Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Astronomy / January 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Global Warming is very Correct.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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)