How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Better watch out or the global warming will get yah!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


125 posted 02-15-2010 06:04 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Hmmmm off topic again..... Lets keep to politics.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


126 posted 02-15-2010 07:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”


http://www.dailymail.co.uk   /news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


Of course there is a solution which the Europeans seemed to have found.
According to Mark Steyn the birth rate among its indigenous population
is at about 1.3 which no civilization in history has survived.

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


127 posted 02-15-2010 08:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

civilization will self-destruct long before the climate has a chance to kill us.

Amen, Ron.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


128 posted 02-15-2010 11:32 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant


I am fairly sure we will survive the depletion of something we didn't need to live in the first place and which has polluted the enviroment long enough.  Even if we didn't have a lot of time to prepare I think that would be true.  But we do have a lot of time to prepare.  Just like other changes in technological improvement, happening gradually, this one will happen as well.   I don't see where the threat to our survival comes in.  

The sooner the fossil fuels run dry the better.  The sooner we can quit polluting so much and harming the enviroment that sustains living things to begin with the better.  It might be difficult for humans, but it won't be worse for them in the long run, and certainly won't be worse for the planet.  

Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


129 posted 02-15-2010 11:53 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I am not to worried. US owns most of the Lithium in S.America.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


130 posted 02-16-2010 05:28 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



    
Dear Juju,

          Once again, I guess I'm simply not getting the reference.  Is the lithium for batteries or bipolar disorder?

Curiously enough, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


131 posted 02-16-2010 08:09 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Alfred E. Neumann, Bob.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


132 posted 02-16-2010 01:12 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I don't understand what you are getting at, bob.

Yah we own most of the worlds battery juice, which comes from S. America. Soon (15 yrs) we will see more battery powered cars that can be charged from our own homes or a gas station. Cheaper power that doesn't fund terrorism.

I am just happy we are avoiding Hydrogen fuel cells.


-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


133 posted 02-16-2010 08:55 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Now, Now, Mike!

     I'm unsure of the problem with hydrogen cells.  Apparently you're ahead of me on the science here, Juju.  I'm not happy with the notion of folks running around with lots of hydrogen gas in their tanks, but there may be some say of locking it into some more slowly releasing solid state form that isn't a hydrocarbon.  I mean, we're burning hydrogen now, aren't we, Juju, only we're burning a lot of wasteful secondary products along with it.  The idea would be, the more closely we can get to straight Hydrogen, the better, with the sole byproducts being energy and water, especially if we can do it in a controllable form. Fusion wouldn't be bad either, especially if it could be done on a small scale and with minimal or no radiation.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


134 posted 02-17-2010 06:06 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Fusion wouldn't be bad either, especially if it could be done on a small scale and with minimal or no radiation.

LOL. I'm holding out for a fairy godmother, Bob. It's just about as likely and certainly much more romantic.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


135 posted 02-17-2010 04:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Is your Fairy Godmother as stunning as mine, then, Ron?  Mine has always been a big help in dealing with my Ugly Stepsisters and ferocious gnarly wolves.

     I've been waiting for fusion for 30 years, and I still get spangly little stars in my eyes every time I think of it. Car 54 where are you?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


136 posted 02-17-2010 04:34 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Maybe we’ll all get to go to the ball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power


threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


137 posted 02-17-2010 04:45 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

Juju,

can you elaborate on your comment about TG it wasn't hydrogen fuel cells?
much obliged,
Jeff
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


138 posted 02-17-2010 07:53 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
From Grinch's link: Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear whether an economically viable fusion plant is possible.

Unclear to them maybe. Not to me.

Seriously. Magic is easier.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


139 posted 02-17-2010 09:22 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

TB

Oh my gosh must I? Three reasons.
1)Negative net energy
2)Still pollutes, yah know, bad for hydroxide molecules and still indirectly pollutes.
3)Costs allot of money.

BK

Fusion? I think there is easier ways to harness the power of the sun. I still think batteries are the future.

TBII

Well this was in reference to someone saying that the oil was going to run out.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


140 posted 02-18-2010 02:41 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

According to Crowley, Ron, Magick is not easier.

No one has addressed my question to my satisfaction--why not just PRETEND we have control over climate change, and just start behaving responsibly?

I really don't give a damn what's causing the dis-ease--but if we can do something, anything, to alleviate the symptoms, what's the problem, besides the semantics?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


141 posted 02-18-2010 09:05 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No problem, serenity gal, and perhaps the government will allow us to just pretend we are going to pay all of the higher costs and taxes instituted in the name of battling global warming? THAT is the key behind this.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should take prudent steps and do our part to help the environment...recycling, energy conservation, all of the little things in our lives that we can do individually to at least try to make a difference. Governments, though, are using it as a means for higher taxes, higher costs and a cute way to fill  their coffers by doing their best to instill guilt in all of the foolish people who would complain about such increases. It's not unlike a preacher, screaming "Repent, sinners, and get that money in the collection plate to atone for your sins!" Guilt can be quite a weapon when used effectively...and that is the one area where we have an effective government!
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


142 posted 02-18-2010 03:24 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence. The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones, was regarded as an archbishop in the Church of Global Warming. He was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times. If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.


