actions have consequences, and many of our actions produce consequences that end up destroying peace. They destroy our peace as well as the inner peace of others.
Why don't we do anything about global warming...because we can't.
To do anything substantive would cause a financial and population backlash of unimaginable proportions.
And what we could do, even with drastic measures, would not cure global warming but only slow things down.
In addition, there is no one global entity to control all the green house gas emitters. China and India (CHINDIA) plan on adding more dirty coal burning electric plants to feed their burgeoning economies.
Yes, we have Kyoto, but...the largest polluters of green house gasses have exempted themselves from it.
"As of June 2007, a total of 172 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries). Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like CHINDIA, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
We can't start wars over green house gas like we do oil...even then we would have to go to war right here at home before we point fingers at other countries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm
As far as foreign wars, many of these newly rich nations seem to be in a war of sorts to see who can build the biggest and the tallest. Well, the bigger the building is the more energy it takes to power it and the more green house gas is given off to pay for the ego behind the monstrosity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_wor ld#Tallest_buildings
Thoreau once said when people invited him to dinner they 'put their pride' in how fancy and expensive a meal they could make. Whereas he put his pride in how simple and inexpensive a meal he could make.
Where do we put our pride?
We surely don't put it in living within our means and in balance with nature.
In the US, 93.2% of our electric comes from non renewable, greenhouse gas producing methods.
If we are looking to hydroelectric and renewable sources, 4.46% of our electric comes from hydroelectric and 2.34% comes from renewable energy production.
Out of this 2.34% of renewable sources, an undisclosed portion still contributes to global warming despite its prestige of being a 'renewable energy source' as it involves the burning of wood, black liquor, wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agriculture byproducts and biomass.
Only a fraction of the 2.34% of renewable electric energy that is produced comes from geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
Lets say we decided to turn off the coal fired plants for 25% of a 24 hour day to save some fossil fuel.
Saving 25% seems to be a modest proposal.
So they shut the coal fired plants down for 6 hours during peak daytime operation.
And lets say we don't care that all the frozen food in the markets will thaw out and the refrigerated foods will spoil.
And lets say the workforce will sacrifice their jobs for the 6 hours every day while the electric is shut off.
And we put up with the gridlock and accidents from not having traffic lights and the doctors and hospitals all shut down.
And people just hold their noses over the backed up sewage that cannot be processed when the electric is off.
The real problem with trying to implement even a modest 25% fossil fuel saving plan is this - it just can't be done.
Coal fired plants are not of the nature to be turned off and turned on with the flip of a switch.
If a coal fired plant was turned off and completely cooled down it would take many days to bring it back online. If a coal powered plant was shut down even for 6 hours, it would take between 12 hours to bring it back to operational capacity.
In addition, when the plant is started back up, all the fossil fuel that is consumed in the startup does not make electric, it just goes to bring things back up to speed. And during startup, the plant operates at lower temperature and produces more pollution at those lower temperatures. And if that is not enough, startups of that magnitude send out power surges that destroy transformers and cause grid problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant
Well, if saving 25% from the coal plants does not seem feasible, what about going to the American public?
Can we cut back on GNP by 25%?
Cut back on utility use at home by 25%
Cut back on driving by 25%?
Cut back on consumption whether it be food or hard goods by 25%?
Cut back on interstate trucking by 25%?
And cut back in all related areas that use energy by 25%?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
The 'public' gets their underpants in a bind when the GNP declines at all...even when it is still in the positive numbers.
They start a panic in the stock market when the GNP is +1%, so how can it survive a -25% GNP drop?.
And as for cutting back on our demands...well it goes against the American dream.
And even if America decided to cut back 25%, that is only a drop in the bucket, as the rest of the world is ever increasing their demands on the environment and would soon make up for such a small decrease in greenhouse gas and fossil fuel depletion.
Are you starting to see the folly of thinking mankind can stop global warming, when mankind is built on such a ludicrous foundation?
There is no 'simple or easy answer' to this issue nor is there even a 'not so simple and hard answer' to our dilemma.
The world is in a death spiral. It is just how we have built our world over the years.
It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But seven billion people can't burn the trees!
The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:
"At current production levels coal will be available for at least the next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas." (See footnote #1)
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=21
Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on 'current production and consumption' it gives the same haunting message to the generations to come.
We may not see the end of our free flowing energy as we know it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future. This is the legacy they will inherit from us.
Mankind is just a little 'too smart' for his environment and learned to live beyond natures intended means. But mankind does not seem 'smart enough' to fix the mess that it has created.
Yes, mankind has done great things over their reign on earth, but we must always remember nature does not bow to us..in the end we all bow to nature.
Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it today.
And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way.
And even if we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.
And what does all that consumerism lead to?
It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will be in once CHINDIA picks up momentum to copycat the envious lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the 'American Dream'
The worlds population is out of control.
The problem is not with the earth not having enough land for all its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all the needs the people crave.
Our planet is overpopulated in terms of what the planet can sustainably support. The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are depleted.
While I cannot deny the wisdom of promoting life as many religions profess and personal freedom the USA is built on, sometime we must accept the lesser of two evils if promoting life turns into being more destructive to life than 'not promoting' it.
It then becomes a decision whether to choose between the 'greater good for the whole' or the 'greater personal right for the individual'... and the whole be damned. (Whole meaning entire human population of our planet.)
For instance, on a farm if the plants are planted packed like sardines (or 'packed like sushi' as they say in Japan) the plants do not flourish.
In nature, trees that are overcrowded weed themselves out by nature's decree. But if man forced the trees to not weed out and forces crowding the trees may die from disease due to a forced and unsustainable growth plan.
So it goes with how our planet is evolving...a sad but exactly true statement.
Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for Federal bankers to lower interest rates...so the stock market can go up...fueled by spending of the consumer.
It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get away from.
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it comes to durable goods.
Lets look at CHINDIA, two up and coming giants. Are they built on the compulsive spending habits of their people to foster a healthy economy? No, they are built on producing products and services and selling them to the USA and the world. Sure, their home consumption is a factor, but it is not the main factor as it is with the USA. The US GDP is based 70% on consumer spending.
The USA is built on consumer consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our retirement funds only go up. All this worldwide consumption contributes to more and more global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW
You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are using it all up in just a couple hundred years...we can never pay it back.
The scary thing is CHINDIA is just starting to bloom with their demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.
In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000 persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in India, they are making a $2500 car as well.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/percapita_car_o.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/
But what can one say about the problem unless people just cut back reproducing?
Everyone has a desire to have some sex stimulation and through that stimulation comes more and more people. And everyone has a desire to keep warm when it is cold or to keep cool in the heat or move about the earth and wear clothes. And it is from all those desires that global warming fueled through the expenditure of fossil fuels takes place.
But the sad reality is even if people cut back having babies, we are only delaying the inevitable and that alone will not fix the problem. It can be compared to men stuck underwater in a crippled submarine. The more they move around, the quicker they run out of air and die. The less they move, the longer they can live...but the end result is the same.
Now maybe some genius will come up with a replacement for petroleum, natural gas and coal to meet all out needs. But it is unrealistic to think we can grow enough corn to fuel all the trucks, airlines, cargo ships, cars and other needs we humans have in addition run all the power plants and factories, heat and cool our homes.
From this list we can see that we are still massively depend on crude for our non sustainable lifestyle even if the world stopped burning fossil fuels this instant. There is no replacement for crude...crude is in the details of our life.
A partial list of products made from Petroleum. One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used for petrochemical needs to make things like:
Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs Combs CD's Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline
(net source)
...and even nuclear power is dependent on the mining of uranium and has limits as to how long the supply will last.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
What is in store for us in the not so distant future?
Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel. All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. So long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply' of crude for it own needs.
Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of crude may not be so kind to keep on selling it to us and we need a 'local and continual' source somewhat within our borders. You see, jet fuel as well as gasoline deteriorates and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we must always be producing some of it to replace the stale stuff to supply the military. But, that's why we elect politicians to deal with these troubles
As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits us in the not so distant future.
When it comes to the future, I see people living in miniature houses (the lucky ones that survive that is, after all most of the population died off long ago from starvation, freezing to death or from the riots) with roofs shingled completely with solar material.
They drive up to their house on an electric scooter that is recharged from their solar roof. If they are higher up the totem pole they may have a solar golf cart. But in either case, luck must still be on their side for without the sun shinning to charge it, their transportation sits idle. (Not much lead left to build big batteries...China gobbled it all up, so we have to make due with very small storage cells.)
They work for the government and in exchange the government feeds and clothes them from their warehouses. You see, we have become a sort of 'Communist Democracy' for without that bold leap and a desire 'to put our country first' Russia or China would have stepped in to acquire some new real estate.
The warehouses are fed from government owned coal fired steam locomotives. Diesel dried up long ago, so it was either wood or coal to fuel the trains. It did not take our government long to realize this. the electric plants only had to shut down sporadically for 8 months so until they could build the first of a large fleet of steam locomotives.
This was a 'slight' government oversight. They never figured that the coal fired power plants were fed with 'diesel powered' locomotives. They kept concentrated on the prediction that we had a hundred of years of coal left, but were oblivious as to how that coal is delivered to the power plant. But all these changes have some bright spots in them. As the coal producers were able to hire many more workers to manually mine coal, as the diesel powered mining equipment sit idle from lack of diesel fuel.
Now some of the states or bigger cities had the foresight to build one or two electric rail trolleys for public transport. Your only problem is getting to the main road to catch the trolley and then it is a straight ride to the government warehouse.
What happened to Private industry & Money?
Money is nothing more than stored energy. But since the crude dried up, the 'real energy' behind the money has vanished...and so did private industry. What about the coal mines...all government owned. If you want to eat you work..it is that simple.
So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your a.s?
Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than that.
Martha Stewart syndrome died out long ago, now people are happy to eat rice and beans and get a clean glass of water to drink.
After all, the government can't afford to fool around decorating everyone's house, they can hardly produce enough food to keep a fraction of the population alive. Yes, tractors, reapers and farming is very crude intensive...but no one bothered to think about that as they continued to squander the worlds petroleum resources.
On a positive note, since most of the population died off from 'natural causes', the government does not have to worry about passing 'population control' any longer. They tried to get that universally opposed program passed for many years, but the public just would not go for it...too UN-American...goes against our religious upbringings...too controversial and all of the rest. We can still hear the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler....Impeach the President!!!!
Such objections are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind. As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial man. If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as 'too controversial' just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true, false or I don't know?
This introspective method may help you become truth based and not ego based. You will have made a 'choice divorced of need'...you wont 'need your ego' to support the truth...the truth will be able to stand on its own.
But nature helped us humans out with that hard decision - for nature does not discriminate nor find the truth too controversial or provocative or opinionated to be true. And in the end, nature settled the dispute of population control with even handed justice of 75% of our population dying off, ever reminding us all that nature does not bow to man...it is always man that bows to nature.
But, people hold no grudges against nature and are more in harmony with nature and enjoy a simpler life nowadays. People pick pine needles from trees to make their tea, since there is no jet fuel to import any Darjeeling tea or coffee. Once in a while people are able to kill a bird, a rat or cat to supplement their diet - so we still can find a place of gratitude in our life for such gifts.
Of course one problem still haunts the world?
The last remaining buckets of crude will soon be gone and they have still not found out how to make the tires for the solar powered golf carts and scooters without that critical ingredient of crude oil?
http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/mcoal.htm
Postscript
"Who Killed the Electric Car?"
This documentary not only discuses electric vehicle in depth, but cover hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, methanol and biodiesel. A truly outstanding educational tool for anyone interested in this subject.
Get the DVD from your library today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
Also See:
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/0805055762
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/087 1138883
http://dieoff.org/
http://www.crudeawakening.org/
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker Practical Philosopher Futurist Urban Homesteader
Dr. Henri Wilson - 16 Jan 2008 19:17 GMT >> Last Year I read 1000s of news related to Global Warming. North Pole >> and Artic ice is melting very fast.
>Actually humanity faces much bigger problems than climate control. The >massive problem facing the world in the not so distant future will be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of natural gas in the next few decades, just after have we depleted >our crude supplies. (Article snipped) Quite a good submission.... however you didn't stress the causes enough.
Without fossil fuels, planet Earth can comfortably support no more than about 4 billion humans. There is no energy problem, just one of population.
Unless the world can be relieved of its two main 'diseases', religion and the 'economic growth' mentallity, no solution will be forthcoming. Humanity will face a disaster that will make all the previous wars look like sunday school picnics.
China has the right idea, with its one child policy..and is starting to reap the economic harvest, as a result...When is ignorant America going to get the message?
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Relativists believe that a rotating Sagnac viewed in the rotating frame is identical to a nonrotating one viewed from the nonrotating frame. Hahahaha! What about all the imaginary effects?
Bret Cahill - 16 Jan 2008 20:50 GMT The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil.
In the meantime they are quietly planning to use the military to keep the masses under martial law when things get really bad.
Bret Cahill
Saul Levy - 17 Jan 2008 01:34 GMT So, it's the rich who are finding all those new HUGE reserves of oil then?
As for controlling the masses: STOP THEM! lmao!
Saul Levy
>The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil. > >In the meantime they are quietly planning to use the military to keep >the masses under martial law when things get really bad. > >Bret Cahill Puppet_Sock - 17 Jan 2008 16:32 GMT > The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil. > > In the meantime they are quietly planning to use the military to keep > the masses under martial law when things get really bad. > > Bret Cahill Meanwhile, back in reality...
I think it's entirely more likely that the Statists pay useful idiots to post here spreading alarm in an attempt to produce dicatorship. This is particularly likely since we have several data points in that direction already: - No shills have been shown. - No payments by "the rich" have been shown. - Bret Cahill is an idiot. - Bret Cahill's bribe level starts at one turnip. Socks
Dr. Henri Wilson - 17 Jan 2008 21:36 GMT >The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil. > >In the meantime they are quietly planning to use the military to keep >the masses under martial law when things get really bad. Dead right...it's happening in many countries already...
>Bret Cahill Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Bret Cahill - 18 Jan 2008 00:10 GMT > >The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil.
> >In the meantime they are quietly planning to use the military to keep > >the masses under martial law when things get really bad. It's not like any planning is going on to deal with the problem.
> Dead right...it's happening in many countries already... They are definitely thinking about it. And when you consider all the lies and deception coming from BushCo and the media . . .
Bret Cahill
Dr. Henri Wilson - 18 Jan 2008 07:49 GMT >> >The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >They are definitely thinking about it. And when you consider all the >lies and deception coming from BushCo and the media . . . It has happened in may countries already....environmetalists are the first to go.
>Bret Cahill Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Bret Cahill - 18 Jan 2008 17:41 GMT It's bad enough "market" economists with no science or tech background to weigh in on peak oil or AGW.
It's far worse when they dodge issues fundamental to their _own_ field.
You can send any of the outspoken "market" economists at Hoover, Heritage, Am. Enterprise, the Chicago School, von Mises, etc., in to full issues dodging mode with a simple question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
They will cut and run from The Question like roachs when you turn on the light.
Bret Cahill
> >> >The rich pay shills to post here claiming that there is no peak oil. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It has happened in may countries already....environmetalists are the first to > go. Saul Levy - 17 Jan 2008 01:31 GMT I guess that scientists won't come up with new sources of energy then?
Aw hell, just another DOOM AND GLOOMER FOREVER! Your degrees are worthless, Henri!
Saul Levy
>Quite a good submission.... however you didn't stress the causes enough. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) Puppet_Sock - 16 Jan 2008 20:09 GMT [snip]
> Actually humanity faces much bigger problems than climate control. The > massive problem facing the world in the not so distant future will be > that of peak oil as we are rapidly running out of ALL fossil fuels as > well as uranium, food and water. [remainder of panicy screed snipped]
Heh heh. After two centuries of Malthus being wrong, you'd think somebody in the Chicken Little camp would notice.
The Club of Rome predicted we'd be out of oil by 1992. Every specific prediction in _Limits to Growth_ was wrong.
Ehrlich lost his bets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb
> Indeed such was the decline in the price of the five metals > Ehrlich selected, Simon would have won even without > taking inflation into account. The discovery rate of petroleum has actually increased over the last 30 years. The amount of petroleum reserve is larger today, both in number of bbls and years of use, than it was thirty years ago. Same for coal. Same for Uranium. Were we prepared to double the price of electricity (as we seem to be due to forcing people into using wind generation) there are millions of tonnes of Uranium available through proven methods of using extremely low grade sources. The amount of food produced per year has dramatically increased. The number of people below subsistence has decreased pretty steadily.
The bulk of people who have problems of starvation are in those problems because of tyranical dictators. Various local warlords and such use starvation as a terror weapon. They herd the people they don't like into the useless parts of their countries. Then they loot the aid shipments that warm hearted people around the world unquestioningly send to those countries.
There is plenty of energy to go on for at least a couple centuries. By then we should have fusion on line, and then there is easily enough Hydrogen for many tens of thousands of years.
Certainly there are finite limits to how many people can have a high energy lifestyle. Certainly there are finite limits to the resources on this planet. We are no where near those limits.
Does that mean it is desirable for populations to continue to increase. Of course not. I'd say we are just a tad above the optimal population already. But there is no need for any sort of draconian actions to curb growth. Especially as nearly all industrial nations are already breeding below replacement levels as it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
Socks
Bret Cahill - 16 Jan 2008 20:53 GMT $3.50/gallon in two months and $4/gallon by the end of the year, $5/ gallon by 2010.
One way or another rightards are going to have to make some changes.
Bret Cahill
Puppet_Sock - 17 Jan 2008 16:34 GMT > $3.50/gallon in two months and $4/gallon by the end of the year, $5/ > gallon by 2010. > > One way or another rightards are going to have to make some changes. > > Bret Cahill Petrol is still cheaper, after inflation, than it was in 1980.
And it's still cheaper, by volume, than beer.
One way or another, people who let their ideology interfere with their view of reality, such as idiot Bret, are going to have to make some changes. Mostly this will happen when productive people stop supporting your a.s. Socks
Bret Cahill - 17 Jan 2008 20:28 GMT > > $3.50/gallon in two months and $4/gallon by the end of the year, $5/ > > gallon by 2010.
> > One way or another rightards are going to have to make some changes.
> Petrol is still cheaper, after inflation, than it was in 1980. That won't be true in a couple more years.
> And it's still cheaper, by volume, than beer. That won't be true in 3 more years.
> One way or another, people who let their ideology interfere with their > view of reality, Like infinite oil production growth rightards.
Bret Cahill
Puppet_Sock - 17 Jan 2008 22:09 GMT > > > $3.50/gallon in two months and $4/gallon by the end of the year, $5/ > > > gallon by 2010. > > > One way or another rightards are going to have to make some changes. > > Petrol is still cheaper, after inflation, than it was in 1980. > > That won't be true in a couple more years. Bet?
> > And it's still cheaper, by volume, than beer. > > That won't be true in 3 more years. Bet?
> > One way or another, people who let their ideology interfere with their > > view of reality, > > Like infinite oil production growth rightards. Since the persons of which you post here are completely your own hallucination, you seem to have a problem. Largely this problem is that you don't contact reality very firmly. Socks
Bret Cahill - 18 Jan 2008 17:31 GMT > > > One way or another, people who let their ideology interfere with their > > > view of reality, > > > Like infinite oil production growth rightards. > > Since the persons of which you post here are Infinite oil production rightards.
Bret Cahill
Puppet_Sock - 18 Jan 2008 21:04 GMT > > > > One way or another, people who let their ideology interfere with their > > > > view of reality, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Infinite oil production rightards. You hallucinate the existence of these people.
You don't contact reality firmly enough to read to the end of a sentence. Socks
Saul Levy - 18 Jan 2008 00:34 GMT Gee, Bret, show me something which is really infinite, please? Thought so, even the Universe isn't infinite.
Saul Levy
>> > $3.50/gallon in two months and $4/gallon by the end of the year, $5/ >> > gallon by 2010. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Bret Cahill G=EMC^2 Glazier - 18 Jan 2008 12:55 GMT Cactus Saul Show me an hydrogen atom that has decayed. You can always add one more number to the largest number(Feynman) Space is infinite. Time is infinite,and the creation of universes is infinite. Bert
Saul Levy - 19 Jan 2008 01:23 GMT Nothing is infinite, BEERTbrain! Proof please?
Saul Levy
>Cactus Saul Show me an hydrogen atom that has decayed. You can always >add one more number to the largest number(Feynman) Space is infinite. >Time is infinite,and the creation of universes is infinite. Bert Fred Weiss - 18 Jan 2008 18:33 GMT > Does that mean it is desirable for populations to continue > to increase. Of course not. I'd say we are just a tad above > the optimal population already. Hmmm...I wonder why you say that. I don't even know how one would calculate "the optimal population" - where, in what context, under what political/economic system?
The European welfare states crack under increased population. They can barely keep their heads above water with their current populations. (But at the same time they have extreme labor shortages at the extremes of the highly skilled and the menial). On the other hand, our own economy not only easily absorbs - but requires - vast amounts of immigration, as has the Irish recently, and before that Hong Kong, i.e. free(er) markets.
> But there is no need for > any sort of draconian actions to curb growth. Oh, darn, say the socialists. We so, so want draconian actions. It's our constant wet dream.
Btw, as to "peak oil", you are of course completely correct. This is simply the latest Malthusian incarnation. In this particular instance it was demolished by the CERA report in 2006:
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx ?CID=8444
It has of course predictably attracted the same level of screeching denunciations of anyone who challenges the other "consensus" dogma - AGW.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss - 18 Jan 2008 18:49 GMT > > Does that mean it is desirable for populations to continue > > to increase. Of course not. I'd say we are just a tad above [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > calculate "the optimal population" - where, in what context, under > what political/economic system? Btw, I'd be prepared to defend the theoretical idea that a free market economy can accommodate *any number* of people you throw at it. Theoretically it should be able to handle an *unlimited* number of people - the US economy virtually did just that in the late 19th/early 20th Century.
The only reason to assume the opposite is on the fallacious notion of "scarce resources". (As you may recall, this is the fallacy in the premise of the Friedman/Stigler essay "Roofs and Ceilings" that I've discussed on HPO). There are no scarce resources under capitalism. All resources are (for all practical purposes) infinitely expandable.
Of course this isn't possible under socialism where the economy - and therefore innovation - is strangled.
Fred Weiss
Dr. Henri Wilson - 18 Jan 2008 21:09 GMT >> > Does that mean it is desirable for populations to continue >> > to increase. Of course not. I'd say we are just a tad above [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Of course this isn't possible under socialism where the economy - and >therefore innovation - is strangled. You're not a roman catholic by any chance, are you?
>Fred Weiss Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Fred Weiss - 19 Jan 2008 01:33 GMT > You're not a roman catholic by any chance, are you? Hardly - especially when I tell you I believe in birth control and a woman's right to an abortion.
But that's an issue entirely different from any notion of "population control".
It's true as Socks correctly just pointed out - as have others here - you can't come up with a better method of population control than industrialization. Native population has been flat or declining in all of the advanced industrial countries. (And of course the best method for encouraging industrialization is: capitalism).
The reason is that industrialization liberates women from the drudgery of the household and opens up the possibility of pursuing their own careers outside of the home. They don't even need to get married to be fulfilled. Unmarried women are no longer considered "spinsters" or "old maids" - esp. when they can be CEO's of major corporations or entrepreneurs in their own right.
So, there's no need to "control" population. Only a socialist would even consider such an abomination.
Fred Weiss
Dr. Henri Wilson - 19 Jan 2008 20:57 GMT >> You're not a roman catholic by any chance, are you? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of the advanced industrial countries. (And of course the best method >for encouraging industrialization is: capitalism). Oh Crap. US industrialism has resulted in masssive immigration into that country. It has merely encouraged others like Mexico and the Gulf states to breed like drosophila and export its surplus people as slave labour.
>The reason is that industrialization liberates women from the drudgery >of the household and opens up the possibility of pursuing their own >careers outside of the home. Tell that to a muslim...
>They don't even need to get married to be >fulfilled. Unmarried women are no longer considered "spinsters" or >"old maids" - esp. when they can be CEO's of major corporations or >entrepreneurs in their own right. Whenever women are put in charge, they stuff it up....
>So, there's no need to "control" population. Only a socialist would >even consider such an abomination. Instead of sending food aid to places like Africa, the US should be offering free sterilization and abortion pills. People don't want lots of kids they can't afford. They merely want SEX...but the religions of the world are forcing them to do the former.
>Fred Weiss Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Fred Weiss - 19 Jan 2008 23:43 GMT > Instead of sending food aid to places like Africa, the US should be offering > free sterilization and abortion pills. I'd send copies of the US Constitution and Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations".
The source of the success of the US is no secret - especially now that many other countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) have gone essentially the same way and with similar results.'
It's also no secret any longer that socialism is an unmitigated disaster for developing a poor country. So, there's no excuse that they continue down the same tired and provably failed roads of the past.
Fred Weiss
Dr. Henri Wilson - 20 Jan 2008 07:25 GMT >> Instead of sending food aid to places like Africa, the US should be offering >> free sterilization and abortion pills. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >many other countries (particularly in Eastern Europe) have gone >essentially the same way and with similar results.' The US is (was) wealthy because it had plenty of free energy in the form of OIL. It was also pretty devoid of people (especially after the massacres) and had good soil and plenty of land for agriculture. Now it is completely stuffed because there is nowhere further to expand and its resources are just about exhausted. Right now, your little sh.t country of warmongers and religious fanatics appears to be going bankrupt.
>It's also no secret any longer that socialism is an unmitigated >disaster for developing a poor country. So China doesn't count eh? I don't think you have any idea what socialism is.
>So, there's no excuse that >they continue down the same tired and provably failed roads of the >past. Listen, I'm not an advocate of traditional socialism. I like working for myself. However Capitalism has a problem. It requires that the earth's resources are infinite. In case you don't know it, they are not.
>Fred Weiss Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Fred Weiss - 20 Jan 2008 13:25 GMT > On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:43:11 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
> >The source of the success of the US is no secret -
> The US is (was) wealthy because it had plenty of free energy in the form of > OIL. England never did. Hong Kong never did. Japan doesn't now.
> It was also pretty devoid of people... So was Siberia.
England and Hong Kong prospered with people, lots of them. As does Japan today.
> ...and had good soil and plenty of land for agriculture. Hong Kong didn't and doesn't. Russia was once the "bread basket" of Europe until the communists took over.
> Now it is completely stuffed > because there is nowhere further to expand and its resources are just about > exhausted. You're kidding right? As purely a matter of land, there are millions of acres of unused but usable land. Furthermore, a great deal of our "resources" have been shut down because of pseudo environmentalist concerns. The "resources" are there we are just prevented from exploiting them. ANWR is just one example.
> >It's also no secret any longer that socialism is an unmitigated > >disaster for developing a poor country. > > So China doesn't count eh? Again, you're kidding right? China has grown at a phenomenal rate in the last decade or two precisely to the extent that it has abandoned socialism and embraced capitalism. Yes, there are still state-owned companies and industries and many gov't controls on the economy, but there were before while the country was mired in poverty and famine. What has changed is the reins on the economy have been loosened and privately run businesses have been allowed - some of them now worth billions$.
Precisely the same thing is going on in Eastern Europe and in other former Soviet Republics.
> Listen, I'm not an advocate of traditional socialism. I like working for > myself. However Capitalism has a problem. It requires that the earth's > resources are infinite. In case you don't know it, they are not. But they are for all practical purposes - and it is precisely capitalism that makes it possible.
Fred Weiss
Dr. Henri Wilson - 20 Jan 2008 20:59 GMT >> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:43:11 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >England never did. England had COAL.
>Hong Kong never did. Hong Kong is just a trading city. The world can handle a few of those. They can afford to import all their resources.
>Japan doesn't now. Japan owes its prosperity to the fact that it had a stable population until recently.
>> It was also pretty devoid of people... > >So was Siberia. Funny man !
>England and Hong Kong prospered with people, lots of them. As does >Japan today. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hong Kong didn't and doesn't. Russia was once the "bread basket" of >Europe until the communists took over. Russia is still the world's major grain producer.
>> Now it is completely stuffed >> because there is nowhere further to expand and its resources are just about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >concerns. The "resources" are there we are just prevented from >exploiting them. ANWR is just one example. the land is destroyed. there is no water in many parts. When the next drought hits US, you can say goodbye....
>> >It's also no secret any longer that socialism is an unmitigated >> >disaster for developing a poor country. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >privately run businesses have been allowed - some of them now worth >billions$ China now runs on an upgraded version of semi-socialism. The chinese are well aware of the evils of rampant capitalism. I'm sure the US poor is too.
>Precisely the same thing is going on in Eastern Europe and in other >former Soviet Republics. The USSR was never a true socialist state...more a militay dictatorship. It never had a chance because its economy was destroyed by the cost of the two world wars and the constant threat of nuclear attack from the US.
>> Listen, I'm not an advocate of traditional socialism. I like working for >> myself. However Capitalism has a problem. It requires that the earth's >> resources are infinite. In case you don't know it, they are not. > >But they are for all practical purposes - and it is precisely >capitalism that makes it possible. Are you a complete idiot. We are almost out of fresh water right now. Oil has peaked and natural gas reserves whilst currently adequate are known to be very limited. Do you know that most o the world's secondary industry lies in climates that requires huge amounts of energy in both summer and winter. What do you think is going to happen to places like New York and the large cities of Europe when there is no heating oil or gas?
All hell is about to break loose..and well within YOUR lifetime.
>Fred Weiss Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Bret Cahill - 20 Jan 2008 21:19 GMT > >Hong Kong never did.
> Hong Kong is just a trading city. The world can handle a few of those. They can > afford to import all their resources. A Randroid only cares about the rich. If anything happens to everyone else, well it's their fault that they aren't rich.
> >Japan doesn't now.
> Japan owes its prosperity to the fact that it had a stable population until > recently.
> >> It was also pretty devoid of people...
> >So was Siberia.
> Funny man ! It's hard to tell if he's being funny or is really stupid.
One thing is for certain.
He boilerplate is so easy to expose I wonder if he's _trying_ to make a mockery of it.
. . .
> >> Listen, I'm not an advocate of traditional socialism. I like working for > >> myself. However Capitalism has a problem. It requires that the earth's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you a complete idiot. A Randroid is a complete idiot.
Bret Cahill
Fred Weiss - 21 Jan 2008 00:26 GMT > >> >The source of the success of the US is no secret - > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > England had COAL. You can't put coal in cars or planes.
And furthermore, I shouldn't have let slide your ridiculous comment that the oil in the US was free. It may have seemed free as capitalists like Rockefeller produced it very cheaply, but those low prices required a vast investment in technology and distribution.
> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. I'd like to see a cite on that. I don't deny it, but it would surprise me. However, if true it is simply one more indicator of the progress they have made since abandoning communism.
Anyway, apart from that I think we've pretty much demolished all the excuses you came up with to supposedly explain the success of the US. It's not false that we had oil, land, etc. but so did other countries - or other countries had other advantages. What's essential to the success of the US was it's political/economic system, i.e. capitalism, which made it possible to exploit those advantages.
I'm sorry but I have to snip here. I have no tolerance for your litany of lefty/eco crap most of which I have responded to in many other posts. I'd don't see any point in repeating them yet again here.
You want to believe that crap, feel free. But none of it is true.
Fred Weiss
Bret Cahill - 21 Jan 2008 02:16 GMT > > >> The US is (was) wealthy because it had plenty of free energy in the form of > > >> OIL. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You can't put coal in cars or planes. That was once one of your arguments. After the oil is gone there will be plenty of coal.
. . .
> I have no tolerance We know, we know.
All fascists are like that.
Bret Cahill
Saul Levy - 22 Jan 2008 06:12 GMT We aren't running out of oil either. Plenty more to find and recover. There are 100s of years more supply.
Saul Levy
>> > >> The US is (was) wealthy because it had plenty of free energy in the form of >> > >> OIL. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Bret Cahill G=EMC^2 Glazier - 22 Jan 2008 13:30 GMT Cactus Saul When I lived in Oklahoma City They found so much oil the wells had to be caped One field found 50 miles north of Oklahoma city is called Exxon City. It is the biggest field in USA other than the one in Alaska. A pipe line was connect to Chicago just for its natural gas. Interesting 1% of its gas is helium,and now helium is dirt cheap. Bert PS lots of oil still to be found in Texas,and shale in Colorado. Its all a republican con game. Bush is there big con artist
Dr. Henri Wilson - 21 Jan 2008 05:05 GMT >> >> >The source of the success of the US is no secret - >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You can't put coal in cars or planes. England had colonies...US was one. They exported religious fanatics there in exchange for oil and food.
>And furthermore, I shouldn't have let slide your ridiculous comment >that the oil in the US was free. It may have seemed free as >capitalists like Rockefeller produced it very cheaply, but those low >prices required a vast investment in technology and distribution. Who cares....
>> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. > >I'd like to see a cite on that. I don't deny it, but it would surprise >me. However, if true it is simply one more indicator of the progress >they have made since abandoning communism. Russia was always the world's biggest gain producer except during a sreies of bad years, weatherwise.
>Anyway, apart from that I think we've pretty much demolished all the >excuses you came up with to supposedly explain the success of the US. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of lefty/eco crap most of which I have responded to in many other >posts. I'd don't see any point in repeating them yet again here. When the opposition resorts to snipping you know you have won the argument.....
>You want to believe that crap, feel free. But none of it is true. > >Fred Weiss Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Saul Levy - 22 Jan 2008 06:17 GMT Russia has had a LOT of bad years. So bad they had to import grain from the U.S. lmao!
Saul Levy
>>> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Russia was always the world's biggest gain producer except during a sreies of >bad years, weatherwise.
>Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) Ralph Hertle - 21 Jan 2008 22:47 GMT Fred:
The concept of Peak Oil is appearing to be a less valid concept, that is, the facts show that a good supply of oil right from Canada will make the current concept of peak oil obsolete for the entire world.
You may be interested in the information presented by CERA on their site.
[ Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA), an IHS company, is a leading advisor to international energy companies, governments, financial institutions, and technology providers.]
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/PrintPage.aspx?CID=8444&Page=PRD
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/PrintPage.aspx?CID=9203&Page=PRD
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/articles/newsArticlesList.aspx
From this information it seems as though Capitalists have come through again, and via free enterprise technology discovered new ways to find plenty of oil. Scientists and businessmen are finding new ways of creating all types of energy as well, and we will have all the energy we will ever need.
Ralph Hertle
Timelord - 22 Jan 2008 04:22 GMT To: Ralph Hertle Dear God Guys,
none of you seem to remember that when I was born on this earth the oxygen supply was 27% Its now 20% or less all because we keep burning oil you really need to reconsider solar
 Signature Thanks, Timelord
> > Fred: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ralph Hertle --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 Charlie's Place BBS - http://207.136.234.16:8080 telnet://207.136.234.16:8023
Ralph Hertle - 22 Jan 2008 06:19 GMT > To: Ralph Hertle > Dear God Guys, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oil > you really need to reconsider solar Timelord:
Please supply a stat on that. My understanding from 45 years ago was that the percentage was the same 20%.
You are not seeing the total picture.
There is also nuclear, and in America the anti-war types and leftists promoted the U.S. anti-nuclear policy. The result is that licenses for nuclear power stations were not issued. The result was more fossil fuel use.
Then there is the problem of Brazilian government fostered deforestation. Not to mention the deforestation in Ancient times of N. Africa and the Middle East.
Then wind, geothermal, and ocean hydro. And more.
Then hydrogen fuel for engines and fuel cells.
Solar? That's possible, however, the government is kicking in to support various energy types beyond necessity and at greater cost than the product permits. The favoritism makes it possible to win fortunes in the stock market. Solar is currently a waste of resources except for high price niche markets. The land area of the panel/mirror farms to supply major cities is enormous, and the destructive cost to the environment is great. The problem with solar is that eminent domain may cause the breakdown of the private ownership and free trade system for real estate. The use of special tax breaks and subsidies forces taxpayers to use the (so called evil) fossil fuels to earn the extra money to pay the additional taxes. Supporting solar currently is support for increased taxes, bureaucracy, and regulation.
Capitalism is coming through with a terrific range of power generation techniques, and the major task will be to prevent the government from creating government owned and total regulation of the sources of electricity.
The best thing that could happen is to deregulate energy, and reduce all taxes on energy to zero, except the usual corporation taxes (which may be eradicated later).
Ralph Hertle
Timelord - 23 Jan 2008 04:21 GMT >> To: Ralph Hertle >> Dear God Guys, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Ralph Hertle I sorry to bust your bubble on this one, ( 27% was supplied by my 5 grade science book it was written in 1955 ) however I am referring to voltage multiplying solar cells a much smaller array. And you really need to remember that the oil companies tell a lot of lies as they would like nothing better than solar cells to disappear all together...
 Signature Thanks, Timelord --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 Charlie's Place BBS - http://207.136.234.16:8080 telnet://207.136.234.16:8023
Puppet_Sock - 23 Jan 2008 16:08 GMT On Jan 22, 11:21 pm, "Timelord" <timel...@cpbbs.synchro.net.remove-ubo- this> wrote: [snip]
> I sorry to bust your bubble on this one, ( 27% was supplied by my 5 grade > science > book it was written in 1955 ) Do tell us the name and author of this prize. I could use the laugh. Any book that gets the atmospheric content of O2 that wrong in 1955 should have many other howlers.
> however I am referring to voltage multiplying > solar cells > a much smaller array. You should keep reading. But get a good 5th grade science book first. Then, in a couple years when you finish it, start on 6th grade.
Solar cells do not violate conservation of energy. They have fairly annoying limits on maximum efficiency of conversion. And they only work when the sun shines. This has meant that, in Ontario, stations generating electricity with solar cells have not managed to break even at 42 cents/kWhr. This at a time when the at-the-plug price is a bit less than 8 cents/kWhr, the difference being made up in subsidy.
> And you really need to remember that the oil companies > tell > a lot of lies as they would like nothing better than solar cells to > disappear all together... You really need to learn enough science to understand the questions being asked.
You should also remember to point out where any of what anybody here has said is sourced with oil companies. Quite apart from substantiating any claims about oil company lies, which you have not done either. Socks
Saul Levy - 22 Jan 2008 07:00 GMT Wow, 27%! Just how old are you?
Saul Levy
> To: Ralph Hertle >Dear God Guys, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >oil >you really need to reconsider solar Timelord - 23 Jan 2008 04:22 GMT To: Saul Levy I am 52
 Signature Thanks, Timelord
> Wow, 27%! Just how old are you? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>oil >>you really need to reconsider solar --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 Charlie's Place BBS - http://207.136.234.16:8080 telnet://207.136.234.16:8023
G=EMC^2 Glazier - 23 Jan 2008 18:15 GMT New cars burn clean. Their sales will be down because of very tight $$$ What I've been preaching for the last two years in now reality. Bush + the republican Mafia have bleed the USA dry. It had to happen Read Greenspan's book. Bert
Saul Levy - 23 Jan 2008 18:46 GMT Not very old then. I'm 62.
Saul Levy
> To: Saul Levy >I am 52 Timelord - 23 Jan 2008 19:31 GMT To: Saul Levy That's O.k. Saul you allowed to be as old as you like...
 Signature Thanks, Timelord
> Not very old then. I'm 62. > > Saul Levy > >> To: Saul Levy >>I am 52 --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023
Saul Levy - 24 Jan 2008 19:10 GMT One of the women I chat with doesn't think so!
She thinks 30 is OLD! lmao!
Saul Levy
> To: Saul Levy >That's O.k. Saul you allowed to be as old as you like... Timelord - 25 Jan 2008 00:30 GMT To: Saul Levy That's O.K. that must be you grand daughter
 Signature Thanks, Timelord
Newsgroups - Games - Files - Gifs
> One of the women I chat with doesn't think so! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> To: Saul Levy >>That's O.k. Saul you allowed to be as old as you like... --- Synchronet 3.14a-Win32 NewsLink 1.85 Charlie's Place BBS - http://cpbbs.synchro.net:8080 - telnet://cpbbs.synchro.net.16:8023 - ftp://cpbbs.synchro.net:8021/00index.html
Saul Levy - 25 Jan 2008 18:20 GMT No, I have no children. Yet!
Saul Levy
> To: Saul Levy >That's O.K. > that must be you grand daughter Puppet_Sock - 22 Jan 2008 16:13 GMT On Jan 21, 11:22 pm, "Timelord" <timel...@cpbbs.synchro.net.remove-gs5- this> wrote:
> To: Ralph Hertle > Dear God Guys, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oil > you really need to reconsider solar Anybody who was born when the O2 in the atmosphere was 27% would have to be pretty old. Indeed, they'd have to be so old that fingers had not yet evolved.
So, what are you typing with? Socks
nightbat - 21 Jan 2008 05:50 GMT nightbat wrote
Honorary Science Team Officer
>>Honorary Science Team Officer
>>>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:43:11 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>England never did.
> Dr. Henri Wilson > > England had COAL.
>>>Listen, I'm not an advocate of traditional socialism. I like working for >>>myself. However Capitalism has a problem. It requires that the earth's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>capitalism that makes it possible. >>Fred Weiss
> Dr. Henri Wilson > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm nightbat
Thank you Dr. Wilson for your contribution for while many prominent scientists are aware of the grave possible consequences of dwindling viable gas and oil supplies versus Global Warming established data, our desert Saul will have a fit over this, Oh the humanity!
ponder on, the nightbat
Saul Levy - 22 Jan 2008 06:19 GMT Still believing in fairy tales, frootie?
Oh the stupidity!
Saul Levy
> Thank you Dr. Wilson for your contribution for while many >prominent scientists are aware of the grave possible consequences of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ponder on, > the nightbat Puppet_Sock - 21 Jan 2008 16:42 GMT [snip]
> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. Actually, Russia is pretty far down the list. For example, it's fourth in wheat, and out of the top ten in rice. And it isn't a strong player on the export market of any kind o foodstuff.
Your claim, like most of the things you "know" is primarily your own hallucination. Socks
Dr. Henri Wilson - 21 Jan 2008 21:34 GMT >[snip] >> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >isn't a strong player on the export market of any kind o >foodstuff. You're talking about exports not production.
>Your claim, like most of the things you "know" is primarily >your own hallucination. >Socks Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Puppet_Sock - 21 Jan 2008 22:13 GMT > >[snip] > >> Russia is still the world's major grain producer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You're talking about exports not production. Nope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat
> >Your claim, like most of the things you "know" is primarily > >your own hallucination. Still true. Socks
Saul Levy - 21 Jan 2008 16:47 GMT You're just another DOOM AND GLOOM FOREVER! idiot, Henri! There is plenty of energy left in the U.S. Coal? Yep. Oil? Yep. Nuclear may be having problems, but breeder reactors fix that. Solar? Nope. Wind power? Nope. Dams? Nope.
Saul Levy
>Are you a complete idiot. We are almost out of fresh water right now. >Oil has peaked and natural gas reserves whilst currently adequate are known to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) |
|