The learned professor told his interviewer that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. He conceded that he has lost track of many of the relevant papers — that his office was overwhelmed by the clutter of paper. Some of the crucial data to back up scare stories might be lying under other stuff, but he's not sure. An environmental analyst for the BBC said the professor told him that his "strengths" include "integrity" and "doggedness" but not record-keeping and "office tidying." He's just not dogged about keeping things straight.

This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.

Terry Mills, a professor of applied statistics at Britain's Loughborough University, looks at the U.N. panel's data and applies a little skepticism. "The earth," he told London's Daily Mail, "has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last thousand years."

The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him. “


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begin   s-to-unravel//print/


.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


143 posted 02-18-2010 04:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


144 posted 02-18-2010 07:26 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

So which Professor Phil Jones are we to believe?

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


145 posted 02-18-2010 10:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     It all sounds like the same professor Phil Jones, and it all sounds likle the same material.  If you've ever listened to a discussion of alternative methods od presenting a graph or of presenting data to get material across in the most clearly understandable fashion, you would have seenheard the same discussion about five hundred times in different forms before.  As a circumferentially challenged fella, I have had to find various ways of dealing with a graph of my own avoirdupois.  

     For those of you with less of a scientific bent, us fat folk sometimes have to keep track of our weight.  We have a choice of ways to do so.  We can weigh ourselves daily, weekly, we can weigh ourselves with our cloths on, off, at various times of the day and so on.  All of these methods will give us information about how much we weigh.  Some ththods will give us useful information, some will give us confusing information,some methods will give us helpful information, and some information will actually be damaging in our weight management process.  Huan Yi, as a physician, knows this.  He is either being disingenuous, or is failing to apply his knowledge to his understanding of the global warming brouhaha in this case.  The discussion of dealing with the data that has caused the upset among those that are upset about it, is a discussion by Dr. Jones of how to present the data in the most useful fashion for the publication, and not how to conceal the truth.  This is a discussion that has to happen in every publication that presents data, especially one that hasn't done an already well edited job of presenting it in the first place.

     As to which Phil Jones to believe, since there is only a single phil Jones, I would suggest that the question is meaningless.  The question has to do with which publication to believe.  That is a more difficult question to answer, since either side could be correct in actuality.  In looking at the way the information was presented in each article, however, I would point out that the language used in the BBC attributed piece was pretty objective and the language used in The Washington Times Article was pretty inflammatorty.  

quote:



“The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence.


   assertion in advance of fact
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begin  s-to-unravel//print/
quote:

The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones,[...] was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times.



in looking at the BBC article upon which this story is based, I saw no such concession.  Look for yourself, and if you can find that concession, perhaps you can quote it.

     Quite the contrary, Professor Jones is fairly specific about the reasons that such a conclusion are not proven and are not provable at this point, and may never be provable at all.

    This, this conclusion by the Washington Times is, to put it kindly, unsupported conjecture:
  
quote:

If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.



     Speaking of Professor Jones's comments about his difficulty in keeping his office tidy, The Washington Post takes and enormous left field shot at the Professor, attempting to connect his ability as a housekeeper and his ability as a scientist, as though the two were closely linked.  That sound you are hearing is Doctor Einstein rolling over in his grave.

quote:


This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer.



     I thought it was particularly telling how The Washington Times managed to insert that bit about global Warming being a scam in there as well without evening trying to put a single fact in to prove it.  Apparently, since the article has not started to leave the earth gravitation field behind, the notion of grounding assertions in fact has been lefty way way behind as well.

     The Washington Times in this article calls Global Warming "hysteria," "just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel."

     This, of course, may not be quite what they wanted to say, since a good part of America will trust their local news for a decent idea of what to wear the next day; but we are talking about "The Washington Times," here, aren't we, and they can get a bit confused sometimes.  You know those confused weathermen and their confus3ed computer modeling and all that confused science stuff that gives us fairly accurate forcasts.  Never Mind, Washington Times.

     So, John, it sounds like the same Phil Jones to me.  And the same old Sun Yung Moon, bankrolling the same old Washington Times saying the same old stuff.  Who ya gonna believe, Professor Phil Jones or The Reverend Sun Yung Moon?  I know where I'll put my money, even though   the fools can sometimes be right.  

     I actually read both articles, and this time. . . this time the science and the logic actually seemed to come out ahead.  HOO rah!  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


146 posted 02-19-2010 12:09 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
No problem, serenity gal, and perhaps the government will allow us to just pretend we are going to pay all of the higher costs and taxes instituted in the name of battling global warming? THAT is the key behind this.

We're going to pay them, Mike. That's not negotiable.

The real key is when and how. We can do it when it's extremely painful or we can wait and do it when it's lethal. Those aren't great choices, I know, but those are the choices we've left ourselves.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


147 posted 02-19-2010 12:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Of course we are going to pay them, Ron. They don't accept the "pretense" as payment.

Painful or lethal? Just when do you expect that lethal to occur? Within the next couple of decades like Obama and Gore predict? Do you think our paying now will avoid or delay it....or will it just make the governments richer?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


148 posted 02-19-2010 04:10 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I understand I may be letting myself in for a torrent of abuse here, but I'm finding myself a bit on the puzzled side.  I have on occasion worked for the government, as have various other people on the site, and I've heard a lot of talk about graft and stuff, and even seen some overpaid government positions and some abuses of government power and authority.  I've also seen those in the private sector, where they're rewarded hansomly with "bonuses," because the people who get them really know how to play the system very well.  The system is a bit different, of course, but the rewards in the private sphere are usually greater.  In the criminal sphere, which I've also seen,but only been involved in once and then only as a potential kidnap victim as a child, as part of an extortionthing directed at my father,  the same principles seemed to apply.  Sometimes the three spheres seem to cross or get confused a bit, and then everybody gets preturbed, though I'm not sure — on a pragmatic level at least — why, since the principles and sometimes the players are often the same.

     With all of these parallels so obvious (to me at least) and valid (to me, at least) and sensible in terms of general systems theory (and me, at least), I wonder why I've never actually seen an example of what I've been able to identify as "rich government."  This is probably because I've never thought of a government as being able to say to anybody, as rich people are able to say to each other — instead of saying that they are "rich," which they seem to feel uncomfortable saying — that it is "comfortable."

     I have, on occasion, known "rich" people, or been friends with such people.  

     I'm sorry, I believe the notion of a rich government is an oxymoron in the same way that people delight in saying the military intelligence is an oxymoron.  There are simply too many conflicting objectives and priorities for whatever monies there are at hand to provide any level of national comfort.  I state this on the level of an axiom.  It may not in fact be true; but if it isn't, I'd need pretty compelling logic to convice me that it isn't.   Further, I would state as axiomatic that it is impossible that any national cash outlay will ever be enough to satisfy everybody that all the needs are being met at a fair or even a safe level.  If you can give me convincing logical argument to the contrary, I am more than happy to believe otherwise.

     In the meantime, I suspect that the actuality of a Rich Government exists only in the gin soaked  imaginations of those Feverish enough to believe as adults in Snidely Whiplash, in Santa Claus, and in the future of the nuclear hand grenade as the up and coming man-portable anti-personnel weapon of the 21st century.  

     The problem isn't that governments are rich, the problem is that there are so many disagreements about where we need to spend what money we do have.  It may be that the places that spend the most money trying to get that money may not be the places that are the places we need to spend that money.  But the money they spend can sure be powerfully convincing when it's placed in the right hands.

     This is why the recent Sepreme Court decision may be one of the worst decision the supreme court has ever made, when it confused money and free speech.  Money may be many many thing, but it is seldom if ever free.  You may quote me on that.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


149 posted 02-19-2010 08:56 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You're right. Bob. Governments are not rich. Governments are not single entities. Governments are made up of single entities and those single entities are rich and monies collected gets to them, either financially or in terms of power.

Anyone every wonder why multi-millionaires fight for jobs that pay less than what they have in their household budgets? Why would anyone want to go through all that politicians have to go through for pennies? True, some may do it for a call to do their civic duty but how many do you think that is....and how long does it last after they reach Washington. Even on local levels, multi-multi-millionaires spend millions to be mayors or city alderman....and some get kicked out of office on graft charges.

Aside from the financial perks, Bob, like the retirement, the limousines, the health care (that we don't get) and the opportunities, there is the power. THAT is where they are really rich and the driving force of the majority, I believe. What is the best way to get power? Exercise control. The more control you exercise on the people, the more powerful you are...and the richer you are, in that respect. How do you exercise control? That's easy....guilt. Man-made global warming is an exercise of that guilt transference. Make people feel guilty and you control them. The founding fathers sat in their congress to do the poeple's work and then went home to tend their farms. We don't have a lot of farmers in congress these days. I'll bet Jimmy didn't even hoe his own peanuts!

This is not a democrat rant. It's on both sides of the aisle, although it seems that democrats seem to push toward government control over people's lives a little more.

Not rich government, Bob, just rich people that comprise the government...rich in power and control.

It appears to me people may be getting a little tired of that control push and the guilt being pushed on them.

End of my morning rant and off to work.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors