| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/20 |
| 2007/6/29-7/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:47124 Activity:nil |
6/29 How much energy is required to produce a typical 4 door sedan
vs. how much energy will the same sedan use throughout its lifetime?
I'm just curious how much energy is required to extra metal,
refine, melt, shape, weld, assembly, etc. If the cost of energy
(gas) doubles, would the cost of the sedan double? More? Less? |
| 2007/6/26-28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:47072 Activity:high |
6/26 I've just found the ideal peice of motd trollbait, combining peak oil
with "the suburbs suck." Truly gaze upon it, for it is a thing of
beauty.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/06/peak-suburbia.html
\_ What the hell is this guy proposing? That we all cram into the
city? This is highly unfeasible because our cities have evolved
to be a working city rather than a living city, and it simply
cannot scale to a level that'll hold dense population like
Tokyo or NYC. Look, 30% of the energy in the US is spent on
transportation, and by cramming into the city we'll maybe save
1/2 of that, reducing the consumption by maybe 15% overall.
That is not enough to save the mankind from Kuntler's doomsday.
Regardless of his proposals, there will still be huge energy
hogs in sectors like manufacturing and electric generation.
What is this nutso going to propose next, that the government
mandate strict manufacturing laws and that we have a ration
for iPods and computer usage? This is all silly.
\_ It's more than just transportation usage. Cities are much
more energy efficient in other ways as well. For instance look
at that retail space/person chart. All these suburban sprawls
include a ton of infrastructure that isn't as wasteful in
dense areas. (The waste is possible in suburbia for the same
reason the overbuilt homes are possible, land is dirt cheap.)
\_ Is is also "possible" because the people doing the wasting
shift the cost onto others. Does electricity cost more in
in the suburbs? No? Who do you think pays the increased cost
of delivery that all that extra infrastructure requires?
Same goes for water, roads and a host of other things.
\_ I'm just saying it isn't transportation energy alone.
Building shit costs energy. Making raw materials takes
energy. Outter suburbia is a system that works because
energy is so damn cheap that the wasted energy use is
insignificant compared to how damn cheap the land is.
\_ Sure, but it also works because it is subsidised.
\_ He's proposing urban redesign, restting zoning to make sense, and
making cities places where people actually want to live. His
Home from Nowhere covers this.
\_ Good luck convincing the Americans that Kuntler's
Utopia is good for Americans.
\_ Kunstler's ideas have been embraced by some communities.
Often, it's the developers, not the residents or potential
residents who oppose the Urban Renewal movement.
\_ Kuntler's Utopia-> dense shared living-> government
control of land usage -> anti-free market ->
communism. Therefore Kuntler is a communist.
Communist = bad. Kuntler = bad. -capitalist
\_ Your reasoning -> absolute deregulation -> free
market without conscience -> reinstitution of
indentured servitude, debtors prisons -> robber
barons and industrial age imperialist rape ->
sale of Universities to highest bidder -> closing of
csua -> no more motd. Therefore, you hate America.
Why do you hate America?
\_ "dense shared living -> gov't control" doesn't really
follow at all. See SF, NY, condos, etc. Gov't always
"controls land usage" in some way, zoning etc.
\_ Some of the scariest totalitarian minds I have seen work
as urban designers in Europe somewhere. There was this
one clown who advocated diversity and change in political
order as the ultimate good to redesign societies towards.
As in, having democracies everywhere is bad because it
creates a political monoculture. Instead, we must have
a lot of exciting mad social experiments. --- ilyas
a lot of exciting mad political experiments. --- ilyas
\_ Wasn't that done in the CSUA motd?
\_ truely awesome.
\_ No one is going to pay attention to this article because it doesn't
have a happy Hollywood ending. Sorry.
\_ Wow. Can we give this guy a CSUA account?
\_ I always like his buzzwords like Cheez Doodle based economy, which
was inspired when he was sitting behind some grossly obese family
who were trying to buy Cheez Doodles and had maxed out all of their
credit cards. |
| 2007/6/25-28 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/History/WW2] UID:47068 Activity:low |
6/26 I have concluded that the most effect troll baits are, in the
order of effectiveness:
-GWB & his Iraq War
\_ you gotta admit, Iraq is a major issue.
-WW2 superiority of Germans, Russians, Americans
\_ i dont think that was such a bad troll.
\_ That's not really a troll. Apparently a few motders are WWII nuts,
and like talking about WWII, but if you notice the discussion is
very civil.
-The superiority of suburbs vs. cities
-I love I hate free market
\_ Don't forget gun control, a frequent motd favorite
\_ Don't forget "Is global warming real?", "Is global warming caused by
human?" and "Is hybrid vehicles the/a/not a solution to global
warming?" A now-less effective troll is "Are we running out of
oil?" which has been superceded by the global warming trolls.
\_ I found out today it's "superseded". who knew. |
| 5/20 |
| 2007/6/20-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:47028 Activity:nil |
6/21 http://tinyurl.com/35x68k (canada.com) http://csua.com/?entry=46455 Heroic scientist challenges liberal scientific Establishment on global warming - drudgereport readers one step ahead! \_ Hi troll. |
| 2007/6/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46990 Activity:moderate |
6/17 Thanks a lot GWB for your fucking idiotic ethanol and free-market
petro initiative:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19276523
\_ Stop encouraging the terrorists.
\_ I still don't understand (well, actually I do, it's just that
the reason is stupid) why we slap hefty tariffs on ethonal
from Brazil, where they're able to produce it much more cheaply
and efficiently (directly from sugar rather than corn.) -John
\_ I read that even their version is still not nearly as
efficient as plain old gasoline while requiring huge amounts
of land.
\_ that is not a fair comparison. We heavily subsidize petroleum
and coal industry that it's not even funny. When I say
'subsidies,' I count relaxzation of tail gas and other
environmental regulation as a "subsidies."
\_ Because the point of ethanol isn't to become "energy independent"
the point is to shift massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to
corporations like ADM. But the message "We've figured out a
way to enrich ADM shareholders" doesn't have the same catchy
popular appear as "an energy independent America"
\_ the hell? there is NOTHING FREE-MARKET about this ethanol thing
and I still don't understand all these so-called liberals who
pride themselves been more intelligent than those from Bush
Countries fell for it. Fact: right now, government subsides
about $1 per gallon for fuel-grade ethanol. Fact: we impose 18%
tariff on ethanol imports. IMHO, all these money goes to corn
producers instead of true innovations bothers me. This is why
I don't believe this entire EthOH thing. |
| 2007/6/14-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46938 Activity:high |
6/13 Guess what liberal urbanists-- automobile is not going away! Boohoo!
Go ahead and cry you cry babies:
http://www.ti.org/vaupdate56.html
\_ the author clearly doesn't understand the concept of peak oil. -tom
\_ tom clearly didn't read #1 carefully. We've already tapped
and used up 1 out of 6-7 units of estimated oil on earth.
It may be true that the rest is expensive to extract but as
technology improves they'll be cheaper to extract again.
This explains why even though as oil gets harder and harder
to extract, our production is still keeping up with demand,
and the price/barrel of oil hasn't yet gone up the roof.
\_ http://www.ioga.com/PDF_Files/98%20to%20July%2006.pdf
\_ http://swivel.com/graphs/show/1000024
What do you call that?
\_ Look, I don't know when peak oil is going to happen. It
might have already happened, it might be five years away,
it might be 15. But it's not a whole lot more than that.
If you compare the marginal cost of extracting oil from
a 1950 Texas oil field (drill a hole and get a bucket),
with the cost and time required to build up infrastructure
to, for example, extract oil from the Candian oil sands,
it should be obvious how large the problem facing us is.
Technology is never going to make it as easy to get oil
from rocks as it is to get it from a well. Demand will
keep going up, and production will plateau. Then what?
The invisible hand won't solve this one for you, any more
than it solved the tree shortage problem on Easter Island.
-tom
\_ If history taught us anything, it's that making 'never'
predictions that don't actually follow from laws of
physics is stupid.
\_ Does it count as a law of physics that you can burn
oil but you can't burn sand? -tom
\_ You can't burn water either, but that doesn't
affect the viability of hydroelectric power.
\_ It does affect the viability of hydroelectric
power for use in passenger automobiles. -tom
\_ Are you saying shale oil is somehow magically
different and can't be used in cars? WTF!
\_ Uh, no, try to keep up. Water can't be
used in cars. Shale oil can be used, but
when you look at it on a BTU/kilo basis,
it's really not close to competitive with
well oil. -tom
\_ So when you said "you can burn oil but
can't burn sand" you were just being
dumb? Check.
\_ Uh, no, you still aren't getting it.
Well oil is *very easy to turn into
a fuel*. You can light it with a
match. Sand/rock infused with oil
*is not very easy to turn into a
fuel*. You need huge energy-intensive
operations to extract the usable
fuel source. The best technology
can hope to do is get the net energy
difference within an order of
magnitude. -tom
\_ the author's argument around point #2 that there *is* a
substitute for oil is very weak. nuclear is no substitute as
a vehicle fuel.
\_ Electric vehicles.
\_ Cars maybe, but theres the whole issue of switching the
infrastructure over, as well as battery life and vehicle
range.
But what about about planes? Without oil, commercial
aviation is dead.
\_ you forgot to mention plastics
\_ Blimps!
\_ I'm Blip Guy #1 Fan! You rock, Blimp Guy!
\_ You don't need that much additional infrastructure to
charge the vehicle in your garage with 110V or 240V
overnight, which is what most people will do. We do
need some new "electric stations", but they won't be as
needed as gas stations where everyone must go now.
\_ It is pretty funny that this article is only two years old and
most of its predictions are already wrong. Gasoline prices have
gone through the roof, people are driving less and the cites
are booming. The only one he might end up being right on is
the idea that there are good substitutes for gasoline: the
jury is still out on that one.
\_ We have nowhere near enough power for everyone to
plug in their electric car at home; and how do you
deal with long trips?
\_ Above already said we'd need a few stations, just
not nearly as many as now for those long trips.
\_ yes, and how would it work? You drive 100
miles, and then plug in and sit there for
two hours while your battery charges?
\_ That's where plug-in hybrid comes to play.
http://www.edrivesystems.com
\_ which requires gas.
\_ For daily commute, no it uses energy
from the electric grid. For the
occasional long trips or when you
forgot to plug-in, yes it uses energy
from gasoline.
\_ the electric grid requires gas.
\_ Check out point #2 in
http://www.edrivesystems.com/faq.html
\_ California's "clean electric
system" is predominantly
natural gas.
\_ Depends on which year
you're looking at:
http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/mar.html
http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2007/may.html
Anyway, natural gas is
even cleaner than coal,
which further makes the
faq's point.
\_ and further misses the
point that a plug-in
hybrid is dependent
on cheap oil.
\_ ???
\_ What? As I pointed
out a few posts
above, it depends on
oil only during the
occasional long
trips or when you
forget to plug-in.
It's not a complete
solution. Nobody
said it's a silver
bullet.
\_ That's why I said charging them overnight, when
the electricity demand is low currently.
\_ it wouldn't be low anymore if everyone were
charging their cars.
\_ Then good, higher percentage of the grid's
capacity will be utilized around the clock
instead of only during daytime.
\_ try the calculation.
\_ What calculation do you need to show
that higher usage will utilize more
capacity? Or do you think that higher
\_ What kind of calculation do you need
to demonstrate that higher usage will
utilize more capacity? Or do you have
some calculation to show that higher
usage will utilize less capacity?
\_ calculate the capacity required
to charge everyone's car at the
same time.
\_ Thanks to http://csua.com, here's what
I posted last October:
(http://csua.com/?entry=44738
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv quote vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
\_ Here's the math. Say during one full day's driving,
your car needs to output the equivalent of 200hp lasting
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capturing any of this
via re-generative brakes. That's 33.3hp-hr. Say you
charge your car between 10pm-8am. Then the charger
needs to provide power at 3.33hp. That's 2485.7W,
which is about the same as two hair driers. Of course,
since neither charging nor motor-driving are 100%
efficient, in reality you need more than two hair
driers' power to provide 200hp-10min's of driving.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ /quote ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also see the wind energy post
from someone else in the same
thread.
See also the wind energy post by
someone else in the same thread.
\_ Wow, you are so afraid of honest debate that you just deleted my
message? I guess I will repost it, though if you are going to be
that childish, why not just post it on a read only blog?
I said that three of his four points have already been shown
to be wrong, even in the short two years since he posted this.
Oil prices have continued to rise, driving is down and the
cities are booming. The only one of his predictions that has
even a chance of coming true is the one about alternative
replacements for gasoline and the jury is still out on that one.
\_ I didn't delete your post, someone else did. Your silly
cost/barrel chart proves that the cost/barrel goes up, but
we all know that the cost/barrel has little correlation with
the cost/@the pump. Only time will tell who is right, but
throughout the history of mankind almost all apocalyptic
predictions (including the ones from Kunstler) have been
proven to be wrong. The market will self adjust, it always
does. Sorry but you urbanites are too dense to realize this.
\_ Sure, it will adjust and those that bet on the continuation
of cheap oil will go through a painful re-adjustment period.
\_ What does "the market will self-adjust" mean? When the
Norse colony in Greenland died out, that could be construed
as "the market" adjusting to poor resource usage. That's
great for the market. It wasn't so great for the Norse in
Greenland who starved to death. -tom
\_ It's curious you use the example of the Norse Greenland
colonies since such colonies were never economically
self-sufficient, had little economic reason to exist,
and certainly were not established for 'market reasons.'
\_ How is any of that relevant? The U.S. wasn't
established for market reasons and isn't economically
self-sufficient. The free market doesn't guarantee
the continued existence of the U.S., or continued
existence of U.S. culture, or the continued existence
of the people anywhere who rely on cheap fossil fuels.
The world won't end because of peak oil, but it is
entirely possible that societies, including ours,
could collapse as a result of it. -tom
\_ The US wasn't established for market reasons?
I bet to differ. It is the main reason it was
I beg to differ. It is the main reason it was
established. As for society, it existed before
oil and it will exist in some form after oil.
\_ Yes, it will. The only question is how much
pain it will take to get to the "after oil"
state. The more quickly we move now, the
less pain there will be. If we keep going ahead
with the assumption that technology will save
us, it will be extremely painful. -tom
\_ I ll tell you what tom. Are you willing to make
a concrete enough prediction about peak oil and
our society that you will be willing to put money on
it? Put it here on the motd, and if we truly disagree
about odds of collapse, one of us will eventually
make some money off this. If you can't make things
concrete enough for a bet it's just vague
it? Put it here on the motd, and if we truly
disagree about odds of collapse, one of us will
eventually make some money off this. If you can't
make things concrete enough for a bet it's just vague
doommongering. -- ilyas
\_ I see nothing wrong with vague doom mongering.
It can be kinda fun and sometimes someone posts
a link with interesting info. Everything doesn't
have to be a bet.
\_ I bet that nominal gasoline prices will double
in the next five years. Put $20 on it? -ausman
\_ I bet they won't. Here's $20 that says gas
will not be $8/gallon in 2012. --dim
\_ Average gasoline price in the US is $3.076
accoring to the DOE:
http://http://www.csua.org/u/h0a
So doubling would be $6.15. Still up for it?
-ausman
\_ It's $3.50 where I am. So how about
$7.00? I don't know the market in BFE.
\_ Nope. I am being very generous as
it is. -ausman
\_ is that an inflation adjusted doubling? If
not we'll see gas go up by nearly that
amount just due to inflation. sucker bet.
\_ you think prices nearly double in five
years based on inflation? What do you
think the inflation rate is?
\_ Dear ausman, if you are willing to put in
another $20, I ll take that bet along with
dim. -- ilyas
\_ $20 on $6.15/gallon according to DOE on
6/15/2012 it is. -ausman
\_ I'm already betting on peak oil; I have
investments in solar (on my house as well as
money in solar companies), and I'm moving money
to countries which are less oil-dependent (such
as Brazil). And I'm already making money off
it, thanks. -tom
\_ Funny, I am betting on peak oil by putting
money in the Oil Majors, who hold lots of
oil reserves, the value of I expect to
oil reserves, the value of which I expect to
soar.
\_ How about this, ilyas, why don't you
short oil futures for your side of the
bet. -tom
\_ pp wasn't me. For future reference
any thread where I sign my name, I will
consistently sign my name. -- ilyas
\_ fine. Now are you shorting oil
futures? -tom
\_ I don't think shorting oil futures
would be a wise move. Perhaps
you misunderstood the point of
my proposal. Making a bettable
prediction makes very crisp and
clear the exact nature of our
disagreement. We may both agree
oil is going to get more expensive,
but we may disagree about the
magnitude, etc. I don't just
mean 'put your money behind
energy sources you believe in,' but
'put your money behind specific
testable claims about peak oil
you are making.' If you aren't
willing to put money behind
a concrete claim, you aren't
really making any claims. -- ilyas
really making any claims. ausman's
bet is a good example of the
kind of thing I am talking about.
-- ilyas
\_ I'm not making claims, other
than that peak oil is a real
phenomenon and it will greatly
impact the U.S. at some point.
I don't have enough detailed
information to say whether
that's now or 20 years from
now. I wouldn't be willing
to get on ausman's side of the
above bet.
But I am confident enough in
the general trend to invest
significant personal finances
based on my understanding of
the issues. I guess you
think a silly MOTD bet would
be more meaningful. Whatever.
-tom
\_ The author does the usual sloppy job of trying to "debunk" peak
oil with stupid statements about known reserves in 1920, and
ignoring facts like how oil production in the USA has been declining
for 35 years straight now, even with vastly improved extraction
and exploration technology. Again, the problem is not "running
out of oil". There may still in fact be 7 trillion or 100 trillion
or 100 quadrillion barrels of recoverable oil on the planet. The
problem is that we can't pump it up quickly or producing it is a net
energy loser. The end result is less net energy available for our
growing economy. A simple analogy would be trying to get rich by
stealing gold from Fort Knox 1 gram at a time. Even though there
might be billions of dollars sitting in the vault, you'll never get
rich this way. |
| 2007/6/1-5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:46831 Activity:nil |
6/1 Boeing scientists create 40% efficient solar cells:
http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html
\_ What's the efficiency of solar cells in typical roof-top solar
panels these days? |
| 2007/5/31-6/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46808 Activity:high |
5/31 Zinc will run out in
2037
What will we do then?
http://tinyurl.com/25pfg3
\_ Mine the Moon!
\_ Recycle
\_ In 2042, the Zinc Wars began.
\_ All your zinc are belong to us!
\_ Take off every zinc!
\_ PEAK ZINC!!!!11!!
\_ Don't edit my haiku a-holes ...
\_ Greetings Mr. Ehrlich! It's been a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager
\_ Invade middle East
Destroy Iran's nuke stockpile
Can't defend their zinc
\_ Sync sing zinc.
\_ Come back, zinc, come back! |
| 2007/5/31-6/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46807 Activity:nil |
5/31 Sometimes air pollution is good. Get high for free for the whole city!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070531/wl_nm/italy_drugs_dc |
| 2007/5/29-6/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46783 Activity:moderate |
5/29 Global Warming: It's not just a prediction anymore!
\_ It's not. I was shocked to see tangible effects when I was
in S. America last year. Most people will also confirm pretty
drastic climate change over the last few years there. -John
\_ Climate changes. That is not in dispute. The issue is if the
climate is changing mostly to due human activity or if it is
mostly due to natural causes and more importantly, "Is there
anything we can do about it and should we even try?"
\_ Whether or not climate change is due to humans, man is
certainly a major factor in ozone depletion, with
huge and tangible results in Chile, where people laugh at
you if you buy sunscreen < 40-50. There are also
enough related man-made factors (for example, if you are
into astronomy, you'll know that there are very few spots
where the view's not impacted by atmospheric -- particles,
not light -- pollution) that have arisen in the last 20-30
years to make one thoughtful even if you don't believe in
all them fuzzy scientists. -John
\_ I'm a big fan of clean air and not destroying the ozone layer.
(And clean water tables and non-toxic food, too). That has
little to nothing to do with the global warming scare. BTW,
last I checked SPF 35 reduces UV rays by over 99% so those
people spreading on SPF 5000 are wasting their money.
\_ It has nothing to do with it as far as you know. You
missed my point, which is that here are two massive
environmental phenomena largely attributable to human
activity, so it's not a far stretch to "the arguments
postulating human pollution as a major source of global
warming are plausible." Hmm indeed. As for SPF, it has
nothing to do with the quantity of radiation it blocks,
but rather with the time it effectively blocks it vs.
your skin's natural protection. That's fine, though, you
go ahead and hang out with SPF 35 the next time you're
outdoors in Australia/Argentina. -John
\_ Because humans create particulate matter which has a
regional effect we should assume humans create non-
particulate matter that has a global effect? Are
humans a plausible cause of climate change? Sure.
Does that mean humans *are* the cause of any current
climate change? No. Current global warming scarist
have no explanation for previous climate changes much
more extreme than anything currently claimed to be
going on. Nor do they have any scientific basis to
conclude that what is currently going on is more
than normal and perfectly natural drift in a chaotic
environment. As far as SPF ratings, I'll defer to your
SPF guruness and be sure to apply SPF 5K the next time
I'm in Australia or Argentina. Thanks for the tip.
\_ One thing for sure is that rise of CO2 concentration in
atmosphere is due to "human activites." And to think
we can continue to emit CO2 to the air without any
consequences is laughable.
\_ Do the math. The additional CO2 in the atmosphere
as a percentage of atmosphere is trivial. PPM is
"parts per million". You can figure out the rest.
I put "human activites" in quote because it is a misnomer.
The reality is that most of these rise in CO2 in
atmosphere is due to 5% of human population concentrated
in America and Europe. And right now, *EVERYONE* is
\_ So you think 1.6 billion people packed into a
relatively small area of China or 1.2ish billion
in India aren't responsible for a large chunk of
human created CO2?
\_ Please educate yourself about the subject. The
vast majority of human generated atmospheric CO^2
present is due to industrial uses, not from
people breathing. It is widely accepted that this
CO^2 is primarily from Europe and the US. The
argument is primarily about who is responsible
for this legacy emission and who should have to
bear the financial cost of paying for that.
suffering the consequences. The worse part is that our
entire global warming debate has concenterated on putting
the blame and the cost of curbing it squarely on the
developing nations. As rsult, I once an environmentalist
\_ You mean like how Kyoto is entirely about curbing
emissions in the US and EU?? What?
don't want to part of this Global Warming debate. Let
China and India pollute and freely emit CO2 for next 100
years, then we'll talk. kngharv
\_ Uh what? Why would you want China & India to
freely pollute? Are you being sarcastic? If GW
+CO2 is serious and human caused then it is truly
a global problem that *all* nations must take
action against.
\_ Yes, that is the "issue" that oil companies and the people
who love them are trying to get Rush Limbaugh and Bill
O'Reilly to keep bringing up. But it's no longer an issue
of serious scientific debate. -tom
\_ Of course it is a subject of serious scientific debate.
Good Science is not determined by political concensus but by
experiment and evidence. Nancy telling us she saw a melting
glacier is not proof of anything except how much tax money
she's wasting on personal junkets around the world. I wonder
what Nancy's carbon foot print is recently?
\_ Actually this is an unfortunately naive view of modern
science. Even the 'hard sciences' are dominated severely
by consensual narratives and cliques. The rational
response to the global warming debate is to bet on the
outcome. See here: http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html
-- ilyas
\_ Ok, readily granted that "modern science" is really a
crock and all about pleasing the grant sources but that
is precisely the reason we end up with bad science
producing things like Gore's movie or IPCC reports that
change dramatically every few years and people who hold
a particular perspective calling for the ouster from the
halls of science of those who disagree with them, using
holocaust like terms to smear them. It is precisely
this sort of activity that should give any clear
thinking person serious pause before swallowing junk
political science from the IPCC.
\_ Aside from distortions from the popular media,
political considerations, and funding sources, there
are two additional reasons to be sceptical about
are two additional reasons to be skeptical about
(any) claims on the global warming issue.
(a) The 'pundit effect' -- there is no penalty for
being wrong.
(b) Establishing causation is extremely difficult
even in 'relatively simple' domains like internal
medicine. I have some first-hand experience with how
causal claims get established in medicine and
epidemiology, and it's pretty atrocious. The
appropriate response to a causal claim in any
complex domain is extreme scepticism.
complex domain is extreme skepticism.
-- ilyas
\_ Nice red herring. There clearly *isn't* a political
consensus (except in the U.S., a consensus to do nothing
about it), but there *is* a scientific consensus, to the
extent that that term has any meaning. -tom
\_ Of course there is a political concensus. IPCC. By
definition anything written by political lackeys is
political. The sky is still blue even if you call it
purple. The IPCC being a http://UN.org is by definition
political. And where you get the idea that US has a
concensus to do nothing I don't know since there is
vigorous debate across the nation that has seen some
states, such as CA, individual counties, cities, etc
taking local action towards reduced emissions under the
name of GW. Seriously, stop reading KOS or whatever
and join Reality. You'll be happier and less bitter.
\_ Yes, you were witness to last wobble of earth's
precession and can attest to this as a fact. Oh wait..
No one alive was. It is every 26,000 years
\_ Oooooh! They've got a new "possible explanation"!
It's not the sun getting hotter any more? It's the
precession of the Earth? Wow. You a smarty.
Ye gods, this is awesome. google for "orbital variance
theory". Not nearly as amusing as timecube, but about
as clear.
\_ No. It is simply unknown. There is no explanation,
only hypothesis for previous ice ages and warm periods,
same as today. --didn't write precession comment
\_ and of course, the only truly reliable scientific evidence
is anecdotal. There's no way they could compute or measure
the effect of earth's precession, because none of those
damn scientists lived 26,000 years. -tom |
| 2007/5/18-22 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46688 Activity:nil |
5/18 Dubya may reward Tony Blair's loyalty with World Bank post
http://tinyurl.com/29flyc (dailymail.co.uk)
\_ Predicted on the MOTD, May 16:
\_ Predicted on the MOTD:
http://csua.com/2007/05/16/#46662 |
| 2007/5/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46684 Activity:very high |
5/17 Southern ocean saturated with CO2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html
"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of
this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through
2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this
really quite alarming."
\_ Which ironically shows how wrong this particular scientific model
is. It's amazing how time after time these models prove wrong,nd
yet no one is connecting the dots.
\_ By "amazing", I assume you mean "how science works"... Their
models are turning out to be far too conservative. The irony
is in the claims of alarmism..
is in the claims of alarmism.. --scotsman
\_ I at least am quite familiar with how science works. My last
job (just departed) was in scientific simulation. In
particular of simulation of radiation interaction with human
tissue for oncology. And if my models were more than 3% off,
it was completely unacceptable. Yet in the latest IPCC
report, the estimate for ocean rise is dramatically less than
it was in the previous one. Furthermore, if your results are
wrong, it means you have a broken model, and you fundamentally
can't make reasonable predictions with a broken model. -emarkp
\_ Are you going to dig up Jewish corpses full time? How
much are your CORBA payments?
\_ So... If your models were 3% off, it was unacceptable and..
what? You ran more experiments? You changed your model?
Or you said "Well shit, I guess that proves that radiation
has no effect on cancerous tissue"? --scotsman
\_ The doctors would threaten to throw our software out the
window. -emarkp
\_ So, another parallel that isn't... --scotsman
\_ Hi anonymous troll! -emarkp
\_ I posit that you are unconvinceable, since no
model will ever be accurate enough for you.
\_ You're wrong. My belief in climate started
with skepticism, moved to acceptance (even of
anthropgenic warming), then back to skepticism
of man's cause, and now I simply don't believe
there is warming. All of those changes in my
interpretation have come from my own
investigation of the data. -emarkp
\_ Have you checked out the Stern report?
The expected cost of even the conservative
scenarios where AGW is real far far
exceeds the cost of doing something about
it. Why is normal risk analysis thrown
out the window only in this case?
\_ Odd, I never see risk analysis on this,
it's typically, "don't you want to help
the earth"? -emarkp
\_ You aren't looking very hard at all.
Google "stern report global warming"
\_ Oh yeah, that looks fun. A 645
page report. No thanks. -emarkp
\_ Odd. You say, "I never see
risk analysis." Then you
are presented with a very
prominent peice of risk
analysis, and declare that
you won't read it.
\_ 645 pages?!? Sorry no. I
looked into it and it looks
pretty sketchy. In
particular, the claim
summarized is that it would
cost 1% GDP to prevent the
problems of GW, but 20% if we
don't stop it. Skimming the
first chapter it seems just a
rehash of previous claims.
Considering Kyoto wasn't
going to solve anything and
cost a ton, I simply don't
buy this. And what does it
claim about China and India?
-emarkp
(Oh and then I find this on
the wiki:
Professor Richard Tol, an environmental economist and
lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), said that "If a student of mine were to
hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I
were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for
diligence; but more likely I would give him an 'F' for
fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics
mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of
Economics simply should not make. (...) Stern
consistently picks the most pessimistic for every
choice that one can make. He overestimates through
cherry-picking, he double counts particularly the risks
and he underestimates what development and adaptation
will do to impacts.")
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm
\_ Please don't buy the Green hype;
there are plenty of selfish reasons
to want head off AGW. Unless, of
course, you're buying real estate on
high ground in the hopes of owning a
future beach house.
\_ I'm more interested in clean air.
Quit the crap about CO2 and let's
get rid of brown air. -emarkp
\_ a.k.a. air with the mark of cain
\_ a.k.a. air with the Mark of Cain
\_ What sources led you to your disbelief?
\_ Says the man that believes in Joseph Smith's magic plates.
\_ I'm not proposing them as a scientific theory. -emarkp
\_ You know, they keep changing their predictions for
earthquakes in the Bay Area, too, but somehow I'm willing
to believe that there will be one in the future. -tom
\_ But if they predicted one tomorrow, which didn't happen,
and the day after, which didn't happen, and then in one
year (and there was one in 6 months), would you believe
them if they predicted one on a certain date? -emarkp
\_ Your suggested parallel isn't. --scotsman
\_ It's a bit closer than tom's, but hey, like I
care. -emarkp
\_ it's been well established that you don't care
about reality. -tom
\_ hah! Nice troll tom. Go back to your cage.
-emarkp
\_ Tom may be a troll, but it appears that
anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
\_ No, people who post anonymously but
call me out by name are trolls.
-emarkp
\_ I didn't post anonymously or call
you out. -tom
\_ JUST A NATURAL CYCLE!!!!! GIVE ME MY HUMMER BACK!!!!!!!!1!!!!
\_ You may find http://realclimate.org helpful. |
| 2007/5/15 [Science/GlobalWarming, Transportation/Bicycle] UID:46641 Activity:nil |
5/15 If everyone got rid of their life destroying entirely manufactured
autos of all sorts and bikes and just USED FEET we would solve the
traffic problem, CO2/GW, and oil problem all in one hit. USE FEET!
Nothing is cleaner, safer, higher density or healthier for you to
move around.
\_ Mr. Comma and Mr. Hyphen would like a word with you now.
\_ Soon you will realize that really, the answer is to hike off
to some snowbound place and freeze to death. FREEZE SELF!
Most other self-elimination methods release some carbon and
waste resources with investigation, disposal etc. Perhaps
weighting yourself securely with natural stone and jumping into the
ocean would also be acceptable, to help feed our embattled marine
ecosystem. |
| 2007/5/14-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46625 Activity:nil |
5/14 One danger of tabbed-browsing in IE7
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.66.html#subj6 |
| 2007/5/11-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46594 Activity:nil |
5/11 Mars also facing global warming:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
\_ So says the science editor of the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times.
Mars != Earth. The leed is misleading bullshit. Can't speak
to the underlying research. Haven't seen it.
\_ That's been known for a while. The NASA WAG is that the albedo has
darkened due to storm patterns, so it's absorbing more energy.
-emarkp
\_ I've also heard planet wobbling used to explain it away.
Not sure if the multiple explanation makes me more likely to
discount it as evidence of solargenic :) warming or less. |
| 2007/5/11-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46588 Activity:nil |
5/11 Have you seen this nuke?
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070508/full/070508-2.html |
| 2007/5/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Electric] UID:46552 Activity:high |
5/7 A typical house is responsible for the emission of more than three tons
of carbon annually, compared with about 1.5 tons for the typical car,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472719
\_ So, if you and your family spend 2/3 of the time at home
and 1/3 of the time in your car, both are about the same,
eh? What a stupid comparison. Still, I do believe homes
in CA are horribly inefficient.
\_ New homes in CA tend to be very energy efficient. Where'd you
get the idea otherwise?
\_ Not only that, but since the climate is so mild in CA, homes here
probably use far less energy for air conditioning and heating
than avg.
\_ While new homes tend to be more energy efficient they also
tend to be bigger. It's also pretty easy to take an older
home and make it efficient (double pane windows, better
insulation, these things aren't that expensive). Plus
newer homes are more likely to have AC even in climates
like the Bay Area where really you don't need AC.
\_ I've lived in some old houses and no, slapping on double
panes and some fiber glass isn't going to help compared
to how modern houses are built. You're just putting lip
stick on a pig. It's still a pig. I don't know which
part of the Bay Area you're in, but the parts I've lived
in have hit 100+ more than a few times over summers and
temps 85-100 are common enough. It hits 85 and I'm
turning on the AC.
\_ You turn on the AC at 85? Generally I find that just
getting cool air into the house at night will keep
the house cool enough during the day up to 95.
\_ Not if it is 80+ at night.
\_ I live in California and don't even have air
conditioning. The ocean a few blocks away is my
air conditioning.
\_ Not everyone lives 'a few blocks away' from the
ocean.
\_ But what's the typical car-to-house ratio?
\_ Thank god I don't live in the typical house.
\_ I line-dry my laundary and I use my gas drier maybe 5 times a
year. -- !OP
\_ Carbon Dioxide is plant food. Stop obsessing about it.
\_ They call it pollution... we call it life.
\_ cut your carbon release. stop breathing. |
| 2007/5/2-4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46507 Activity:nil |
5/2 Top secret memo from Paul Wolfowitz to World Bank Staff!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3827
\- ken rogoff is a chess grandmaster. for the somewhat nasty spat
between rogoff and joseph stiglitz, see:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Articles/Econ
[also world bank related] |
| 2007/4/30-5/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46481 Activity:nil |
4/30 Woman must pay $2000 to clean up broken CFL bulb.
http://csua.org/u/iky
\_ This article is a load of crappe. It's probably
still a good idea to remove mercury from CFL though
\_ Sure it would be "good" to remove mercury from CFL, but
zero point energy would also be "good." Doesn't mean it's
happening anytime soon.
\_ Holy crap. I realize mercury might be necessary to get such
crazy efficiency, but why oh why would you distribute that much
of it. It seems like a huge liability which puts a lot of people
and the environment at risk. -mrauser
\_ The article is a little confusing, but part of the point was
5 mg of mercury is nothing. Requiring a HAZMAT to clean
up a CFL is ludicous. However, the factory creating the
bulbs may contaminate it's vicinity, and the bulbs may
contaminate landfills. So it's also ironic that groups with
a history of over-the-top mercury scaremongering are now
pushing CFLs.
\_ In the U.S., most mercury contamination comes from...
<wait for it>...coal-burning electrical plants! |
| 2007/4/30-5/4 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46480 Activity:nil |
4/30 "Solar rises over Fog City - Solar panels are now so efficient that
fog no longer mandates remaining on the grid"
http://www.csua.org/u/il0 (SFGate.com)
\_ I very much want to put these on top of my apartment, but it's still
not cheap enough. Cool advances, though. |
| 2007/4/27-5/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46467 Activity:nil |
4/27 Now Forbes is spreading the liberal Global Warming lie:
http://members.forbes.com/global/2007/0507/066.html
\_ MOTD has gotten to the point where I can't tell if the op
is a ranty neocon or a bitter moderate
\_ You don't think op could be a bitter far-lefty? That
was my first guess.
\_ I would have guess smug far lefty.
\_ Oh, I think we're smug all around the political spectrum
\_ Mission Accomplished! |
| 2007/4/27-5/1 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Science, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46465 Activity:nil |
4/27 Commentary on Aristole found in the Archimedes Palimpsest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6591221.stm |
| 2007/4/26-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46457 Activity:high |
4/26 We keep hearing every year about how gas prices are higher because
of reduced refinery capacity caused by everything from Katrina to
fire and power outages. When it happens every year, it's not
unusual and I'm inclined to believe these are lies. Why do market
analysts continue to repeat these lies?
Also, interesting stat:
"On Apr. 13, the California government's State Board of
Equalization reported that for the first time in 14 years,
gasoline consumption declined in California for all but three
months in 2006. "
\_ What makes you think they are lies? People can complain about there
not being enough refineries, but those same people will keep you
from building one anywhere near them.
\_ Because every year we hear about these "unusual events". If
they happen every year then they are not "unusual events".
They are status quo. No one has said capacity isn't there.
They say it is offline because of these "unusual events".
\_ c.f. Enron
\_ If there is a 1% chance on an "unusual event" happening at any
1 refinery per yer, and there are 100 refineries, how many
unusual events can you expect per year?
\_ Yes, so it's predictively usual in aggregate.
\_ Do you think 1% of refineries being offline is really
affecting production?
\_ Obviously I made these numbers up. But with very
tight supply and very inelastic demand, sure.
\_ I've heard quite frequently that under optimum conditions we
have just barely enough refining capacity. Therefore any
event causes a disruption. This is the same as saying we
don't have enough capacity.
\_ Analysts are lazy. Global demand for oil is driving up petroleum.
Every summer, refineries have to reformulate their blends for gov't
mandated gasoline and demand spikes up. Also, routine maintenance
causes shortages during maintenance. It's pretty simple econ,
really. -emarkp
\_ So in that "simple econ", where does a $10B profit quarter fit
in that whole "your prices go up because ours go up" line?
\_ Oil companies are just taking advantage of high crude
prices caused by surging demand and not-surging supply.
If gold prices go up, companies that own gold mines
do better too. Note that ExxonMobil is only like the 10th
or 12th or so largest oil company in the world, if you count
nationalized oil companies like Aramco. Believe me, this
is a piece of cake compared to what things will be when
we are a few years past the oil production peak.
\_ That's not econ (your comment in quotes). The price goes up
because people bid it up. There have been countless
investigations into the competitiveness of gas retailers and
there's no price fixing. Sorry to burst your bubble. Did you
notice how Exxon was spending over $4B searching for new
reserves? That's what happens in the market--a higher price
means more effort to obtain the commodity to sell it.
Even with the "massive profits", Exxon makes only 9% profit
on their investment. Their "biggest quarter ever" has more to
do with the rising demand and the consolidation of companies
(so instead of seeing the profit broken into two companies, we
see it in one, so it looks larger). -emarkp
\_ Has anyone ever looked into collusion from refiners?
I have no doubt that retailers do not collude.
\_ You think when congress investigates oil companies,
they're looking at gas stations?
\_ You said retailers.
\_ Well, someone did. Nevertheless, his odd word
choice does not excuse your ignorance.
\_ Ignorance of what? Enlighten me.
\_ Oil companies are LOSING money searching for new reserves.
Because there isn't much left to find, oil discoveries
have been declining steadily since the 1960s. Only the
crack smoking analysts at the IEA and Cornucopian right
wing economics who believe economics will win over
geology think there are going to be this magic spike up
in oil production in the next 15 years.
\_ Show me some reputable source showing this. Exxon's
balance sheet is public, and enumerates spending on
searching for new reserves. Indeed, the finding in the
Gulf of Mexico may be the biggest reserve ever.
One group who clearly doesn't believe oil is running
out is the oil companies themselves. Otherwise the
price would be spiking much faster. -emarkp
\_ This is not necessarily true. There might be
a lot of supply right now, but no supply in
10 years. The market won't correct for that.
It's like the avocado or orange crop. Some years
it's a bumper crop and prices are low, but just
a few years later there is no supply at all.
Your statement is really closer to saying that
there is no supply problem at present, not that
oil won't run out (relatively) soon.
\_ Oil won't run out, but at some point (probably
relatively soon) new production capacity will
be coming online slower than old production
capacity goes offline. The answer to the
question, "what was the guy who cut down the
last tree on Easter Island thinking at the time?"
is basically "it doesn't matter"; by the time
Easter Island was down to one tree, the
society had already collapsed. -tom
\_ He was thinking "I've got to build me a
canoe and get the hell out of here!"
\_ Present prices reflect future value. If the
oil companies really believed that, prices
would be going up because of an expected
shortage. And they might even be spending more
looking for new reserves/testing new extraction
technologies. -emarkp
\_ Isn't that exactly what is happening now?
\_ The analysis I've read from non-lazy
analysts is that the current long-term
price increase is entirely explained by
increasing global demand. It's not
enough to sugggest a fear of long-term
shortage. -emarkp
\_ When do you think we'll hit peak oil?
\_ Every prediction I've seen has been
wrong. It's entirely possible that
we'll *never* hit peak oil--that
there are reserves beyond our need,
but as they become gradually more
expensive to tap, other energy
sources will be competitive, and
we'll naturally switch. -emarkp
\_ That's a fantasy. There is
nothing that's within an
order of magnitude of the
ROI on oil drilling; we won't
magically transition to
ethanol or hydrogen or solar
or whatever your magic bullet
of choice is, not without going
through severe pain first.
For the record, oil production
has been basically flat since
the 80s and doesn't show any
plausible signs of increasing.
-tom
\_ I think this is happening right
now. Increased consumption,
combined with an increasing
difficulty in finding new
sources of oil, is driving up
prices, causing other sources
of energy to become economical.
This is also spurring research
into alternative energy. I
expect the price of a gallon of
gasoline to just keep going up
at this steady rate. This is
how capitalist price signalling
is supposed to work. -ausman
\_ FWIW, in my visit to Norway, we paid an average of 12 NOK per litre,
which works out at current exchange rates to be about $8/gal.
US gas is cheap! -ERic
\_ US $ is cheap too.
\_ Most of the new profits are coming from oil production, i.e. pumping
it out of the ground and selling it on world markets. Retail and
refining are relatively competitive. With the high regulations and
restrictions on building new refineries, it's not in the refiners'
interests to build new, "extra" capacity. Especially since gasoline
demand is so inelastic, so it will hardly budge when prices spike
due to "disruptions." They sell the same amount at a higher price
(reaped at the wholesale/refining level, not retail), providing a
little spike in profits. But not enough to justify overcoming all
the obstacles and building a new refinery to smooth out supply the
rest of the year. |
| 2007/4/26-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46455 Activity:nil |
4/26 http://tinyurl.com/39kcck (standard-freeholder.com) Canadian geology professor Tim Patterson says: much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming Evil-UN report says: "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [> 90% probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" \_ Because, of course, no one understands climate like a geologist. \_ The vast right wing noise machine loves parroting stuff like this. For some reason they never repeat when climate scientist debunk it. \_ <dittohead>Climate science is a scam, everyone has to parrot the party line in order to get funding.</dittohead> (Apparently except for Tim Patterson). |
| 2007/4/24-27 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:46428 Activity:kinda low |
4/24 China will pass the United States as the world's biggest source of
greenhouse gasses this year
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OMPHM80
\_ As long as they only use one square per wipe it'll be ok.
\_ But they have more than four times the population than ours.
\_ what is your point again? Global Warming is caused by human
activities *OF 6-7 INDUSTRIAL NATIONS* in past 100 years.
Why China/India should be asked to curb greenhouse gasses
when the problem is mostly caused by France/Germany/Britian/
USA?
\_ Why? Because they share the same friggin' planet and if
they want to be alive in 2050 or 2100 or whatever they need
to cut back the same as everyone else. Dead planets don't
care about your historic/cultural 'rights' to screw shit up.
\- Larry Summers and The Big Fuck You:
http://tinyurl.com/yvexcz
in particular:
The industrial world was responsible for much of the
problem, he said, but most of the solutions must
come from the developing world, where emissions are
growing the fastest and infrastructure is still
unbuilt. The developing world should "demand" that
it be compensated and supported for taking actions
"in the interest of all," he said.
[given the context, it is kind weird to refer to the
harvard episode rather than "former treasury
secretary" ... they that's the clown-side of the NYT
secretary" ... that's the clown-side of the NYT
for you.]
\_ that is why I am no longer an environmentalist.
The major "environemntal movement" is just a scheme
for the Industrial Nations to exploit their ex-colonies
in the form of "new, environmentally friendly
technology which Industrial Nations collect royalty
upon, as well as the "carbon trading scheme" which
Industrial nations can purchase their way out.
If one is serious about the environment, have a
carbon cap on per capita basis, and give out these
new technologies for free to developing nations as
part of the price to pay for fucking up the environment
in the past 100 years. |
| 2007/4/20-24 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/SW/WWW/Server] UID:46387 Activity:nil |
4/20 Is there some reason why the apache logs are not world readable?
\_ Because what other people are surfing is no one's business?
\_ They used to be world readable. Among other things, this was
useful because it allowed users to view the error log so they
could debug cgi scripts. -dans
\_ The undergrads surely made a conscious and well thought out
decision to do things this way. Why don't you make a
constructive suggestion instead of whining that things are
done differently than they were in your day. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46371 Activity:nil |
4/19 IAEA confirms Iran is enriching uranium, and has disallowed inspectors
from visiting their heavy-water facility.
http://csua.org/u/iia |
| 2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46366 Activity:nil 54%like:46352 |
4/18 Ethanol will erode the ozone layer.
http://urltea.com/e47 (latimes.com) |
| 2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46363 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46354 |
4/18 Oops. Ethanol is worse for the air
http://urltea.com/e46 (sfgate.com)
\_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
http://tinyurl.com/3dog3p
\_ but a combination of biofuels with Biointensive farming
would be ideal
\_ Are you making the argument that increased farming will
result in less C02? While thats true, it may not have the
intended impact on global warming because the albedo of
farmland is lower than non-developed land. More solar
absorbtion will result in higher temperatures. Global
warming solutions aren't so simple.
\_ this entire ethanol thing is 100% bullshit, I can't believe
left-wing liberal who pride themselves being more intelligent than
those in the Bush Country fell for it.
1. it takes energy to grow corn. Fertilizers and pesticide all
cost energy, distill ethanol to an appropiate concentration requires
energy. If we do a mass balance on ethanol, it probably takes more
energy to produce it than we'll get from it.
\_ The overwhelming majority of researchers think that ethanol
has a 20-60% net energy gain:
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html
\_ which is still an order of magnitude less than fossil fuel.
2. corn is not the most ideal plant to produce ethanol. high-sugar
content plants such as sugar cane is a much better solution. This
is one of the reason why Brazil can produce ethanol at a much
cheaper rate than us. And this is why we are imposing 18% tariff
on ethanols from Brazil
3. to use corn will eventually impact the food supply. It has
already impacted the price of animal feed. And we will soon need
to clear more forest to grow more of it, is this what we really
want?
In the end, this entire bio-disel thing boil down to two rational
behind it. 1. Toyota spend good 7-8 years on hybrid technology
and US is at least 7-8 years behind. Further, Toyota has patented
and US is at least 4-5 years behind. Further, Toyota has patented
a lot of hybrid thus make US car makers at a disadvantage. The
*EASY* way out is just say we are going to use "bio disel." such
solution requires almost ZERO modification to a car thus US car
manufacturers doesn't need to do jack shit other than may be
change the hoses/fuel lines.
change the hoses/fuel lines. 2. In the end, it's about letting
the petro price goes up and force people to pay for their lifestyle.
But no one want to make such compromise because it is always easier
to blame China/India than changing your own life style.
\_ Is this Chicom troll? Are you aware of what China is doing to
its environment in order to give its citizens a western "life
style?"
\_ corn-grower lobby, largely repulican. IT's not the best solution
for alternative fuel, but one with many proponents who stand to
make a buck off of it. |
| 2007/4/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46354 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46363 |
4/18 Oops. Ethanol is worse for the air
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/18/MNG7EPAN601.DTL
\_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
http://tinyurl.com/3dog3p
\_ but a combination of biofuels with Biointensive farming
would be ideal
\_ Ride bike! Damn, I've always wanted to say that....
\_ Do you USE LINUX? Or SMASH KIDS?
\_ But don't drink too much alcohol or fart a lot when you ride
bike! |
| 2007/4/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46352 Activity:nil 54%like:46366 |
4/18 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ethanol18apr18,0,7852828.story?coll=la-home-headlines Ethanol will erode the ozone layer. |
| 2007/4/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46335 Activity:moderate |
4/17 Home Depot giving away 1 million CFLs on Earth Day:
http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/index.html
\_ How much mercury is that?
\_ About a litre.
\_ I *hate* CFL bulbs. They are ugly and so is the light they
emit. For fish, I have no problems using them. For my house,
the government will have to pry my incandescent bulbs from my
cold dead hands.
\_ How d'you like LED lights?
\_ if you have your hands on your incandescent bulbs, I suspect they
are not cold, but rather burnt dead heands.
\_ Incandescent light is pretty damn ugly; you're just used to it.
\_ The CFL bulbs themselves are ugly.
\_ Lots of CFLs suck. I've bought many. The GE 26W 4-pack sells
for $14 at Target and is excellent.
\_ and all of them are made in China. Biggest producer of greenhouse
gases in the world now.
\_ 1. bull shit.
2. Global Warming is largely due to human activites in past 100
years in *SEVEN* industrial nations. If you want to play fair,
Let China and India do their thing for next 100 years then we'll
talk.
\_ urlP
the US has higher emissions total, and (obviously) per capita
than china.
\_ Is it the biggest per capita?
\_ of course not. That's no excuse for the kyoto protocol to
exempt them.
\_ Anyone want to guess who the biggest per capita is? It isn't
who you'd think...
\_ Australia is #1 and Canada is #2.
Oops! Bad guesses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
\_ I'm guessing Australia is #1 and Canada is #2.
\_ Per capita by itself is not an interesting figure. It
matters what is created or done with all the energy and
resources that created the emissions. If you spent 25%
of the world's resources but produced 30% of the world's
goods and services you are efficient and should be looked
upon as the way to go, not looked down on.
\- So a law firm and an aluminum plant that have the
same sized contribution to GDP should have the same
"pollution credits"? Should law firms get water credits
just like farmers do? Are you sequestering large
amounts of carbon between your ears? |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46316 Activity:nil |
4/16 Question: Your preference, or fetish for certain types of mate
(brunette, blonde, curly hair, long hair, petite, buttery, etc)...
is it mostly environmental, or is it genetic?
\_ I think it's mostly environmental. But your own genetics become
part of your environment when you look in a mirror or look at your
family.
\_ Likewise, I think Oedipux complex counts as environmental factor
(your eyes see that your mom is brunette/blonde/etc.) rather than
genetic factor (you subcounsiously know that your mom is
brunette/blonde/etc.) |
| 2007/4/16-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46305 Activity:nil |
4/16 The northwest must be taken seriously as it afflicts the CHIEN
trigram. It suggests that the leaders of the world will be squabbling
and fighting quite a fair bit. It is even likely that a major world
leader could get assassinated in 2007. The quarrelsome star 3 will
cause heated arguments and magnify misunderstandings.
\_ A "major world leader"? Would it be unbecoming to keep my
fingers crossed?
\_ Er... huh? I didn't know you could squeeze that much onto one of
those little fortune cookie papers.
\_ What, you didn't know China invented information compression
thousands of years ago along with everything else?
\_ PhilWongCompress! |
| 2007/4/13-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46301 Activity:moderate |
4/13 Carlos Slim now 2d richest man in the world:
http://urltea.com/5ef (news.yahoo.com)
\_ Interesting. ""Our concept is more to accomplish and solve things,
rather than giving - that is, not going around like Santa Claus,"
Slim said. "Poverty isn't solved with donations."
Judging from the fact that Mexico appears to be devolving into
a gang ridden, corrupted hellhole that will just get worse
when Mexico's oil production capacity collapses in a decade,
Slim is really good at making sure he's not impoverished,
not his fellow Mexicans.
\- his wealth is about 1/20 of mexico's gdp. |
| 2007/4/13-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46295 Activity:nil |
4/13 To the person who wanted me to give evidence that Africans were being
priced out of the world oil market:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2448
One of the comments:
"I haven't been there for a while, but it's hard to imagine how $60
oil has affected Senegal. And as more people are abandoning the
countryside and moving to Dakar, it's just getting worse every year.
Also, many are unemployed and desperately trying to get to Europe
through Canary islands." |
| 2007/4/12-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46279 Activity:nil |
4/12 Bill McKibben, who is the sponsor of this Saturday's grass-roots
environmental action (http://stepitup2007.org--check it out and
participate) has a fascinating article on the subject (touched on
below) of the fallacious equation of economic prosperity and happiness,
the reasons we have become conditioned to equate those two, and some
new ways to think about how to measure success.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/03/reversal_of_fortune.html
-tom |
| 2007/4/11-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46262 Activity:low |
4/11 New York City produces 1% of the nation's greenhouse gas emission. But
wait, the city has 2.7% of the country's population. That's pretty
good. http://www.csua.org/u/ig7 (Yahoo! News).
I wonder how the Bay Area cities rank.
\_ Im pulling this out of my ass but I bet most New Yorkers dont drive,
in a car, to work.
\_ I like to type, using commas, at random, places.
\_ Yeah, the article mentioned the city's mass transit system as the
\_ Yo,ur ,gra,mmar is te,h suk!!,! You, don,t kno,w how t,o use
comma,s.
\_ Uhh, the out of my ass line is not correct.
\_ Most New Yorkers, do in fact commute by transit.
\_ I'm talking sentance structure, not facts.
\_ Good thing you are not talking spelling.
\_ Yeah, the article mentions the city's mass transit system as the
major factor. -- OP
\_ And it's populated almost entirely by liberals!
\_ I bet a significant chunk of Brooklyn, the largest borough,
are NY Post reading driving conservatives. USA USA USA
\_ Well, in general rural areas tend to use more energy.
\_ Similarly, Western Europe per-capita energy use is half of ours.
It's partly mass transit, but even more than that, it's about
designing liveable human spaces. -tom
\_ Excuse me? Packed like a sardine can in a 800sqft 2 bdrm
apartment and not having the freedom to do yard work or
running around in the backyard is considered liveable human
space? Sorry buddy you should take your communist propaganda
back to Russia
\_ I don't think Tom's from Russia.
\_ Yes, we need more lebensraum! Heil!
\_ you really should get a perspective on how humans live.
(As distinct from "Americans"). -tom
\_ How most humans on this planet live is not in doubt. They
live worse than most animals. How humans *should* live and
what "liveable human spaces" *are* is the question. Packed
like sardines is not a "liveable human space".
\_ You will find out otherwise when gasoline goes to
$10 gallon. Which will happen sooner than you think.
\_ Uh, what? I'll find out what?
\_ Why not run around in shared spaces? 90% of the time your
precious backyard sits there unused.
\_ That is how it is done in Russian tenement housing.
\_ Do you share your apartment with everyone who walks by?
Of course not. Why not? Because you need your own
personal space. And it is being used 100% of the time.
It exists to put distance between you and your neighbors.
Good fences make good neighbors and all that.
\_ Define "need". -tom
\_ "need": I won't quote the dictionary at you. By need
I mean that people have a psychological need for some
private space and time to 'get away from it all'. Do
you disagree? Or do you just think that going
camping or skiing every so often is enough?
\_ I think that the fact that the vast majority of
the human population does not segment itself off
from other humans indicates that the need for
community is stronger than the need for
private space. I think there is also research
to support that concept. The faceless subdivision
is something that's been marketed and sold to
Americans; it is most assuredly not the ultimate
expression of the human condition. And, faceless
subdivision dwellers don't report higher life
satisfaction than city dwellers. -tom
\_ I never said they isolate themselves like the
person below tossing out the Unibomber
strawman. I said having some space, ie: not
sharing 3 walls a ceiling and a floor with
other people 24x7 is unhealthy. The current
propensity for super high density living is
relatively new in human societies. It
requires materials and engineering that didn't
exist until very recently. I think it is an
odd claim that just because there are many
people living that way is the same as saying
they enjoy living that way and it is a healthy
way for people to live.
\_ As I said, there is a lot of research that
suggests that people are more satisfied
with their lives when they are more
connected with other people. And
specifically in America, our measurements
of life satisfaction have gone consistently
downhill since 1950, concurrent with the
flight to the suburbs. America is the
developed country with the least density,
but it's certainly not the happiest nor
the healthiest by any objective measure.
-tom
\_ There are in misanthropes, like the Unabomber,
that really "need" to get away from other people,
I will grant you that.
\_ That is what Supermax is for.
\- You may enjoy reading this fellow's work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Glaeser
See e.g. http://www.nysun.com/article/47626
[On other fav motd topic, see: http://tinyurl.com/3brjny] |
| 2007/4/11-12 [Science/GlobalWarming, Science/Physics] UID:46260 Activity:high |
4/11 Motd poll: What do you think the Easter Islander that chopped down
the last Easter Island tree was saying as he did it?
"Jobs, not trees!":
"Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we'll find a
substitute for wood.":
"We don't have proof that there aren't palm trees somewhere else
on Easter, we need more research, your proposed ban on logging
is premature and driven by fear-mongering":
"this is gonna make a nice fire to cook my dinner on"
"I better take this tree now, before my neighbor does"
\_ "This ought to make sierra-club libural hippies in SF cry."
\_ You sure are smart.
"Jobs, not trees!":
"Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we'll find a
substitute for wood.":
"We don't have proof that there aren't palm trees somewhere else
on Easter, we need more research, your proposed ban on logging
is premature and driven by fear-mongering":
"this is gonna make a nice fire to cook my dinner on"
"I better take this tree now, before my neighbor does"
\_ On a funny note, I saw a Fox news blurb yesterday about how
trees may cause global warming.
\_ "I'm sure this isn't _really_ the last tree."
\_ "As history has demonstrated, we will always invent newer and
newer technologies to locate more and more trees that we can't see
now as tree-cutting rate goes up and up. These will include, but
not limited to, technologies to find transparent trees, trees that
float at 20000ft altitude, quantum trees that have no fixed
position, as well as anti-metter trees. Our tree supply will be
limitless."
\_ Whatever they said, if they said anything, I'm sure it wasn't
in English. ;-)
"You've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all." |
| 2007/4/9-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46243 Activity:high |
4/9 The EIA (Energy Information Agency) apparently makes oil production
predictions by feeding crack and magic mushrooms to monkeys and
letting them write up reports in a fairy kingdom. Their report for
the future predicts Saudi Arabia producing 17.1 mb/day in 2030 (their
production has dropped 7% in the last year they are cutting shipments
to their
asian customers), Mexico going to 5 mb/day in 2030 (the oil field that
supplies 60% of their production, Cantarell, is crashing hard) and
HA HA HA, this part is really funny, the United States is going to
INCREASE oil production even though oil production has gone down
steadily since 1970, except for a brief blip up in 1986 as we developed
the supergiant Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. See the link to the PDF in:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary20.html
What's scary is that the government makes policy decisions based on the
"research" done by these wankers.
\- they arent making decision "based on the research" ...
the decisions are based on self-interest, ideology
or other factors. the "research" is chaff. [which
is not to say i agree with your reading of the
"facts". i'm just pointing out you have things
backwards, just like Randriods arent interested
in philosophy ... they cleave to the philosophy that
says what they want a philosophy to say.]
\_ Scary but not surprising. It'll be interesting to see if further
oil finds and advances in technology keep us ahead of the curve.
Also, it may be that by 2030, oil/gasoline has gone up enough in
price that using some alternative becomes a seriously viable event
for transport and heating. And lastly, when Middle Eastern oil is
finally tapped out or the world has moved away from oil, I'd like
to be around to see how much 'concern' the rest of the world has
for Middle East events. We live in interesting times.
\_ The concern of the rest of the world will move to whichever
region that can export clean water.
\_ Desalination is a 'solved' problem. It's just a hell of a lot
cheaper to drain aquafurs, rivers, and lakes.
\_ Same for electricity from solar panels and wind mills.
\_ Not entirely. The ocean is there 24x7x365. The sun's
rays and sufficient wind are not. Solar/wind are
expensive yes but not reliable.
\_ further oil finds? Oil discoveries in the lower 48 peaked in the
1930s, and production peaked in 1970. You have to find the oil
before you can produce it. Similarly, GLOBAL oil finds peaked
in the 1960s. Note that the MSM hails ANY oil find as "massive"
or "huge" these days ... If oil finds peaked in the 1960s, it
makes sense oil production will peak 40-50 years later. Note
that the 1970s oil crisis reduced growth in demand substantially
which bought us another 10 years or so.
\_ further finds meaning being able to pull oil from places that
were previously unreachable such as the gulf of mexico, etc.
that's the "advances in technology" part you ignored. -pp
\_ Explain, with massive advances in oil extraction technology
in the last 35 years, we only produce HALF the oil we did
in 1970 ... The problem isn't that the technology will not
allow us to extract more oil than before (it does), but
that we've already sucked the big oil fields dry.
\_ Refinery capacity has not kept up.
\_ Somehow the imported crude gets refined just fine.
I assume this was a joke response.
\_ You are aware of course that (for example) oil shale
extraction requires a lot of energy, and as energy costs
rise... I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the
reader.
\_ And it's cheap to slap an oil derrick in the ocean or
the middle of the desert and drill down 10,000 feet?
It's done because it's worth it and over time technology
has improved to make it economical to do things that
weren't at one time. Almost zero effort has gone into
oil shale tech (to use your example) so no kidding it is
both expensive and very messy as well right now.
\_ Your brain has been classified as: small.
\_ Wow, you sure put me in my place with that pithy
and brilliant reply. Or not. Care to actually
demonstrate a flaw in anything I said or just
going to spew "you are an idiot!" motd-style?
\_ Well, you are an idiot. Yes, it is enormously
cheaper to produce substances usable for
combustion when you start with a flammable
liquid than when you start with a rock. -tom
\_ Are you even vaguely aware of the concept of
an "input to production?"
\_ Billions of dollars have been invested in
this area over the last few decades, all ending in
failure. The problem is that every non-conventional
"solution" to our energy needs can't scale up or
has horrific environmental implications.
\_ World oil production has been FLAT for 2 years now, we're already
"behind the curve" -- the third world is being priced out
from the market.
\- crowding out/substitution happens per use/per transaction
not per country for the most part. same for interest rates.
\_ Uh what? Poor Africans can't afford oil at $65/barrel
\_ Poor Africans can't afford food. If oil was free they
couldn't afford the barrel to store it. So what about
poor Africans?
\_ Ok, rephrase poor (relative to us, but not to
the average African) Africans are being priced out
of the market.
\- sigh. i doubt this will do any good but the
here is a little bit of what is wrong with the
"poor african" analysis above: it'ss one thing
to look at price-elasticity of something like
coca cola or other CONSUMPTION goods ...
say the price of coke goes up because of
the price of sugar going up or the strength of
your currency going down. then you will
substitute for things that give you more
utility. but oil is a FACTOR OF PRODUCTION
so the substitution effects are not from
demand elasticity but returns to capital.
as oil prices go up this may affect how much
kerosene poor people use to light their
homes at night, but for oil as an investment
the the crowding out looks more like the
kinds of crowding out that happens as interest
rates go up [a plant expasion that might make
sense when money costs 6% may not make sense
when money costs 10%]. btw, the reason the
divisibility matters is the dynamics of
indivisible goods [like tractors] is different
[and you can hope there are solutions like
cooperative ownership, rental markets etc].
BTW, there are a number of first world
assumptions [like shape of labor supply curve]
that dont carry over from 1st world to developing
economies [which is partly why the field of
development econ exists], so you should be a
little reticent about generalizing econ 100a/b
to the whole world.
LESSON: investment != consumption
\- poor americans can no longer afford tuna:
\- Poor Americans can no longer afford tuna:
link:tinyurl.com/2qxg44
\_ I didn't bother to read this economic
analysis, but I base my conclusions on the
observations that many African (and other
third world nations) are reverting to a
pre-oil economy, with ox carts replacing
combustion engine vehicles, etc. They
simply cannot afford oil at over $60/barrel.
\- what african country are you in making
your "observations" and how long have
you been there [for your "longitudinal
analysis"].
\_ Zimbabwe, Ghana for starters
\_ You are in Zimbabwe?
Are you Mugabe's IT consultant? |
| 2007/4/9-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46236 Activity:nil |
4/9 Iran's "National day of nuclear energy"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070409/D8OD6Q102.html |
| 2007/3/27-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46111 Activity:nil |
3/26 So many here are interested in global warming, I thought this
would be a good place to ask this question:
What is a good source for the relative carbon footprint of
various countries? What is the per captia CO^2 output for
China? The US? Europe? Does anyone has this info handy?
Googling doesn't turn it up for me. -ausman
\- i didnt have the energy to
\- i'm only interested in usa vs china,india,brazil [to argue
with self-serving morons like mr "fine the hell out of
india/china, below] but you can see http://tinyurl.com/yzh39x
--dept of energy person
\- oh, i had not previously seen this version. has agg numbers:
http://tinyurl.com/e3nfc --doe person
\_ http://tinyurl.com/yxawra (wikipedia.com)
Total emissions, by country |
| 2007/3/26-29 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance/Investment, Transportation/Car] UID:46096 Activity:nil |
3/26 My car has about 145K miles and so far I've had to do oil change
every 3K miles. I'm thinking of switching to synthetic because
I've heard that 10K synthetic oil change is equivalent to a regular
3K change. I hate having to get an oil change every 3K and if I
can extend it to 10K it would be worth 2X the $ I pay for. Has
anyone switched to synthetic yet?
\_ I am running on synthetic, but not exactly for the reason
you mentioned. Synthetic allows me to go about 7k miles
between changes. One way to gauge it is, wipe the level
check on a piece of paper, and you'll be able to see how
'dirty' the oil is. With regular, after 3-4k, the paper is
dirty. With synthetic, after 6k, it's still reasonably
clear. Synthetic also gives you more lubrication/power when
your engine has been running for a while, such as on long
trips.
\_ I use synthetic because I don't want to bring my car in as often.
It costs more but not that much more so it's worth it. |
| 2007/3/25-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46092 Activity:moderate |
3/25 http://www.csua.org/u/ibb Why Republicans are increasingly skeptical of global warming. \_ This is a joke. The real reason is because it's used as a political and communist weapon, and the evidence supporting it is a bigger joke than this article. \_ "communist"? The hell? \_ Well, socialist. It's a scheme to transfer wealth. That's all. \_ I'll certainly agree that there are countries out there looking to exploit the perceived disparity in carbon emissions, but it would seem to me that this can be rectified by assessing carbon emissions correctly and then fining the hell out of the PRC and India (the two biggest "developing world" producers of carbon emissions). \- US carbon emissions are 5x china and 20x india on a per capita basis. what would you use to "correctly" allocate emissions to get "everyone" to go along with "fining the hell" out of china/india. \_ Which completely ignores what each country produces with that carbon. The US out produces those countries by how much? You can't look at one number like carbon/capita and decide from that with no context that higher carbon/capita country is more 'bad' than lower carbon/capita country. If I burn 5x your level of energy but produce 50x more with it, then you're the wastrel, not me. \- so are you a Randroid? seriously. i dont think you understand the difference between a "rights" based discussion and an efficiency based one. \_ I've never read anything from Rand. And where on this thread does anyone mention anything about 'rights'? Carbon is all about waste and inefficiency. Perhaps you are unclear on the thread topic? \- by rand i mean ayn rand not rand corp. \_ So if my neighbor makes $100k a year and I make $20k a year and he leaves 5 piles of dog crap on the sidewalk, while I leave only 2, *I* am the worse polluter? Somehow, I don't think most people are going to see it that way. \_ If your neighbor has 300 dogs and you have 1 dog then yes you are the worse polluter. You again skip the context part and just count the single 'result' factor without taking into account at all what was achieved for that expense. By the numbers if you had his 300 dogs we could assume you'd have 600 piles instead of his 5. You're a dog mess leaving wastrel and he is efficient and clean. \_ actually it's a great capitalist commercial scheme by Al Gore who plans to profit from the scare bigtime selling credits \_ As usual, the head of the party or corrupt church gets wealthy while the normals suffer. \_ I am kind of curious, do you really believe that the 90% of atmospheric scientists who support the idea of anthropogenic global warming are that easily decieved? That you are better qualified to evaluate the evidence than people who have spent their whole life studying it? \_ How else are they going to get tenure? By proving everyone in their department is wrong? One and only one will get tenure that way. their department is wrong? One and only one will get tenure that way. \_ The world is flat. 100% of scientists know that. The Earth is also the center of the universe. There is concensus on that fact. If you don't agree we'll just torture and then burn you at the stake, heretic. \_ How impressively specious. Hyperbole aside, do you really believe that the modern scientific establishment is no more enlightened than the Catholic Church in the middle ages? Are you actually equating loss of tenure and/or grant money to being tortured and burnt at the stake? Or is your bombastic sarcasm merely an effort to disguise what you know to be an empty argument? -dans \_ Yes. It's the modern version of it, yes. No, but have you stopped beating your wife or are you intentionally misframing my statements because your views are merely unsupported opinions unbackable by facts? Two can play that sort of cheap rhetorical game. I find it tedious and boring and prefer not to but I'm doing it here just as an example of how annoying and useless it is in any sort of serious discussion. |
| 2007/3/20-22 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46024 Activity:nil |
3/20 You can surely drive your SO wild if you can do this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/theworldsmostexplosivetongue |
| 2007/3/17-20 [Science/GlobalWarming, Recreation/Food] UID:46003 Activity:moderate |
3/16 So I've begun biking farther and farther (trying to reach 50
miles/day) and I'm wondering if I should start taking supplements
like GU. Do they really work as advertised? Are there other
alternatives? $1 a shot is kind of expensive considering you
need to take one every 30 min.
\_ New ones have protein. 1 unit of protein per 4 units of carb.
Studies claim 16% better performance than pure carb. I've
never tried these so I can't tell you how good/accuret the
studies are.
\_ People were doing 100+ mile rides 100 years before GU was invented.
It's digusting stuff, avoid it unless you're racing or completely
bonked. Fruit and nuts are totally fine, or one of the edible
energy bars. -tom
\_ I used to think they're nasty but after the 3rd pack
I changed my mind. They're very yummy and addictive.
\_ I'd totally agree with you but I also think any competitive
edge you can get over your opponent is a good thing. If
everyone uses vitamins, vitamin water, creatine, carb,
whatever, then your chance of beating them by using
traditional (and antiquated) methods is slim. Having
that said, I must admit that GUs are really yummy and I
eat them as quick snacks and breakfast. For example when
I'm tired or feeling exhausted or sleepy after lunch,
a pack of GU really energizes me. This stuff is not just
good, it is a necessity.
\_ Did you not see tom's specific exclusion of "racing"?
If so, why did you think your reply to tom adds
anything?
\_ You sound addicted to them. They are basically just sugar
and caffeine. I wouldn't recommend eating them after
lunch for example. Try a power nap. The energy from those
things is not the long lasting kind anyway. Spiking your
blood sugar like that isn't good for you either when you
are not in the midst of intense exercise.
\_ Hey come to think of it, yes I'm as addicted to it as
I am addicted to Gatorade and other things. Is that a
bad thing? They do enhance my performance, you know.
\_ Or maybe you are just habituated to it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6422279.stm
\_ When I ran marathons, I used GU a lot because it was compact
and easy to eat/drink. However I used much less of it then
suggested (e.g. only one third of a packet at a time). |
| 2007/3/15-20 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45973 Activity:low |
3/15 According to ABC, 90% of the energy used by incandescent bulb is
wasted in heat. That mean only 10% of the enery it takes in
outputs useful light. In addition compact flourescent light takes
about 1/4 of the same energy for the same output. So let's suppose
I have a 25W compact flourescent bulb and outputs as much as a
100W incandescent bulb (or 10W of useful light). Can I safely
assume the compact flourescent bulb also outputs 10W of useful
light and 15W wasted in heat, or 10/25 (40%) efficiency?
\_ I'm sure that will make a major diff. in 'saving the planet'
Of course it won't. The only real way is population control.
\_ 36 years old and no kids yet. Can I have a tax break?
\_ of course in winter, the 'heat' isn't wasted.
\_ Yeah. But in summer, not only is the heat wasted, it makes your
AC work harder which takes even more energy.
\_ not entirely -- except when you consider the energey used to
generate that electricity in the first place. Usually generated
by some form of heat engine, again usually burning fossill fuels.
So that 90W of electrically-created heat required the waste of
another ~200W of heat at the power plant. Compare this to
burning gas locally to generate heat, where virtually all the
heat in the gas goes to heating.
\_ totally agree. But neither heat nor power generation is
factored into light bulb efficiency anyways -pp
\_ Yeah. But household furnace usually burns natural gas.
Burning gas to generate heat is more efficient than burning gas
to generate electricity and then using electricity to generate
heat, which in turn is cleaner than burning coal to generate
electricity and then using electricity to generate heat. Also,
in summer, not only is the heat wasted, it also makes your AC
work harder which uses even more electricity. That's the same
reason why, if you leave your PC and monitor idling at, say, 20W
in an air-conditioned room, you're actually wasting more than
20W.
in an air-conditioned room, you're actually using more than 20W. |
| 2007/3/14-17 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45972 Activity:nil |
3/14 Wikipedia's list of Global Warming Deniers:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c23h4 (en.wikipedia.org) |
| 2007/3/13-15 [Science/Disaster, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45955 Activity:low |
3/13 "I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus
professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of
experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America.
"But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing,
and we have to temper that with real data."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html
\_ Did Easterbrook actually point to Gore's use of info on hurricanes
as an "'imperfection' and 'technical flaw'"? Saying "this year
didn't meet the predictions" doesn't disprove Gore's claims in the
movie, nor the fundamental basis for the predictions.
\_ the hurricane criticism was weak. gore said that hurricanes
would become more powerful as ocean water got warmer -- he made
no statement as to the frequency.
\_ This guy needs his tenure and funding pulled and a few death threats
to set him straight. Then he'll "get it".
\_ actually, he just needs to publish convincing evidence that there
is no global warming. if the evidence were irrefutable, he'd win
a nobel prize. as it is, we have 90% certainty that humans are
causing an increase in global temperatures.
\_ He's a Denier! Why are you defending him? Are you a Denier,
too?
\_ "If you rake him over the coals, you're going to find people who
disagree. But in terms of the big picture, he got it right." |
| 2007/3/12-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45941 Activity:nil |
3/12 Full video of Channel 4's "The Global Warming Swindle"
http://csua.org/u/i7v
\_ The documentary was produced by Channel 4, not the BBC. |
| 2007/3/8-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45910 Activity:nil |
3/8 What is your meat footprint? http://csua.org/u/i6y \_ My third leg leaves a huge footprint \_ headprint? |
| 2007/3/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45885 Activity:kinda low |
3/6 More Global Warming Denials:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3byejo (dailymail.co.uk)
\_ Denials? Are you trolling?
\_ Apologists. |
| 2007/3/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45884 Activity:nil |
3/5 Saudi oil production drops 8% in 2006
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325 |
| 2007/3/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45879 Activity:kinda low 90%like:45867 |
3/4 So much for the peak oil myth
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2yovom (nytimes.com)
\_ I am NostraMotd. Oil price will peak in 2010. World War III
will happen in 2012 in a blink of an eye. -nostramotd
\_ So you went into a trance and your assistant recorded your
ramblings a la Casey or you hid in your attic scribbling little
rhyming poems with insufficient detail to ever be sure that any
of your predictions actually came true? Or did this come out of
the hidden messages in the Bible? Nostradamus didn't need no
stinkin' URLs!
\_ Yeah, I'm sure when gas price reachs $10/gal, much more oil will
become financially feasible to be extracted. No worries.
\_ It is certainly true that the amount of oil in the ground is
much larger than what we're currently able to extract. The
problem is, at some point it's not possible to ramp up new
production quickly enough to keep up with ever-increasing
demand. We won't run out of oil, but supplies will be
increasingly constrained. The only question is when that
will happen. -tom
\_ Refineries are easy but yes getting a new field started takes
several years. The fun part of all this is when you have an
.org like OPEC where members are allowed to sell a certain
amount based on their _claimed_ reserves. So by lying and
claiming higher reserves they can sell more. Their actual
honest estimates of their reserves are secret and likely
much lower than their public claims. Thus, unless new fields
are started sooner than the Saudis and friends would have us
believe we need them, then yes we'll be hosed.
\_ It's not only a question of how long it takes to start a
new field now; it's also that, as we start getting into
fields which require more effort/energy to extract
(like the Canadian oil sands), it will take even longer to
ramp up new fields. -tom
\_ The Canadian oil sands turn gold into lead. Clean
burning natural gas and freshwater are used to
create synthetic oil, sludge and greenhouse gases
on an insane scale.
\_ What is the process used to extract from oil
sands?
\_ In short, natural gas is burned in
conjunction with water to cook the oil.
It has produced a giant waste pool and
it creates as much greenhouse gases as
1/3 the california automobile fleet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
\_ Either way, OPEC is not a pro-Western friendly .org and
won't provide honest estimates of usable reserves so it
doesn't matter much if the world falls 5 years short of
getting new production online or 7 or 9 or 12.
\_ It's nice to know that our supply of greenhouse-gas-producing
petrolium is ever growing.
\_ its not that the supply is growing -- it isn't -- it is that as
the price goes up, we can use more efficient means to extract
all of it, and go beyond the easy-to-pump oil. It is still a
limited resource that will eventually run out.
\_ Then why did the production of oil in the United States
peak back in 1970, and go down every year since
then, while prices have gone up and down and extraction
technology has greatly improved? I mean, it goes down
every year like clockwork (there was a tiny blip around
1986 due to Alaska but that's it). Note that there are
more oil wells operating in the United States than the
rest of the world COMBINED (500,000 pumping out of
2,000,000 drilled). Oil production is no longer an
economic problem, it is a problem with physics and geology.
\_ You may have noticed that the US gets a large percent of
oil from outside the US. Even if the US never had a drop
of native oil (like Japan, France, etc), then we'd just
be using nukes for power and likely have more advanced
electric cars.
\_ We don't burn oil to generate power (except in a
few places like Hawaii) very much, it provides a
tiny sliver of our electrical production.
\_ We need oil to run cars. If everything was
nuclear and electric the need for oil would
drop dramatically.
\_ Because it's still cheaper to get oil elsewhere. If
prices get high enough, then US oil production will
climb. In real terms, I would bet oil prices are
not at record highs. In fact, I remember just a few
years back I was buying gas for $1/gallon, which is
probably less than any time over the last 30 years
when adjusting for inflation. It is not that cheap
at the moment, but not much has changed over the
last 5 years except for politics.
\_ No it's because there are no new finds in the United
States, wells are running dry. Oh wait, are you
one of those people who thinks our massive twin
deficits are proof of the vitality of our markets,
because "everyone wants to invest in America?". In
that case there is no point trying to use logic.
Oil prices WERE the highest ever during the 1970s
crisis, yet oil production dropped. And it
continues to drop. You can't drill 200,000 new
wells overnight, and besides there are no new
giant oil fields being discovered to drill anyhow.
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartimages/d/d2oilprodusa.gif
\_ What incentive is there to explore and drill
when oil is easily obtained elsewhere and
prices have done nothing but fall since 197x? |
| 2007/3/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45877 Activity:kinda low 90%like:45874 |
3/5 Global Warming skeptics grow
http://preview.tinyurl.com/22vodw (canada.com)
\_ Aw, the little wingnuts are hitting puberty?
\_ The latest entry is Jasper Kirby--not typically considered a
wingnut.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ystlm3 (canada.com)
\_ If you've got nothing to say, personal attack is the way to go.
\_ The Mercury News ran an editorial on this today:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yu7dwl (mercurynews.com)
\_ "Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an
unproven theory which does not correlate with historical
observations?" Are we trying to "destroy" our economy?
\_ The truth is that Global Warming is becoming the consensus
scientific opinion, not that they "grow." Unless you mean
scientific opinion, not that "skeptics grow." Unless you mean
critics amongst the "Fox News" viewer crowd, perhaps.
\_ I thought it already was the consensus opinion. That's what I've
read for years. Except for all those scientists who don't agree
but every single one of them is obviously an oil company shill
divying part of Exxon's $16m/5 years which isn't too smart
considering the billions paid to affirm human caused GW.
\_ No, there are still plenty of good scientists who remain
skeptical of the idea of anthropogenic global warming.
\_ Well, let's pull their tenure and cancel their grants and
make sure their papers and books aren't published. |
| 2007/3/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45874 Activity:high 90%like:45877 |
3/5 Global Warming skeptics grow
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
\_ According to Lawrence Solomon, who is funded by the big
power interests. -tom
\_ Aw, the little wingnuts are hitting puberty?
\_ The latest entry is Jasper Kirby--not typically considered a
wingnut.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684 |
| 2007/3/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45872 Activity:nil 80%like:45867 |
3/4 So much for the peak oil myth
http://nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/03/05/business/20070305_OIL_GRAPHIC.html |
| 2007/3/4-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45867 Activity:high 80%like:45872 90%like:45879 |
3/4 So much for the peak oil myth
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html
http://nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/03/05/business/20070305_OIL_GRAPHIC.html
\_ I am NostraMotd. Oil price will peak in 2010. World War III
will happen in 2012 in a blink of an eye. -nostramotd
\_ So you went into a trance and your assistant recorded your
ramblings a la Casey or you hid in your attic scribbling little
rhyming poems with insufficient detail to ever be sure that any
of your predictions actually came true? Or did this come out of
the hidden messages in the Bible? Nostradamus didn't need no
stinkin' URLs!
\_ Yeah, I'm sure when gas price reachs $10/gal, much more oil will
become financially feasible to be extracted. No worries.
\_ It is certainly true that the amount of oil in the ground is
much larger than what we're currently able to extract. The
problem is, at some point it's not possible to ramp up new
production quickly enough to keep up with ever-increasing
demand. We won't run out of oil, but supplies will be
increasingly constrained. The only question is when that
will happen. -tom
\_ Refineries are easy but yes getting a new field started takes
several years. The fun part of all this is when you have an
.org like OPEC where members are allowed to sell a certain
amount based on their _claimed_ reserves. So by lying and
claiming higher reserves they can sell more. Their actual
honest estimates of their reserves are secret and likely
much lower than their public claims. Thus, unless new fields
are started sooner than the Saudis and friends would have us
believe we need them, then yes we'll be hosed.
\_ It's not only a question of how long it takes to start a
new field now; it's also that, as we start getting into
fields which require more effort/energy to extract
(like the Canadian oil sands), it will take even longer to
ramp up new fields. -tom
\_ The Canadian oil sands turn gold into lead. Clean
burning natural gas and freshwater are used to
create synthetic oil, sludge and greenhouse gases
on an insane scale.
\_ What is the process used to extract from oil
sands?
\_ Either way, OPEC is not a pro-Western friendly .org and
won't provide honest estimates of usable reserves so it
doesn't matter much if the world falls 5 years short of
getting new production online or 7 or 9 or 12.
\_ It's nice to know that our supply of greenhouse-gas-producing
petrolium is ever growing.
\_ its not that the supply is growing -- it isn't -- it is that as
the price goes up, we can use more efficient means to extract
all of it, and go beyond the easy-to-pump oil. It is still a
limited resource that will eventually run out.
\_ Then why has the production of oil in the United States
peaked back in 1970, and has gone down every year since
\_ Then why did the production of oil in the United States
peak back in 1970, and go down every year since
then, while prices have gone up and down and extraction
technology has greatly improved? I mean, it goes down
every year like clockwork (there was a tiny blip around
1986 due to Alaska but that's it). Note that there are
more oil wells operating in the United States than the
rest of the world COMBINED (500,000 pumping and 2,000,000
drilled). Oil production is no longer an economic problem,
it is a problem with physics and geology.
rest of the world COMBINED (500,000 pumping out of
2,000,000 drilled). Oil production is no longer an
economic problem, it is a problem with physics and geology.
\_ You may have noticed that the US gets a large percent of
oil from outside the US. Even if the US never had a drop
of native oil (like Japan, France, etc), then we'd just
be using nukes for power and likely have more advanced
electric cars. |
| 2007/3/2-3 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45852 Activity:nil |
3/2 The Infernal Combustion Engine Helped the Environment, according
to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/267mmd (acj.com)
\_ heh heh heh, Infernal, heh heh....
\_ This is an awesome perspective, thanks. -!dans |
| 2007/3/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45846 Activity:high |
3/1 Science v. Faith:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png
\_ This is especially funny considering the religion of Global Warming.
It's got everything including the sale of indulgences (carbon
offsets), silencing of critics, etc.
\_ except in the case of global warming, the idiots are the
ones on the outside. -tom
\_ So what is the big deal about global warming anyway?
Its not like the world has never been more warmer
than it is now. Besides, what is really the problem
w/ a warmer world? More beach front property? Fewer
days you need to wear a sweater? Uninhabitable places
like Canada become ever so slightly liveable? Really,
I just don't see how anyone can get all worked up this,
when there are so many more important things to think
about in this world like Ubuntu vs. Debian, if Duke
Nukem will ever ship and whether the Transformers the
Movie is going to be a HUGE disappointment.
\_ a) it's not about the world now, but what it could
become in the coming decades. these things aren't
instant. b) global climate change can lead to massive
disruptions and deaths. you're pretty ignorant.
\_ What about precession? Have you been around
23K years?
\_ Good thing all the ones "inside" aren't idiots.
http://csua.org/u/i54
\_ Yes, that is the standard response by the faithful.
\_ Sure, people like Dr. Roy Spencer are idtiots.
\_ Sure, people like Dr. Roy Spencer are idiots.
http://csua.org/u/i4w
\_ Spencer is a big advocate of intelligent design and a
lackey for the right. -tom
\_ Woah! I'm glad I clicked on that link. I was expecting
some typical Bjorn Lomborg style hottair horseshit, but this
was actually a good article. I think he falls into the very
trap he accuses other climate scientists of when he claims
that "our climate seems to have a 'preferred' average
temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so."
I even the mickey-mouse crowd like Lomborg are willing to
admit the existence of ice ages in the Earth's past, and
that climate events of that scale would be devastating
for our civilization. His understanding of the dynamics
tells him that there's more longterm stability than we
know there to be looking at well-established climate
history.
\_ Requiring proof beyond doubt that CO2 emissions lead to
climate change is stupid. The consequences of climate
change far outweigh the economic pain of a switch to
greener erngy. Being proactive is the only reasonable
course.
\_ So you agree with the premise of Pascal's wager? What
religion did you join?
\_ One can believe in Pascal's wager and Hume's
theological bet without running off and joining an
organized religion. The difference is that
(competent) scientists who make statements about
global warming are making empirical claims which are
falsifiable. I am not aware of any organized relgion
that makes falsifiable claims about its deity. If
you know of such a religion, let me know, otherwise
you're just presenting a straw man.
P.S. On an unrelated note, it's good to see that now
that tom is back he is as easily baited as ever. -dans
\_ I'm not aware that anything about Global Warming is
falsifiable. It's quite ad hoc and seems to not
take into account very important things, including
Dr. Spencer's comments about weather.
\_ Of course global warming is falsifiable; measure
drops in average temperature, increases in
glacial/polar ice. Spencer's opinion has
been thoroughly discredited. -tom
\_ Please point me to where I can verify that
he's been discredited. Also, show me what
theories about global warming say about cloud
cover.
\_ (dans, please stop "helping")
\_ Fuck off.
Your hating on me, just shows how good
I am. -dans
\_ Good? Hating? Please. If you're
going to imitate me, at least get
the details right. Good is a
weakass wanker's adjective.
Hating/Hater are the province of
the likes of tjb. Besides, it's
easy to get tom to hate on you.
-dans
\_ Also, your imitator's posts are
nowhere near long-winded enough
to be authentic-looking.
\_ Point. Imitators should
be sure to duplicate my
tendency for verbal diarrhea.
-dans
His mode with global warming is exactly
the same as with intelligent design;
make broad comments with no real backing
that jibe with what Rush Limbaugh's
listeners want to hear, and make outright
lies about existing research.
The IPCC report is a good place to start
if you're really interested. I assure
you that climate scientists are quite
aware that sometimes it's cloudy. -tom
\_ Tom, in your honest opinion, is the
IPCC report a readable document?
\_ I don't think it's a document
designed for laypeople, if that's
the question. -tom
\_ Actually, he addresses the temperature
of the lower atmosphere. His critics
say that he hasn't tweaked the raw data
the right way. Not exactly convincing.
\_ Sorry buddy, you don't get to play that
game. Saying, wah wah, I'm too lazy to
do research so you need to prove
everything to me beyond a shadow of the
doubt or I won't believe you is in
effect, saying 'I don't understand the
scientific method, and I don't know what
falsifiability means.' You and I both
know, that you can always keep saying,
'Sorry, I'm not convinced, give me more
evidence or you're wrong.' You're
welcome to say that, just don't expect us
to let you participate in meaningful
discussions if you want to play the 'How
many angels can dance on the head of a
pin.' game. -dans
\_ I'm doing no such thing. I'm actualy
asking for some reference that claims
to discredit Spencer.
\_ Backpedal away monkey boy! So you
do realize that even good
scientists can support and believe
in bad ideas. Does this mean
they've been discredited? On the
bad idea, yes, as scientists and
researchers not really. cf. the
tenured professor(s) at Berkeley
who claim AIDS isn't caused by HIV.
-dans
\_ This is especially funny considering the genius of George Dubya. |
| 2007/2/26-3/1 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45823 Activity:very high |
2/25 Oops. Gore the hypocrite.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
\_ On the one hand, if this surprises you, you're naive. On the other\
hand, DANG that's a lot of juice. (And gas too)
\_ We all know he's a hypocrit and that global warming is a myth.
This is exactly why I'm going to keep driving my H2 and
keep going to my church. God bless.
\_ This is the exact same strawman as people who quote fake
"liburals". It isn't funny, clever, or rhetorically useful.
Of course the irony is that this sort of intellectual dishonesty
makes you no better than the people you're ad homineming.
\_ While I don't think all this hullabaloo about global warming is
without merit I just don't can't take it seriously without real
proposals about effective ways to handle it. Scrimping and
Conserving and reducing buy only a few years, as the 10-20% you
save gets quickly made irrelevant 5% population and economic
growth. Zero carbon footprint? Shyeah, right. It won't happen
until you stop breathing, and even then you'll release some carbon
gases in the process of dying and decaying.
gases in the process of dying and decomposing.
\_ Nobody says there is a silver bullet to the problem. We already
know that.
\_ It isn't about his house or his zillions of plane flights or his
multiple SUVs or the rest of his lifestyle, per se. Yes, he's a
hypocrite but that's no big deal. The problem is that he wants to
inflict life style changes on everyone else that he's not willing
to live with for himself and his family. Paying some sort of bogus
"carbon footprint credit" doesn't make him any less wasteful, yet
he can afford to pay it for the feel good effect. 99% of the
rest of the world can't afford that so his answer for them is to
change their lifestyle. He's worth at least $50 million so a few
extra bucks for him is no big deal. Now then, if he actually
truly changed his life style in the way he advocates for everyone
else I'd be impressed. As far as Drudge goes, I don't see why
anyone gives a rat's ass what he has to say or why Gore bothered
to respond at all. The guy has a business to run. He's run it
the same way for years and it's no big deal. All his links are
either taken directly from other news sources or unsourced and
thus dismissable.
\_ A nice example of Right Wing "politics": You have lost on the
facts and lost on the message, time to smear the messenger.
Sorry guys, Karl Rove style politics doesn't work very well
anymore. America has developed immunity to your tactics.
\_ Woah! Holy crap. I'm shocked. But now, thanks to Drudges hard
hittin' journalism, I'm forced to realize that global warming is
a liberal conspiracy to subvert my precious bodily fluids, and to
give all my money to the Enterprise Institute. Thank you for saving
me, amen, and fuck you.
\_ Okay, he has a larger than average house. It uses more than
average electricity. How does it compare to comparably sized
houses? What does he use the space for? As usual, drudge runs
the gotcha without the journalism..
Gore responds:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge
\_ That's not much of a response (too short). I was hoping that he
explains how many people live there and what goes on in the
mansion that uses so much energy. For example, I suppose a 24hr
security system for such a big mansion uses quite a bit of
energy.
\_ His answer is sufficient to demolish the claim of hypocrisy,
and is really more than a spuurious charge from drudge
deserves. Unfortunately, people still think drudge has
some amount of value. Ergo, the "short" response.
\_ No it isn't. The more "green" energy he buys, the less
there is for others.
\_ Just... wow...
\_ What, all you greenies believe everything is zero
sum, don't you?
\_ All of you assholes think a single data point
makes for the end of the debate, don't you?
\_ Ha ha ha. No, I just like to point out
hypocrisy and idiocy when it presents itself.
\_ And in outing yourself thus, you've out-
done yourself.
\_ On the one hand, if this surprises you, you're naive. On the other
hand, DANG that's a lot of juice. (And gas too)
\_ I did know that most environmental spokesholes were hypocrites,
but I didn't know about Gore in particular. -op
\_ You didn't realize that most politicians are hypocrites???
\_ Anyone who got to State office level or higher has to be.
\_ "There's no law against being a hypocrite a few times in your
life and this industry is built on hypocrisy." -Matt Drudge
\_ The latest PG&E bill for my 4bd 2ba house with 6 people was $67.
I have electric stove.
\- I think the "i pay to reduce my carbon footprint to
zero" is sort of a bogus reply. That's basically the
"ultrarich liberal" response that "as long as i am
willing to pay higher taxes, i should be able to not
change my lifestyle".
change my lifestyle". i believe in internalizing costs
but it's understood that that is a complicated matter
given it's regressive nature. i'll leave it at that.
\_ Is it still bogus if you first lower your footprint as
much as is practicable? This sounds like the converse
of the "liberals are pro-choice cuz they like killing
babies" talking point.
\_ If you're generating co2, you're generating co2. Saying,
"I reduced my waste a bit and spend more on green stuff
because I'm rich and can easily afford it" doesn't cut
it, no.
\_ Do you know what carbon-offset means?
\_ Yes, I do. Planting 5 trees in Kenya does not
offset each of Gore's trans continental private
flights to pick up an award. It is feel goodism.
Besides, exactly what has he and his family actually
done to 'carbon-offset' their life style?
\_ You're making up numbers. 5 trees in Kenya? What
if it were 50 trees? 500? At what point would
you not call it feel-goodism any more? Gore says
he's carbon neutral. You have no evidence to the
contrary. For now, I'm gonna go with... him.
\_ I'm not making up anything. Here's all the
numbers, with prices included. And you get to
calculate your 'carbon footprint' along the
way so you know exactly how many trees you need
to plant in Kenya: http://www.carbonfootprint.com
Now then, as I said, what exactly has Gore or
his family done to offset their carbon foot-
print? The weight is on their shoulders to
prove it, not on mine to prove they aren't.
They are the ones making the claims. I'm just
some dude who doesn't spend $30k a year to
heat my house or fly around the world on
private jets all the time. The answer is easy
to figure out: they do nothing but talk about
it a lot. And fly private jets around the
world to tell other people how to live and
collect little statues on TV.
\- the issue isnt is he spending enough $ to
offset the "carbon footprint". the point is
the rich can pay their way out while the
poorer people have to make lifestyle changes.
say we had a draft, do you think it is defensible
to pay your way out of it? well then it really
isnt a draft then is it. or say you could pay
your way out of jail terms. or say you could
buy your way into a college. yes i know all of
these things happen, but it is a little
disturbing and we should be aware of the
disparate impact. mccain could hve gotten out
of vietnam service via a legitimate and legal
channel. we respect the fact that he served
never the less.
never the less. maybe we should not expect that
gore or bush wont use political connections to
get thir kinds INTO harvard and yale, but i do
respect that mccain didnt use his political
connection to get OUT of the hanoi hilton.
say we had a draft, do you think it is
defensible to pay your way out of it? well
then it really isnt a draft then is it. or say
you could pay your way out of jail terms. or
say you could buy your way into a college. yes
i know all of these things happen, but it is a
little disturbing and we should be aware of
the disparate impact. mccain could hve gotten
out of vietnam service via a legitimate and
legal channel. we respect the fact that he
served never the less. maybe we should not
expect that gore or bush wont use political
connections to get thir kinds INTO harvard and
yale, but i do respect that mccain didnt use
his political connection to get OUT of the
hanoi hilton. similarly i respect how people
like WBUFFET live.
\_ Great point. However, this is why countries
are expected to buy into carbon credit
programs as well. I'm not so disgusted
by Haves taking positive action unavailable
to Have nots...
The parallels you cite all have either a
direct benefit or direct exculpation to
the Have in question. As carbon costs are
not currently monetarily/legally realized,
I think the lead by example is noteworthy.
\- i'm trying to cut down on my motd cycles
but this is a matter i am kind of
interested in. the international analog
is the us vs china, india, and brazil.
it will be an interesting question
how the costs of dealing with enviro
issues are distributed. it may not be
unreasonable that the us pays and india
and china and brazil change behavior
but i have a feeling this negotiation
wont go very smoothly.
\_ How do you manage this? Mine is over $150 and I don't even
have air/heat or any appliances running other than 1
computer (iMac) and 2 (relatively new) refrigerators. I am
calling bullshit unless you live somewhere like Washington
state where power is cheap.
\_ No, I live in Fremont. The energy rate in my last bill was
$1.13 per therm of gas and $0.11 per kWh of electricity. Do
you have an electric cloths dryer? I have a gas dryer and I
line-dry my cloths on sunny days. I also wrapped an
insulation blanket on my water heater, and set its thermostat
such that the water is just hot enough but not any hotter. I
completely power off (not energy- saving mode) my PC and
monitor when not in use. I have only one 7yr old fridge. I
use mostly fluorescent blubs and tubes, and we turn lights
off when not in use. I have double-pane windows and we wear
jackets at home when it's cold, so we use the gas furnace
only occasionally.
\_ No, I live in Fremont. Do you have an electric cloths dryer?
I have a gas dryer and I line-dry my cloths on sunny days.
I also wrapped an insulation blanket on my water heater, and
I set its thermostat such that the water is just hot enough
but not any hotter. I completely power off (not energy-
saving mode) my PC and monitor when not in use. I have only
one 7yr old fridge. I use mostly fluorescent blubs and
tubes, and we turn lights off when not in use. I have
double-pane windows and we wear jackets at home when it's
cold, so we use the gas furnace only occasionally.
only occasionally. -- PP
p.s. I also turn off the tap when applying soap or shampoo and
when I'm brushing my teeth. This is more for conserving water
than gas energy, though.
\_ Your 7 year old fridge is 90% of your bill, wastrel!
\_ It was an energy efficient model when I bought it in
2000.
2000. -- PP
\_ Welcome to 2007. My Buick was energy efficient in
1963 when it was made but not when I drove it in
1986.
\_ I have a gas dryer. I use 20-30 kWh per day, depending
on the season. My last bill was for $178.68 and 903
kWh, which is more than usual. That is for two people
who both work and are gone from 9-8pm every day. How
the hell can 6 people have a $67 bill? My taxes are
$13, which means you are using ~$54 of electricity
at $.11 kWh, which means you use half the energy
I do. For six people?! I don't even watch TV, use
a microwave, etc. I do like to turn lights on at night
from 8pm until midnight. Crazy me. Do you use candles?
\_ I don't understand your electric bill then. My family
(me, wife, 2 kids) have an electric dryer, and a gas
heater. Our last PG&E bill was ~$80, which is HUGE for
us. Mostly due to not being able to dry our clothes
outside, and heating the house to a toasty 65 degrees.
Are you heating the house all day and night, even when
you aren't there? We only heat when we're home and
not in bed. This is in Livermore, CA. -jrleek (!pp)
\_ "I don't even have air/heat". I have a gravity
(gas) furnace which doesn't use electricity
at all. How many kWHs did you use for that $80 bill?
BTW, I read that the average US household uses
934 kWh/month, which is less than I use (usually
700-900).
\_ Ok, the $88 bill was both gas and electric.
Electric: 170 kWh, $19.48, $.1146 per kWh
Gas: 58 Therms, $69.30, $1.948 per Therm -jrleek
\_ 170 kwH?! A refrigerator by itself uses
100 kWh. You mean to say that you use 70
kWh for all of your other electricity
needs with 4 of you and an electric dryer?
Do you go to bed at sundown?
\_ New Poster: I am one person, I cook at home
every day, I leave a laptop on pretty much
24/7, I am more nocturnal than most and
yet my last gas+electricity bill was < $10.
\_ Er? Are you getting some sort of
discounted bill on some special program?
Just your laptop and some light cooking
would cost more than that. Are you
messing with the meter?
\_ A guy here at work only pays $5 a mo.
-jrleek
\_ I think that this is impossible
with taxes.
\_ I have no idea how many kWh my fridge uses
but I am not living a bizarrely ascetic life.
I go to bed at about 10pm. We are careful
with electricty usage, turn off the computer,
unplug the entertainment stuff when we aren't
using it, etc. But that stuff is chicken
feed compared to how much more you're using.
From the replies here it seems like you're
using a lot of electricity and not getting a
lot out of it. Your bill is similar to what
my dad pays, and he has a well for his water
(electric water pump), and runs 6 computers
all the time. You're using a LOT of juice.
You're the odd one here. Maybe your wife has
a secret server farm in the basement. -jrleek
\_ You'd think I'm the odd one, except
that stats show that ~900 kWh is
pretty typical household usage.
\_ Yes, but the typical household doesn't
claim to have no heat/AC, a gas dryer,
no TV, and no one home most of the
day. Also, CA has much lower per captia
energy useage, just over half. -jrleek
CFL bulbs, and no one home most of the
day. Also, CA has significanly lower
per captia energy useage-jrleek
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us_percapita_electricity_2003.html
\_ Well, I guess I need to invest
in a kill-a-watt, then, because
there's very little running.
\_ That sounds like a good idea. I'd
be really interested in what you
figure out. You could also check
your meter to see total useage.
Also, do you use incandecent
bulbs? Just curious. |
| 2007/2/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45792 Activity:nil |
2/22 Minnesota, a central state, beats the liberal CA on renewable energy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/renewable_energy
\_ I favor breeder reactors for renewable energy.
\_ I don't care at all which state "beats" some other state at
whatever. However, 1) CA is really 2.5 states smashed together
which have competing interests, 2) CA is a larger state, physically,
by population, expenses (and income), etc, 3) we all win when one
region shows that something good can work and by having already
done so, makes it cheaper for everyone else since the first mover
has solved certain problems or shown how certain directions are
wrong. I don't see why a "central" state can't "beat" a "liberal"
state on renewable energy or anything else. |
| 2007/2/22-26 [Science/Physics, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45790 Activity:nil |
2/22 Element 118 created ... in Iran!
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/061017_ap_heavy_element.html
\- e118 created ... "again"
in other news, berkeley >> the 'fraud
berkeley: http://csua.org/u/i3e
'fraud: http://csua.org/u/i3f |
| 2007/2/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/HW] UID:45776 Activity:nil |
2/20 Second Life is truly retarded:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/20/second_life_analysis
The coverage was less than complete, however. For example, there was
scant mention of Linden Lab's scaling issues. Second Life's servers -
which are hosted exclusively by Linden Lab - can only support between
50 and 100 avatars in one place at one time. Newsnight's party crashed
after only 30 "guests" arrived. Melbourne's The Age reported Ben Folds
launching an album before an "in world" audience of 25.
\_ I suspect the motd has exactly 1 Second Life subscriber. |
| 2007/2/15-20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45745 Activity:moderate |
2/15 is this true? heard someone say one of Al Gore's fear of Global
warming releasing alien lifeforms that are trapped in the glacial
ice in the Arctic.
\_ I really hope everyone here is being sarcastic, including op.
"Alien" here means "species new to, or not expected in the
ecosystem". Please tell me you're not all idiots.
\_ dude 'THE THING' is one of the scariest movies ever.
\_ Yes. Yes it is.
\- well then he can claim he discovered extraterrestrial life
\_ No, he invented extraterrestrial life.
\_ Except the ice in the arctic is growing colder and the ice pack
getting thicker. It's The Other Ones you have to worry about.
\_ No, it is shrinking, at least according to many scientific
sources. Here is one:
http://www.csua.org/u/i1z
Is there new information I am unaware of?
\_ I think pp is confused. It's the Antarctic ice pack that's
getting thicker. And it's that ice and Greenland's that pose
the biggest problems as far as sea levels go if they melt.
\_ Completely false. Everyone knows that the Aliens prefer
Antarctica over the Artic.
\_ I know, seriously. It's all right there in the X-Files
movie and Stargate SG-1. Duh!
\_ Is it true the Republicans still say "Would you like "Freedom Fries"
with that, Sir?" when you order a Big Mac from them?
\_ Have you stopped beating your wife? |
| 2007/2/13-17 [Industry/Jobs, Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45735 Activity:nil |
2/13 If anyone is looking for a job (or internship, this is aimed at
both current students and alum), bug me. I work with a bunch of smart
people at an interesting company that's going nuclear, I know a bunch
of people who have founded/are starting companies, and one very badass
recruiter. -dans |
| 2007/2/11-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45711 Activity:nil |
2/11 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/ING3RIPSO01.DTL "Predictions of the demise of suburbia, choked to death by high gasoline prices, may be greatly exaggerated." \_ We shall see. How many times has Alvin Toffler been used to explain everything. Are jobs really going to move to the suburbs? The only way that would decrease commuting is if they formed sort of "company town" kinds of clusters where everyone lived close to the same big employer. And a lot of the other stuff he claims is happening is bunk, like suburban sprawl in Europe. I personally think that alternative energies will allow Americans to use electric cars to commute, but they will be much smaller, much more efficient cars. And I think that denser communities will still have an advantage in an era of higher energy costs. Haven't densities actually gone up this last decade? Anyone got any hard numbers on this? They certainly have in California. |
| 2007/2/8-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45688 Activity:low |
2/8 "Low-Energy Lamp Aids in Conservation"
http://www.dailycal.org/sharticle.php?id=5648 (2001 article)
How is this Berkeley Lamp better than putting a $1 compact fluorescent
bulb in a cheap table lamp I get from Home Depot?
\_ Yes, I'm sure saving the environment is worthy cause. Meanwhile
as I type this tens more mouths to feed are being born per second
that negate any and all attempts at saving the Earth.
\_ "Can't win, don't try"?
\_ Yes, just the way I want it! -Hoggish Greedly
\_ More like, "Can't win that way, do something useful instead".
\_ Leaglize assisted suicide.
\_ Because clearly, speaking truth to, um, power, on the motd is
going to accomplish anything. Troll harder. -dans |
| 2007/2/5-7 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45657 Activity:nil |
2/5 Do fluorescent tubes and the energy efficient compact fluorescent
light bulbs go bad quickly if I turn them on and off frequently? I
think incandescent bulbs don't have this problem. Thanks.
\_ In general florescent bulb lasts longer, but it takes a few
minutes for it to reach full brightness, especially used
ones. It also doesn't work well with dimmers, it flicks. So
just leave it on if you'll be in/out often. It is more
impact resistent. I was down in the craw space and a little
bit of knocking, the regular bulb goes bad. Florescent has
no problem.
\_ Mythbusters checked this. The answer is no.
\_ Thanks! Now I'll turn off my fluorescent lights more often.
Here's the page if anyone is interetsted:
http://www.csua.org/u/hzv (Scroll down to "Bulb Longevity".)
--- OP
\- you should use THE BERKELEY LAMP |
| 2007/2/3-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45645 Activity:nil |
2/3 Orange snow in Russia:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=637
http://preview.tinyurl.com/ywl2db (telegraph.co.uk)
\_ Don't eat it! |
| 2007/2/1-6 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:45639 Activity:nil |
2/1 Boredcast Message from 'smurf': Thu Feb 1 14:36:36 2007
Cool exxon mobil made 4.5 million in profit per hour last quarter. Must
be nice.
\_ Their profit was 11%. Apple's was 14%. Are you going to call Apple
on it or not?
\_ It is cool, my XOM stock is up 21%!
\- i dont think you can really compare energy, healtcare,
phone, cable, utility etc providers with a computer and
consumer electronics company. [although apple might be
playing some games with price advertising. i forgot what the
practice is called but i think they offer companies money to
NOT advertise prices lower than a certain amount. but
potentially artificailly raising the price of a ipod by a bit
is different from artificially manipulating oil supply].
\_ The difference being, "ipods (and apple corp) are cool and
big oil is not, so apple is good, oil is bad.
\- no, that is not the difference. the difference is
apple doesnt have externalities or influence govt
policy on a comparable scale. the one somewhat suspect
thing is the price adverstising thing. also, there are
scale factors. e.g. you cant compare say growth rates
of china and the us ... a company can always sell off
parts of itself to raise it's profit percentage. [e.g.
ibm selling off storage, or ge doing this all the time]
re: ipod, YMWTGF: (minimum advertised price, MAP).
\_ What does any of this have to do with apple being cool
and thus getting a pass, and oil being evil and thus
not? |
| 2007/1/30-2/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45617 Activity:high |
1/30 You know what will stop global warming? Energy shortage.
Refinery fubars. Oil peak. Things of that sort. I pray
our oil fields get sabotaged so that our energy costs would be
10X it is now. Then, there would be no more wasteful lifestyles.
No more SUVs and less traffic jams, and most importantly
no more irresposible suburban sprawl. -sierra club urbanite hippy
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ your opinion does not matter.
\- do you understand that a large increase in energy prices
hurts poor people as well/even more than the person
who how has to spend $50 instead of $40 to fill up gas,
but still only see a 1% of income increase in cost of living?
it's the same thing with global warming ... it's not like
the main consequence will be on rich people's beach houses.
or teaching evolution instead of biology ... the people who
can opt out of these crazy school boards are the one's who
get shafted.
\_ I'm not filthy rich but I don't mind paying extra for
gas if that extra cost comes in the form of a tax that
goes to pay for infrastructure. Our public roads cost
an arm and a leg and someone has to pay for all that
road maintenance, emergency service, and environmental
cleanup. If I use those roads as a luxury (which I do),
then I should pay for my fair share of that road usage.
How much gasoline you consume is a better correlation
than how much money you make in a year. Joe Shmo who
drives his 2500 lbs Honda 5 miles a day probably damages
the road less than soccer mom who drives her 5000 lbs
SUV 20 miles a day.
\- i'm talking about about actual poor people ... which
is relevant if we're talking about "global energy/oil
prices" ... like people who dont have electricty and
only have kerosene lanterns. if we're just talking
about say califnornia slightly more expensive gas
blend for pollution purposes, then those people dont
really factor in, but they do when considering "the
big picture". does your life really change at all
whether gas is $2.25/gal or $2.75/gal? [i'm more
irritated the bay bridge toll is going to $4].
\_ You know all the infrastructure we have came from somewhere
and it wasn't paid for with criminally high levels of
taxation. Ask yourself how the state brings in more money
than ever yet falls further into debt every year while
doing very little to improve infrastructure or even really
maintain what we have now. There is plenty of money, it
is just spent poorly.
\_ I am not so sure that there is plenty of money.
Inflation has made everything so expensive.
Additionally, as the standard of living has risen
so have expectations. One example is that longer
lives have resulted in more medical costs. We never
spent money on lots of expensive procedures and
medications before, because they did not exist. I
think it is obvious that the current standard of
living is not sustainable long-term and will have
to decline to meet the rising standard of living
in the Third World at some less-than-current level.
There really isn't enough money to live like we
have been, hence the national debt.
\_ You were talking about things like public roads and
other infrastructure. Did you know there are 42
levees in CA that are considered New Orleans quality
unsafe? Anyone can see the roads are crap.
Emegency rooms are packed. Follow the money.
Inflation has not eaten the budget. The CA state
budget has ballooned up to gigantic proportions in
the last 15 years while inflation has remained low
and we still keep adding to the debt, selling bonds
and doing very little about our state's failing
infrastructure.
\_ I really don't think that is true. What is
the state spending, per person and adjusted
for inflation and how does it compare with past
years? I am sure we spent more per person back
in the Pat Brown "golden years" when California
was able to make the desert bloom, build a
great transportation network and a world class
university system. Nowadays, since Prop 13,
no one wants to pay for new schools, so we
are just living off stuff built and paid
university system. Nowadays, with things like
Prop 13, no one wants to pay for new schools,
so we are just living off stuff built and paid
for by our parents. That, compounded with the
sprawling McMansion problem, gives us a need
for more roads and less money to pay for them.
All the illegals don't help.
\_ I am the person who mentioned emergency
rooms. I wasn't saying that inflation per
se is the cause. We spend 2x the money per
capita now than we did 40 years ago, even
adjusting for inflation. When I say
'inflation' what I am saying is that costs
have risen because of increased standards.
That is, we are getting more for our
money. My example was medical treatment.
\_ So you think the MediCal program
is the cause of limited infrastruct-
ure spending?
Health care costs a lot more now than it
did then, even adjusted for inflation, but
we received more for it. More regulations
we receive more for it. More regulations
(e.g. environment), longer lifespans, and
illegal immigration are all things that
are costing the State money that were not
really big issues in the 1950s. Add to
\_ How does longer living people cost
the state money? Same question for
environmental regulation.
that the growing population (growing
faster than high-paying jobs which
contribute to the tax base) which contributes
\_ Low paying jobs don't cost the state
money.
to the high prices of, for example, real estate
and utilities. This effects the State and
\_ High incomes are inflationary, so
you get higher real estate prices
but no more real income from them.
Low paying jobs don't cost the
state money.
employers both. There is no way the State
can return to business as it was in the
1950s and 1960s, when untreated sewage
drained into the ocean, people died at
70, ESL classes were unheard of, land was
plentiful, and crime was low. I read that
\_ Thank God, no, it can't. But boy
we sure had good roads!
Santa Ana spends 50% of its budget on
police now. I doubt that was the case
in 1960. Prop 13 is a red herring. LA
County just had a huge surplus in budget
because of windfall property tax generated
by the rising real estate market. Look at
\_ Fake money.
\_ Unlike pieces of paper, backed
by nothing? Is that "real" money?
the State budget and you'll see that
there's almost nothing to cut except for
perhaps the penal system, where we spend
much more money than ever before.
\_ Nonsense. The education budget is a
ridiculous mess.
\- people who follow these kinds of things
are well aware the real issue on the
horizon is medical spending not the
social security. there was an excellent
article on this some months back in the
ny rev books. i can dig it up, but you
have to email me. --psb
\_ Prop 13 is *not* a Red Herring. Overall
per person tax revenue plummeted after
it was enacted. True, other taxes eventually
\_ Because it was criminally high and
forcing people from their homes.
\_ Obviously you prefer shitty roads,
overcrowded emergency rooms and
declining schools to paying a
few more percentage points of
GDP to taxes. I respectfully
disagree.
took the place of property taxes, but they
are much more cyclical, causing weird
booms in tax revenue and then inconvenient
busts, during recessions, right when
government spending needs to be higher.
\_ Gosh, you mean the people we elect
to manage the state will have to
take that into account and have
a rainy day fund and not spend every
penny plus the future with bonds?
Furthermore, the decade or so of under-
investment in infrastructure post-13 has
put us in a rut we still haven't dug
ourselves out of. I am not even going to
get into the regressive effect of things
like sales taxes, which replaced prop-13.
\_ Yes, it's a red herring because - as
you say - other taxes replaced it.
We spend 2x the tax dollars per capita
now than we did 40 years ago. The
solution here is not to repeal Prop
13, too. Infrastructure is not
failing because of Prop 13. The
State funds most of that anyway
and the State doesn't collect
property taxes.
\_ I don't believe you. What is your
source for your "2x" figure? We spend
13% more than we did in 1990:
http://www.csua.org/u/hz3
Are you saying it almost doubled
from 1970 to 1990? Show me your
statistics.
link:www.csua.org/u/hz4
It also fell from 1978 to 1995.
\_ So you're praying for global economic collapse and the deaths of
billions. Ok, I guess one way to save the environment is to just
kill off humanity. Of course your life style will be impacted in
ways you can't even imagine but I'm figuring you're much more
likely to be a troll than believe what you're saying. Now I know
soda is back in action. Welcome, first motd troll of 2007!
\_ I don't think a gradual ratcheting up of gasoline prices will
cause global famine. If it goes up 10-20%/year, we will adapt.
There will be fewer sprawling suburbs and smaller cars and yes,
probably a slowing in global growth, but this is better than
runaway global warming, imho.
\_ Why do you hate America?
\_ As the total cost of fossil fuels rises, other energy sources will
be competitive and we'll shift to somehitng else. The end.
\- it's not that simple because of externalities. although it is
true that all of a sudden were not going to have 0 oil because
it all ran out. [so the easter island tree analogy doesnt
quite work].
\_ which externalities?
\- risk, pollution, tax policy, govt subsidy etc.
but i do agree [i think we're agreeing] that correcting
the mkt forces and moving toward a level playing field
between oil and other fuels is what is most likely to
bring about change. frankly things like preaching about
conservation is stupid. that just keeps things cheaper
for the people who dont conserve. and minor investments
such as smal tax credits for solar or small r&d isnt
going to make that much of a difference. the biggest
problem in teh global wamring area [as opposed to
"energy security"] i feel will be the "big fuck you"
from china, india ... i cannot see what an agreement
between them and the us over how to share the costs
of dealing with global warming will work ... it's going
to be even more stark than the doha round collapse.
\_ In what way is there not a "level playing field"
between oil and other fuels? What are these other
fuels you're talking about? Then you mention solar
but *no one* is talking about solar as a fuel source.
\- when the govt sells drilling rights to an oil
company [or spectrum rights, or western grazing
rights, or water rights etc] those are all
subsidies. when the govt [us army corps of
\_ How is it a subs. if they paid for it?
Do you want to have food, radio, tv, and
transportation? To not sell rights to some
corporation means these will all be govt
provided. No thank you.
\- i am not saying the govt shouldnt
sell these. but the way you sell them
affects the prices you get. e.g.
an auction vs the govt setting an
aritificially low price for western
grazing lands, giving the networks
free spectrum in retun for public
service messages etc. do you know about
say "water farming"? ... where a famers
real asset is his right to artifically
cheep water which he can resell? that is
bullshit ... it is just welfare for some
rich farmer.
\_ There are no rich farmers. Just ADM.
Anyway, you/someone mentioned a level
playing field between alternative
fuels but no one said what fuels.
Like bio diesel? Like ethanol? Like
what? For many reasons these are
worse than oil for fuel and make for
a giant boondoggle to the farm states.
Which alternative fuels were we
talking about?
engineers?] dreges channels differently for
oil transportation, that is a subsidy. i am not
sure if costs are internalized for say pipeline
construction. also in cases of oil spills and
such, it is unclear full costs are paid.
\_ probably not, but that's a minor cost
on the scales we're talking about.
note: it is quite possible other industries
receive efective/indirect subsidies as well,
such as nuclear. some of these subsidies may make
senes, but they exist and people should be cognizant
of them.
\_ So you'd prefer the oil companies dredge the
channels themselves or that they pay for the
USACoE to do it for them? Let's say all of the
govt provided infrastructure you mentioned was
taken away. Either we wouldn't have an oil
industry or it would just pass the costs on to
all of us at the pump. So rich people are mobile
and empowered while the poor are screwed and the
middle class lags as usual picking up the bulk of
any tab. Taxes won't be any lower if all these
services are not provided to corporations, they'll
just be spent on some other pork project that
doesn't help the average citizen.
\_ If the tax dollars were returned to you
then you could choose whether to give it
to the oil companies to dredge (via
gasoline purchases) or to do something
else with it. When it's a subsidy the cost
is hidden. It's more more useful when
people realize what it is that they are
paying for. Costs don't get "passed on" to
consumers. Consumers choose to absorb
them - or not.
\_ But the tax dollars won't be returned to me.
They will be spent elsewhere and I'll still
have to pay more for fuel. If there was a
direct link between cutting these corp.
subsidies and lower taxes I'd agree with
you on the rest of it, but the world does
not work like that. |
| 2007/1/12-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45535 Activity:nil |
1/12 "Scientists prepare to move Doomsday Clock forward"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070112/sc_nm/doomsday_clock_dc
\_ Am I the only one who thinks the "doomsday clock" is retarded?
(or at least not newsworthy)
\_ You're right, it is retarded. It is as useful and as relevant to
the average american as computers are as useful and as relevant
to the starving & AIDS kids in Africa.
\_ You mean it's as relevant to atomic science as the "Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists"?
\_ "Terror Code is ORANGE. That means Americans need to be more
proactive and be on the lookout for terrorists." -GWB |
| 2006/12/14-15 [Science/GlobalWarming, Transportation] UID:45446 Activity:high |
12/13 NYC is fucked by 2030. Time to move to suburbia, bahahahaha:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/13/nyc.population.ap/index.html
\_ You realize just how foolish the statement "all-day rush hour" is,
right? |
| 2006/12/9-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45424 Activity:nil |
12/09 Oil is running out! Excellent Oil Age Poster here:
http://www.oilposter.org
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net |
| 2006/12/5-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45414 Activity:low |
12/4 Looking for a pretty picture posted on motd a while ago on the
US energy expenditure/sources (picture of % of natural gas, oil,
nuclear, etc and how much of that used in transportation, appliances,
heating, etc). I think it's from DOE but I'm not sure. Anyone
remember where it is? Thanks.
\- from our cousin lab:
http://www.praetor.org/images/USEnFlow02-exaj.gif
--your friend from the DoE
\_ Holy shit 27.8 out of 40.3 units of electricity generation
is energy lost. Electricity sucks.
\- er this shouldnt be a surprise if you've taken a
physics class. and it's not just electricity.
gas -> kinetic energy for cars isn't "more efficient
than electricity". |
| 2006/12/1-8 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:45403 Activity:low |
12/1 How much does polonium cost? I'm curious because I'm baffled as to
why we didn't simply put polonium into Saddam Hussein (and his
sons) food chain. It would have been faster and cheaper.
\_ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/weekinreview/03broad.html
"$22.50 plus tax"
\_ wouldn't his sons have just taken over
\_ If he was that easy to poison, bon't you think we would've?
We can't even poison Castro. It's not like you have to use
polonium, cynide works fine. |
| 2006/11/29-12/8 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45392 Activity:nil |
11/29 http://www.transportation.anl.gov/features/economist.html Argonne Economist Predicts Gas Price Bump and Following Recession |
| 2006/11/28-12/7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45384 Activity:nil |
11/28 Do you know why Dubai is building a massive walkable city that is
extremely energy efficient? They know something we don't. Oil
production in the US has already peaked in the 70s (search for "oil
peak hubbart, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil World oil
production, most of it still in the middle-east, has now reached a
plateau, and very soon production will decline causing oil price to
sky-rocket in the next decade or so. Dubai seems to know this well
and Dubai is prepared. Is America prepared?
\_ Oil Peak is a myth. Production is at its highest in years. It's
the damned Chinese and Indians who are outstripping demand,
causing huge price spikes.
\_ By "Oil Peak is a myth" do you mean that it hasn't happened yet
and is a long way off, or do you mean that God will magically
pump more oil into the ground every year to replenish what we
take so we can never run out even if demand keeps going up
forever? At what point in the Earth's 6000 year history do
you believe God pumped all the oil in in the first place?
Or do you mean that you're bored at work and you're saying
mind-numbingly stupid shit in order to provoke people for your
own entertainment?
\_ Where do America's richest people live? With the lone exception of
L.A., they live in small walkable downtown areas, either in the
downtown of a big city like midtown Manhattan right over Central
Park, or in some little resort town in a place like Martha's
Vineyard. Americans who make 250k/year may spend time sitting in
traffic, but the people who make 10m/year do *not*. That is the
demographic that Dubai is interested in. I'm guessing energy
efficiency is just a side effect.
\_ No. Actually, Dubai homes are quite affordable. For an
equivalent size I can get a condo right by the marina in
Dubai for 2/3 the price of Sunnyvale condos.
People making 10m/year don't sit in traffic because they don't
have to take the mundane trips to/from workplace. However they
DO commute, via their private jets (Oprah), heli, whatever.
They also have the capability of making better use of their
time in their vehicles while being driven by their drivers
and personal pilots. As for rich people living in Manhattan,
those are mostly their secondary/third/fourth homes they live
in so that they don't have to check-in into hotels while they
work nearby for a few days. Most still prefer their primary
cottage country homes. The wealthiest are still in suburbia, in
Conneticut, Virginia, Atherton CA, away from commoners.
\_ US's 15 richest live in Medina (Gates), Omaha (Buffet), Mercer
Island (Allen), Atherton (Ellison), Bentonville (the Waltons),
Durango (Walton), Fort Worth (Walton), Redmond (Ballmer),
Honolulu (Anthony), Atlanta (Chambers), Kluge (Charlottesville),
Newton Centre (Redstone). How many of these places have "small
walkable downtown areas"? Man, that Bentonville sure is
walkable.
\_ Does Dubai allow their women to drive?
\_ Hm, I guess not. But you know what, that cuts down automotive
pollution by half! These Arabs are really progressive and
thinking ahead of the time! |
| 2006/11/28-12/12 [Science/GlobalWarming, Recreation/Food] UID:45381 Activity:nil |
11/28 http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/IndividualItemPages/SunOven.html Cook using Sun power! |
| 2006/11/26-12/5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:45372 Activity:kinda low |
11/26 http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=fuh2&s=int Nice FUH2 pictures (fuck you H2). Middle fingers, not Mormon safe \_ I must know, what is your (the unnamed troll) infatuation with Mormons? -emarkp \_ Hero worship. \_ Why are they including H1's in there? Seems like a dumb thing to waste energy on. Why should anyone bother looking at these? They are just, you know, H2s with middle fingers. |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45301 Activity:moderate |
11/9 Why am I supposed to listen to the "consensus" among scientists on
global warming but ignore the "consensus" among economists about the
problems of raising the minimum wage?
\_ What is the consensus among economists about raising the minimum
wage?
\_ What is your supposed consensus among economists about raising
the minimum wage?
\_ Exactly; there is no consensus, despite years of conservative
investment in economic think tanks designed to put out
papers supporting the conservative agenda.
http://www.indiana.edu/~econed/pdffiles/fall03/fuller.pdf
(Less than 50% of economists strongly agree that raising the
minimum wage increases unemployment) -tom
\_ First of all, what is this "supposed to" crap? Believe what you
want to believe. Second of all, you're blurring the scientific
consensus with politics. The science agrees on the statements:
1) CO_2 is a greenhouse gas, without which the Earth would be
much cooler, and which is therfore critical in setting the
temperature of the planet.
2) CO_2 has been increasing steadily for the last few decades and
3) That CO_2 increase can be attributed to human technology.
That's the consensus. Beyond that, when you start talking about
what country signs what treaty or how severe the effects of
climate change will be, you've left the world of scientific
consensus. I think the biggest bullshit on boths sides of the
global warming political debate comes from blurring the lines
between science and policy.
\_ What about this:
"Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans"
http://www.csua.org/u/hfa (reuters.com)
Is this part of the scientific consensus, or only the view of
one group of scientists?
consensus.
\_ What about it? Did you read the article?
\_ It's not in your 3-item consensus list above. So I was
wondering if this is still up for debate.
\_ You balance each against the alternative. The alternatives to
listening are, respectively:
* climate disaster but short term economic advantage
* economic slowdown but short term low income social gain
* glb wming: climate disaster but short term economic advantage
* min wage: economic slowdown but short term low income social gain
\_ That's a nice shovel of shit you're eating, but I'm not being
told to compare the alternatives. I'm being told there's a
\_ That's a nice shovel of shit I'm eating, but you're not being
told to compare the alternatives. You're being told there's a
consensus on one.
\_ Nice. Maybe you should grow up before posting to motd again.
\_ HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
\_ So what you're really asking is why liberals quote the experts
in one field, but tell you to ignore the experts in the other?
Gee, I don't know... hypocrisy? Duh.
\_ Politicians like to paint everything to be one-sided. Yes, the vast
\_ Politicians like to paint everything one-sided. Yes, the vast
majority of politicans are hypocritical like this.
You, a Cal student, on the other hand, should be able to decipher
the bullshit and accept the consensus truths, and find a policy
that makes sense.
\_ They also like to paint factual things has having "controversy"
\_ They also like to paint factual things as having "controversy"
over them. (global warming, evolution, ozone hole, etc)
\- is light a particle or a wave? |
| 2006/11/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45299 Activity:nil |
11/9 Can someone explain the Stefan-Boltzmann law in reasonably plain
English? I don't know enough physics to understand the wikipedia
articles well enough to understand. Something about the amount of
energy an object radiates over time? Thanks.
\_ Wikipedia seems pretty clear: "The Stefan-Boltzmann law states that
the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body in
unit time is proportional to the fourth power of the black body's
temperature". Did you not understand part of that, or did you want
more detail? (Do you know what a black body is?)
\_ What is the fourth power of the bb's temp? Do they literally
mean temp^4? I can use a better idea of what a bb is, too, but
\_ yes.
\_ ah, thanks.
\_ Note that temp is in kelvins.
\_ LOL. I like the idea that blackbody radiation
is zero at 32 F. That would be a funny
universe.
I have the general idea.
\_ Real objects absorb some of the light that hits them (raising
their temperature), reflect some, and let some through. They
also radiate light, which lowers their temperature. Unless
the object is changing temperature, the amount of light it
radiates must be equal to the amount it absorbs (Kirchhoff's
law). Some objects reflect or transmit a lot of light, and
thus absorb and radiate very little; some are the opposite.
The limit where an object absorbs *everything* that hits it
(and therefore radiates as much as theoretically possible)
is called a black body.
\_ Thanks. That's a great explanation. Much appreciated.
\_ What is this for, exactly?
\_ I read http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
which has a link to more details at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=EL4ZGZEGE0A4LQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0
\_ I read http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc4jtf (telegraph.co.uk)
which has a link to more details at
link:preview.tinyurl.com/y4cha4 (telegraph.co.uk)
and there's an entire chunk I can't understand without
knowing what S-B is talking about.
\_ If you really want to get into this in more detail, I
reccomend the book "Endoreversible Thermodynamics of
Solar Energy Conversion", by Alexis de Vos, which has
a really nice thermodynamic introduction at the
beginning laying out where the SB law comes from.
The fourth power comes from the fact that this is a
thee dimensional law. While this may sound like wankery,
the zero dimensional blackbody describes the thermal
radiation from a resistor in a circuit(Johnson Noise),
and that's linear in temperature.
http://csua.org/u/hf9
\_ Ok, this all makes a lot more sense now, thanks. |
| 2006/11/8-10 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45275 Activity:nil |
11/8 It turned out that energy and oil companies like Chevron paid over
100 million dollars to anti Prop 87 TV ads. Will they take that
as a loss, or will we as consumers have to pay them back 100
million dollars at the pumps?
\_ It will be booked as a lobbying expense. It's not so simple as
"raise prices to recover $100M", but it has a negative effect on
profit margins and will encourage them to raise prices to compensate |
| 2006/11/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45147 Activity:kinda low |
11/3 "Gore to advise British on global warming"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_sc/britain_global_warming_10
Open this page in a tabbed window in Firefox 1.5x, then check out the
tab to see the hidden message.
\_ Just tell us what it is. Why would I have 1.5x when 2.0 is out?
\_ I have no idea how tabs in 2.0 look like. In my 1.5.0.7, the
tab reads "Gore to advise British on global war...".
\_ You don't have nearly enough tabs. Mine says "Gore..."
\_ I only have two tabs, so my tabs are of the default width.
\_ Oh, I guess I'm too slow today. It does the same in 2.0.
Btw get 2.0. But the new tab close buttons are stupid. So
set browser.tabs.closeButtons to 3 in about:config. The
new buttons require you to hunt for them instead of being
fixed in the corner, besides being redundant (middle click
closes the tab). Basic UI mistake. |
| 2006/11/3 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:45143 Activity:nil |
11/3 "Gore to advise British on global warming"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_sc/britain_global_warming_10
The funny thing is: I used a tabbed window in Firefox to open this
page a few days ago, then forgot to close it. Today when I brought
up the window again, I saw the tab displaying "Gore to advise British
on global war..." and I thought "oh no". |
| 2006/11/3-4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45125 Activity:nil |
11/2 How the hell did the world become so dependent on automobile?
\_ Ever own one? You can watch movies, listen to music, and
have your butt massaged in your own private space on your way
to where you want to go at (ostensibly) 120mph. It's a
wonderful invention! The problem is when there are too many
people with them in a given area. However, imagine you are
the only one with a car. Would you use it? Would you depend
on it? Hell, yeah! That's how!
\_ Cars = mobility. Mobility = opportunity. Most of the country is
not jam packed all day the way LA and SF are.
\_ The world? Not really. Not in third-world countires or densely
populated areas in developed countries. |
| 2006/10/28-30 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:45022 Activity:nil |
10/28 Why is it that activist have a hard time acting like decent civilized
people?
http://tinyurl.com/yaqals (macworld.co.uk)
\_ Because they're on a mission from God. (Or Gaia in this case.) |
| 2006/10/24-26 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44939 Activity:nil |
10/24 The Onion would have done so much better with this headline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc
\_ "On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth
of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out
by then," No wonder those hot WWF valets always walk around
by then," No wonder those hot sexy WWF valets always walk around
carrying two planets in front of them. I love WWF!
\_ "Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and
whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to
reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years."
20% in 5 yrs! How do they plan to achieve that? And our goal is what,
single-digit percentage in double-digit number of years?
reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five
years." 20% in 5 yrs! How do they plan to achieve that? And our
goal is what, single-digit percentage in double-digit number of
years? |
| 2006/10/20-23 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44878 Activity:nil |
10/20 http://csua.org/u/h9l (washingtonpost.com) Super-moron Krauthammer confirms his "special" status "The nuclear Japan card remains the only one that carries even the remote possibility of reversing North Korea's nuclear program." \_ Heh. "Super-moron". Again with the lefties who dismiss people by calling them dumb. Can't you guys learn a new trick? \_ How about this: Flip-flopping cut-and-runner Krauthammer.... \_ Ah, this is your knee-jerk about what righties say? \_ Don't let me spoonfeed it to you. C'mon. |
| 2006/10/13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44808 Activity:moderate |
10/13 Early snow?!?! Damn this global warming!
\_ Buffalo, NY: Land of sin, land of snow.
\_ global warning refers to a global average temperature changes.
However due to interaction of various climates, some may actually
wind up colder, or simply both hotter and colder.
\_ I'm fully aware of that. However, every time the temperature is
slightly above normal (even on one day) we are barraged by global
warming comments. -op
\_ Exactly. This is why many scientists refer to it as Global
Climate Change.
\_ You're just as stupid as the people who said that the northeastern
heat wave finally proved to them that GW was real. |
| 2006/10/12-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44796 Activity:kinda low |
10/12 Who needs science? Just try and execute people who disagree with you!
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
\_ Of course what he said as stupid, but lest you shrug off the guilt
\_ Of course what he said was stupid, but lest you shrug off the guilt
factor here a little bit... there probably are one or two people who
honestly believe global warming is a myth, but the vast majority of
those who louds profess that are doing it for personal gain. So
those who loudly profess that are doing it for personal gain. So
we've got people whose words and actions have a potential to cause
millions of deaths a year through inaction on greenhouse gas
abatement programs, and they're doing it for personal gain. We have
no system for trying people for such a thing, but it's something to
think about.
\_ One or two people? And the vast majority of this one or two are
in it for personal gain? While the GW-is-real crowd has nothing
to gain from this and do it from the pure goodness of their
hearts and love of Mother Earth? And anyone who dares challenge
dogma should be tried and executed. Ok. At least you're honest
about it. I'm pretty sure there used to be a time when science
was based on the whole concept of conjecture->hypothesis->theory
->proof thing with a healthy dose of debate and challenge at
each step of the way but I guess that has become annoying. Trial
followed by execution is so much easier than proving something.
\_ Yes, and there was debate.. and it's over. What about the
"healthy debate" over the second law of thermodynamics and
devices that defy it? It doesn't exist because one or two
quacks don't make a debate. Likewise one or two tools of the
oil industry don't make a debate.
\_ As opposed to the vast majority of scientists who depend on grant
money which is affected by fads and fear-mongering?
\_ Tell you what: anyone caught denying global warming despite knowing
otherwise who denies it solely on the basis of making a buck ought
to be shot. How's that for clarification?
\_ It's honest but you still need help.
\_ You're right: I'll never get all these people shot by myself.
Here, load this. |
| 2006/10/11-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44777 Activity:moderate |
10/11 Sprawl spreads development out over large amounts of land; puts long
distances between homes, stores, and job centers; and makes people
more and more dependent on driving in their daily lives.
http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/overview
\_ Why do people spend so much time fussing over a problem that
will solve itself? When driving sucks so hard and is so
expensive that no one wants to do it, no one will do it. We're
not at that point yet. If you don't like to drive, don't. Lots
of people are voting with their dollars and they prefer to drive.
\_ uh, maybe because the damage to our society and environment
will be already done by the time the invisible hand gets around
to doing anything about it. -tom
\_ I WILL NOT BE MOCKED! --the invisible hand
\_ And some of the problems are governmental (like city
regulations that limit density, or poor public transit),
which the free market isn't in a good position to solve.
\_ You'll have a hard time proving any damage to society,
but if you want more environmental regulations that's
cool, but it's tangential. In fact, emissions requirements
for cars are much stricter than they used to be. The
person above seems more concerned about sprawl than the
environment, though. Even a zero emissions vehicle won't
have any impact on sprawl.
\_ The free market has determined that your idea of damage is
not the same as the market's idea of damage. Otherwise we'd
already being living in your vision for society.
\_ You're equating government-subsidized sprawl with the
free market? Right. If strip malls and subdivisions are
part of your free market worldview, you must love the
brilliant capitalistic success that is Amtrak.
\_ There is no such thing as a pure free market. And those
malls provide goods, services, and jobs while paying
taxes and generating revenue for the surrounding areas.
Yes, my idea of the free market involves having a place
for businesses to exist in sufficient size and number to
provide the goods, services, and jobs required by an
active economy.
\_ Right. So when you say "free market", that's your
code word for corporate socialism with your people
in charge. Thank you for admiting it. Now most
\_ code word? my people? excuse me for a
moment while i go find my tin foil.
people are perfectly willing to admit that the believe
government has a role to play in regulating business,
and that it's useful to debate what that role should
be. What makes people like you so evil is that
you avoid admiting that and cloak your pet socialist
people are perfectly willing to admit that the
believe government has a role to play in regulating
business, and that it's useful to debate what that
role should be. What makes people like you so evil
is that you avoid admiting that and cloak your pet
socialist
\_ i don't avoid that at all. my opening line
was "there is no such thing as a pure free
market".
programs in free market rhetoric right up until you're
programs in free market rhetoric right up until
you're
\_ i have no pet social programs. i believe in
smaller government, lower taxes, and less
government control over all aspects of
daily life.
cornered, and all of a sudden --"there are no real
free markets!! I'm a realist!!".
\_ i'll fedex a whole roll of tin or aluminum
foil (your choice or both if you feel the
need) to any of your hide outs at my cost.
\_ The free market has classified your brain as: small
\_ Thanks for saying nothing.
\_ The free market on Easter Island decided it was a great
idea to cut down all the trees. -tom
\_ Excellent point. Haiti's abject poverty is partly
attributable to unregulated environmental exploitation,
and modern-day Montana is all fucked up because
unregulated mining companies have poisoned much
of the fresh water there, destroying sustainable
industry such as tourism and agriculture. --PeterM
\_ That's because they had protectionist policies. They
should have imported their resources from more
efficient markets. <sarcasm/>
\_ I wasn't aware the Easter Islanders had a free market
capitalist society. Do you have a reference for that?
Perhaps their real problem was lack of trade with their
neighbors. Oh wait, they didn't have any. They were
isolated and had too many people on too small an area
with an unlimited food supply. So EI has nothing to do
with this but thanks anyway.
\_ More to the point, it has nothing to do with
transportion-induced sprawl.
\_ The idea that free markets always provide desireable
outcomes is mythical. I don't think anyone smart,
including Adam Smith, ever made that assertion,
\_ nor did i, thanks.
and it has been mathematically proven to be
false. Your response about how the U.S. isn't
like Easter Island is asinine; of course that's
true but it's completely and intentionally missing
the point. Easter Islanders *would have been better
\_ there is no point. ei was a useless example
of a mall driven suburban environment.
off in the long run* if they got together to protect
their environment before it was too late. There
are plenty of examples of societies which protected
their environment, and of societies which didn't, and
you definitely want to be in the former group. -tom
\_ I guess I'm just trying to find out why being
'dependent on driving' is, in itself, a bad
thing or even bad for the environment. Like I
said before, even a zero emissions vehicle
will encourage sprawl. Heck, horses and
bicycles encourage sprawl (and did back when
the first suburbs formed). In short, I don't
see any point to the original statement. What
*is* the problem and why can't the free market
solve it?
\_ Sprawl has environmental impacts, including
increased use of resources, loss of arable
land, pressure on ecosystems, and wilderness
encroachment. -tom
\_ You are avoiding my question. Why is
driving a negative aspect of sprawl?
The original statement mentions driving
and 'long distances' specifically. I do
not advocate sprawl, but clearly if an
IKEA warehouse is going to be built
then why does it matter if it is in the
central city or 40 miles away? It is
going to take up xxx acres of land
either way.
\_ look, cars are 'bad', ok?
\_ You're either being disingenuous or
obtuse. A society based on the private
auto takes a lot more energy to move
people and things around; energy is not
free and is not going to be free any
time soon. The amount of space required
for auto infrastructure, and the energy
required to maintain that infrastructure,
is also enormous. -tom
\_ no i want to be in the society that has a rational
policy towards environment while still allowing
people to live well. "you want to be in the group
that destroys itself". silly. you brought up a
bad example and people made fun of it. maybe
next time. |
| 2006/10/11-13 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:44776 Activity:nil |
10/11 http://csua.org/u/h5x (iht.com) Russian defense minister reaffirms 5 to 15 kiloton estimate: "Our estimates have remained absolutely unchanged ... The discrepancy in the estimates can be explained by two reasons. The first is purely political ... somebody wants it to be more powerful, somebody less ... The second aspect is purely technical. Whose national technical devices do you think are closest to the site of the explosion? That is the answer to your question." \_ Unless the Russkies have a monitoring station just over the border, I'd still trust the South Koreans. \_ Why would you trust the Russians under any circumstances? \_ Hmm, the Russian defense minister is saying Russia wants the test to be more powerful. And like he said, it's purely political. Ha ha! This guy beats Dan Quayle. \_ I still think N.Koreans are bluffing. In either case, Bush/Cheney should for the first time draw up a post-conflict plan and thinking about nation building. The funny thing is, S.Koreans, long desires unification of their motherland, is in no mood to absorb N.Koreans right now. China was actively training a set of shadow government officials, but they are not in the mood for N.Koreans to ruin the 2008 Olympics. \_ You think they're faked a mini nuke with a huge pile of conventional explosives or you think they will keep trying to set off nukes? What part do you think the NK are bluffing? |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44738 Activity:high |
10/9 So this whole plugin hybrid campaign thing... Wouldn't that completely
fuck the CA power grid if even a few % of drivers bought those?
\_ the real issue is not rather CA power grid can handel it.
I was told that if we modify it to make it plugin, it will
drastically reduce the life span of the rechargable battery of those
Prius, thus make the car a lot more prohibitive than it would
otherwise.
\_ Electric power means "pollute elsewhere." The only way to reduce
pollution is nuclear-- which will decimate population and reduce
consumption, period.
\_ Not necessarily. A large power plant can run cleaner than a
bunch of little power plants. And nuclear seems to work in
France.
\_ no it doesn't. French are racist and they have no problem
dumping nuclear waste in some French colony in the Southern
Pacific and completely disregards of people live there.
Unless we decided that it is ok to mimic what French does
in our Indian Reservation, the it is unlikely to work.
\_ Those aren't "our" reservations. They are sovereign states
that you would have to buy the right from to dump on.
They are not colonies.
\_ You're also forgetting the fact that "well to wheel", electric
vehicles are far more efficient than the most efficient gas
powered vehicles (including hybrids).
\_ Probably not. We can assume most people would plugin their car
at night, which wouldn't have high electric utilization
anyway.
\_ Yes, the power grid has no ability to power a significant number
of electric cars right now. -tom
\_ Thanks tom! I guess we're fucked... If only there were some sort
of efficient human powered form of transportation... Nah, now I'm
just being stupid.
\_ Really? I just did a "back of napkin" calculation. CA ISO
was providing 50,000 MW of power during the hottest summer
day. At night, the usage is typically half of that (or
less). Let's assume we have at least 15k MW spare capacity.
I just checked the experimental plugin Prius. They have
the battery at 9kWhr. Let's assume we can charge it (at
night) 1kW for 9 hours. This means the spare power capacity
can potentially charge 15 million plugin prius. I wouldn't
call that insignificant. Of course my calculation could
be off by a power of 10 (or more).
\_ We don't produce the same power off-peak; the only way
we could would be to burn more natural gas. -tom
\_ Not disagreeing with you on this. My point is that
a lot of the infrastructure is there for providing
"peak" power. Why not use the capacity for off-peak.
Of course we'll burn more natural gas, coal,
whatever. Energy is not free.
\_ I think the infrastructure problem occurs more when a ton of
people plug in their cars when they get home at 6pm on a
scorching summer day or worse yet, while at work in the middle
of the afternoon.
\_ Well, yeah, the problem is that if we suddendly were
deriving, say, 5% of the power used by autos during
commute hours off the grid, we wouldn't have nearly
the capacity. 1 horsepower = 745 watts; do the math. -tom
\_ Here's the math. Say during one full day's driving,
your car needs to output the equivalent of 200hp lasting
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capturing any of this
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capture any of this
via re-generative brakes. That's 33.3hp-hr. Say you
charge your car between 10pm-8am. Then the charger
needs to provide power at 3.33hp. That's 2485.7W,
which is about the same as two hair driers. Of course,
since neither charging nor motor-driving are 100%
efficient, in reality you need more than two hair
driers' power to provide 200hp-10min's of driving.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/h5e (http://www.pluginpartners.org
"There is a synergy between increased use of PHEVs and expanded use
of wind energy. Widespread use of PHEVs in an electric system makes
it easier for that system to accept more wind energy. This is
because most PHEVs will be charging at night, when demand for
electricity is at its lowest, and wind energy production tends to be
at its highest in many parts of the country. Also, PHEV batteries
can act as storage for wind energy produced at off-peak times."
\_ This would make sense if there was a switch on your car charger
to only charge your car if the wind is blowing. Otherwise,
they're firing up those polluting, expensive backups to
charge your car when you ain't a blowin' in da wind.
\_ Those polluting expensive backups are still usually cleaner
than car engines. See the FAQ at the link above.
\_ plug-in hybrid makes a lot more sense when combined with
a charger system that has a timer to control when it charges,
and time-of-use metering at the home to encourage users to set
the system to charge on off-peak hours. The off-peak power is
cheaper to generate and tends to use large power plants that
produce more efficiently but respond slowly to power demand
changes, such as hydro and nuclear. The peaker plants that run
at peak hours usually are burning more expensive natural gas.
\_ A timer for an AC outlet is not that expensive. I bought a
mechanical 15amp one at IKEA for $8. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44731 Activity:very high |
10/8 Bush diplomacy comes to its logical conclusion:
Threatening three countries, labeling them the "Axis of Evil" and
then invading one of them for no real reason causes the other two
to pursue nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Good job, neocons,
are you actually double agents out to destroy America or are you just
that stupid?
\_ you are unamerican. there is a "relationship" between Iraq and
9/11. And we are making progress in Iraq:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6221366
(NPR: U.S. Monthly Toll in Iraq at Highest Point in 2 Years)
see, we are breaking records!
\_ Except for the fact that all three countries were working on nukes
many years before 2000, this is an excellent analysis. ;-)
\_ missing the point. imagine if we are not stuck in Iraq,
we would of have a lot more options against N.Korea, no?
\_ No, not really. Even with a WWII sized draft size army we
would not invade NK. Current military doctrine is to bomb
from high flying jets/bombers and missiles from Navy TF way
over the horizon, not put a million men on the ground.
\_ And Israel demonstrated how effective that is when they
used it against Hezbollah.
\_ I didn't say it was effective. Anyway, the NK have the
sort of traditional WWII style army which it would
*mostly* work against but that wouldn't matter anyway.
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
WASHINGTON. The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (search) production
by Saddam Hussein's (search) regime after 1991.
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production
by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991.
U.S. officials also said the report shows Saddam was much
farther away from a nuclear weapons program in 2003 than he
was between 1991 and 1993; there is no evidence that Iraq and
Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that
Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel
in developing weapons.
\_ Yeah no kidding "after 1991". What a weird date to go by.
I wonder what happened at that time? And how exactly do
we know all this? We had to invade to find out. Thanks
for the update.
\_ Um, is this sarcasm? Desert Storm happened in 1991.
\_ Yes that was sarcasm pointing out that "no big surprise
that after 1991 Hussein's ability to produce weapons
was greatly reduced since he just got smashed". And
"being farther or closer" to nukes isn't the point at
all anyway since it was about all 3 countries having
worked on a nuke program long prior to 2000. GWB has
screwed up any number of things like all Presidents
(because they're human) but Iraq, Iran and NK working
on nukes had *nothing* to do with him as the op
falsely claims. Lay blame where it belongs but there's
no need to rewrite history to create fault where none
exists.
\_ So you don't think threatening to invade a country
has anything to do with them working on producing
weaponry? What color is the sky in your world?
\_ The nukes were in development while Bush JR was
in rehab. Go see what the OP said. It flies
in the face of reality. Was Clinton threatening
them? Bush Sr? Reagan? No. So why build
nukes? Lots of reasons but none of them having
to do with Bush Jr. threatening them or the US
in general. Blue. If you want to drag this to
some other topic, that's fine, but what you're
saying has nothing to do with the OP's claims.
\_ They *were* in development, then Iraq
*stopped* working on them. NK *was* working
on them, then *stopped* working on them,
until they were threatened. I honestly
don't know the status of Iran's nuclear
weapon program but it certainly was
accelerated after Bush's threat to Iran.
Do you honestly believe that these countries
slowed down their weapon's research in
response to a credible outside threat?
Is this your serious contention?
\_ Iraq stopped because they got crushed in
GW1, geeze. Iran never stopped as far as
we know. NK never stopped for any lengthy
period of time as far as we know. And in
each case they were started during a
previous administration. This is historic
fact. I make no other contentions in
that regard. As far as Iran goes, btw,
their original reason for the pro-nuke
policy change from their original "nukes
are against the Koran" policy was getting
their ass kicked by Iraqi gas attacks.
That wasn't Jr's fault either. As far as
their speed of research goes, I'm sure
they were already going as fast as possible
because getting them second in the region
doesn't have nearly the same weight as
being first. What gave you the idea they
were just slowly crawling along until the
Great Satan turned his Evil Eye their way?
Is it your contention that NK and Iran and
Iraq had no serious interest in nukes until
the Great Satantic Dictator came to power
in the US and all was rainbows and
chocolate rivers before that? Seriously,
give it a rest. This is all history book
stuff.
\_ Yes, it is my serious contention that
Iraq was not doing any nuclear research
and not only was not making progress
towards developing one, they were
actually going backwards as they
lost skill and capability. This is not
just my contention, it was the finding
of the bipartisan Iraq commission. Do
you dispute those findings? Lots of
countries "have interest" in things.
We should not start wars because
of a nations interest in something,
only because it is an actual threat.
Furthermore, it is my contention that
NK was mostly abiding by the terms of
the Clinton sponsored UN guidelines,
where they agreed to halt nuclear
research in return for free nuclear
power. Soon after Bush's "Axis of Evil"
speech, NK renounced the agreement,
broke the seals on the nuclear rods
and turned off the UN nonitor cameras.
The CIA agrees with me, btw, at least
according to The Washington Times,
a paper not usually known for its
pro-Clinton stance:
http://www.csua.org/u/h5f
"North Korea announced last year that
it had a secret program to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons. It then
expelled international inspectors who
had been monitoring the nuclear weapons\
freeze and restarted the small
5-megawatt reactor. "
\_ Uh, yes, secret NK program. Thanks
for making my point there. As far
as Iraq goes, of course they went
backwards after GW1. What else
would happen? And they had to go
backwards from something, meaning
they had already conducted research.
Man, I thought I was going to have to
go find an actual link when I first
saw how long your post was with a
link and all but all you've done is
support what I've been saying all
along: those 3 countries had nuke
programs while Jr. was in rehab.
Thanks for saving me the hassle of
finding a link. I'll take your WT
link as is. Going home now. Have a
nice evening.
\_ So I guess we agree that I have
made my point: Bush's trash talking
and belligerent warmongering have
resulted in America being less
safe. Thanks for playing. |
| 2006/10/4-6 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44682 Activity:nil |
10/4 Drive Out the Bush Regime, the World Can't Wait!
http://www.worldcantwait.net
\_ If you're joinging the protest in front of the Federal Building,
wave at the 16th floor. |
| 2006/10/4-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44679 Activity:nil |
10/4 Ok, how come I don't see any troll on N. Korean's nuclear test?
You would think Conservatives on motd would want to invade/bomb
N.Korea before they weaponize the nuke.
\_ How would you know what a conservative would want?
\_ I'm a dominatrix. |
| 2006/9/27-28 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44567 Activity:nil |
9/27 I live in LA and LADWP sent me a 2006 Power Content Label:
5% Renewable (biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar, wind)
39% Coal
24% Large Hydroelectric
33% Natural Gas
0% Nuclear
99% leftist
So I guess LA electricity is nukular free. How about you guys
up north? What powers your hot idling power-hogging CPUs?
\_ http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2006
/july.html#topic7>
\_ http://www.pge.com/customer_service/bill_inserts/2006/july.html#topic7
\_ That's because DWP does not have a nuclear plant and I doubt
Edison has the capacity to sell any that it generates. |
| 2006/9/26-28 [Science/Disaster, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44553 Activity:nil |
9/26 Left wing socialist nutcase Nature reports left wing socialist commie
Commerce Dept blocked NOAA report containing consensus view of NOAA
scientists that global warming "may" be partly responsible for more
powerful hurricanes
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060926/D8KCPSL00.html |
| 2006/9/25-27 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44519 Activity:nil |
9/25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth People like Justin P Black believe in hollow earth. \_ Isn't that where trolls like you live? \_ You're just not catching on. Why don't you drop it? |
| 2006/9/20-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44476 Activity:kinda low |
9/20 After 911, did the fucking sales of Aladdin merchandize and related
products go down?
\_ ob http://www.lovedungeon.net/humor/misc/aladdin.html
\_ Why? Persia rocks. It's the modern Islamic world that sucks.
\_ Why? Persia rocks. It's the fucking modern Islamic world that sucks.
\_ Because Al Laden (Aladin) is related to Bin Laden.
\_ Just how long were you sitting on your couch smoking dope
before this occurred to you?
\_ I think it was a joke. --- !PP
\_ fwiw, wikipedia says it comes from "Ala ad-Din".
Like Salah ad-Din.
\_ So are the descendants of Salah ad-Din living in
modern Iran now? And why do Iranians like to
say they're Persian instead of Iranian? Is it
similar to the reason why some people like to say
they're Ayrans instead of Caucasians?
\_ http://www.aladdin.com -- smart card sales still strong. -John |
| 2006/9/19-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44451 Activity:nil |
9/19 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14906805 Energy price drops. Are left wing environmentally nutcase liburals unhappy about this? \_ isn't sustainable. all big supplies of oil are under countries that hate us or are ruled by short sighted cretins. all this iran and venezuela crap isn't helping. i think getting away from using so much oil is an idea left wingers and right wingers can agree on. \_ Well, I'm sure rightwing nutcase oil barrons from oil producing states as well as their allies in America's terror-supporting enemy countries are unhappy about it. \_ I'm a right-wing nutcase who is unhappy about this. We need to get the oil monkey off our backs, and a consistent rise in oil prices would help that. Considering that was happening and the economy was the fucking oil monkey off our backs, and a consistent rise in oil prices would help that. Considering that was happening and the fucking economy was holding, I've been rooting for us to work on oil alternatives. -emarkp \_ Seconded. \_ I'm a left wing enviornmentalist liberal and I'm unhappy because I'm also a hypocrite and own oil stocks. |
| 2006/9/8-12 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44321 Activity:nil |
9/8 Space mission to probe solar system explosions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060908/sc_nm/space_flares_dc
"Harra said a better understanding of solar flares could provide
information about how magnetic fields release huge amounts of energy
and whether life can exist somewhere else." Huh? What does this have
to do with life somewhere else?
\_ I believe strong magnetic fields are one of the theoretical catalysts
for abiogenesis --dbushong |
| 2006/9/7-12 [Science/Biology, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44301 Activity:nil |
9/6 One of my profs is debating an ID proponent re the legality of
allowing ID to be taught in schools (ie whether Katzmiller was
decided correctly). Does anyone have pointers to good sites
where I can start looking for info?
[ I've already read a few law review articles, so I'm looking
for something a little less scholarly ]
\_ http://www.venganza.org
Seriously though, http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org might
be a good place to look for the kinds of points he's likely to
encounter. -John |
| 2006/9/3-6 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance/Investment] UID:44260 Activity:nil |
9/3 Most people think the housing boom will turn into a slowdown, and
some think that it'll crash. In either case, what do you think the
most likely scenario for rich investors to invest next? Gold?
Silver? Energy? Or maybe Tech stocks all over again?
\_ Definitely gold. Tech stocks are long dead. |
| 2006/9/1-5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44247 Activity:nil |
9/2 Iranian views of US from an ex-official
http://tinyurl.com/ojgtj
This guy got his finger nail torned during Shah's regime because
of his political activities back in the day.
\_ Non-archived version: http://csua.org/u/gu0 (IHT.com) |
| 2006/9/1-3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44225 Activity:moderate |
8/31 Suppose the ice-age instead of global warming is occuring. Would
the scientists start to suggest everyone to consume as much as
possible, and suggest people to drive SUVs and use as much energy
as possible as a method of saving earth?
\_ Global warming & ice age may be one and the same thing. Bad
troll, no troll snack. -John
\_ So the earth heating up causes it to cool down?
\_ the earth heating up causes *some places* to cool down.
Climate is a chaotic system. -tom
\_ Chaotic, meaning unpredictable?
\_ No, as in chaos theory, I assume. Look up the
various oceanic conveyors. -John
\_ So fluid dynamics is a solved problem?
\_ Do you have a point?
\_ Absolutely. "GW & ice age may be one and the
same thing" is not at all the same as "the
earth heating up causes *some places* to
cool down". The second statement may be
true. The first statement is ridiculous. It
is the first statement I was replying to, the
second statement, although possibly true, has
nothing to do with the thread. What was your
point?
\_ My statement would have been ridiculous if
you had said "global ice age." Nice try.
And you did catch "may", right? -John
\_ No. They would still suggest people to cut back energy usage on
driving, and spend the energy on heating homes and greenhouses. |
| 2006/8/31-9/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44220 Activity:nil |
8/31 With this sort of thing going on, I'm really surprised the James
Dobson's of the world can't find more common ground with the
Bin Laden's of the world:
http://www.csua.org/u/gte (yahoo! news) |
| 2006/8/31-9/5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran] UID:44219 Activity:low |
8/31 "There's simply no explanation for the range of Iranian behavior which
we've seen over the years other than that they're pursuing a weapons
capability" -UN Ambassador John Bolton
\_ Stunning analysis!
\_ If the Bush administration plans to bomb Iran regardless of what
Iran does, what motivation does Iran have to listen to them?
Where's the carrot? Does anyone think they're *not* going to
attack Iran eventually, assuming that they can maintain control
of the government, and that there is no impeachment?
\_ I think it's extremely unlikely Dubya will bomb Iran.
This is strategically not the best move for the U.S.
\_ I haven't heard anyone (other than Iran) actually say they believe
Iran _isn't_ going for nukes. I mean, it's the right thing to do,
strategically.
\_ It's one thing to say they're gunning for nukes, it's another
thing to say they they want to conduct activity legal under the
NPT which also puts them closer to breaking out to a nuke
capability if they have to.
\_ Plus the Iranians basically all but running around in their
nuke-patterned underoos and "I'm with the other nuke powers"
t-shirts, doing the "we've got nukes" dance while yelling LA LA
LA WE HAVE NUKES AND YOU CAN'T STOP US. -John
\_ hmm... Israel has the bomb, India has the bomb, Pakistan has
the bomb. AND US/UK/Israel have the track record of
overthrown Iranian government at their whim. And now 80% of
US' deployable force is right across the border.
Having a bomb is actually a sound, defensive policy!
Further, our policy toward NPT is like a football game.
Once you reach the goal line, you actually get rewarded.
\_ Erm, Israel has overthrown the Iranian government when?
\_ ok ok ok, Israel didn't overthrow Iranian government
in 1953, but Israel worked closely with Shah. This
pisses Iranian off even today.
\_ Um, is it that or that they're all Jews.
\_ Iran does best strategically not to go nukes now, but to go
nuclear energy, and use the possibility of breakout as a
deterrent.
\_ Right, and this is where Bolton's statement falls apart.
There _is_ another explanation for the range of Iranian
behavior, and that is that this path is the same you'd need
to follow to get utterly legal nuclear power.
\_ Not quite utterly legal. I think the most recent UN
resolution is legally binding, although I think it's quite
explicit in having further discussions on punishment and
not being an automatic sanction/war pass for member
states. -breakout guy
resolution is legally binding, although I think there are
definitive clauses which say further discussions on
punishment are needed, and not being an automatic
sanction/war pass for member states. -breakout guy
\_ A good point. Let me back up and say that this is a
path to nuclear power that works within the NPT.
\_ Not really.. they're best off to prove they already have them
ASAP, like Pakistan.
\_ I should say "best strategically and also best practically"
\_ I should say "best strategically & also best practically" |
| 2006/8/22-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44090 Activity:kinda low |
8/21 Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191826.o0mynclv.html
\_ nice article:
"Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past
century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the
ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global
warming."
"The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is
'the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following
volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases,
created by human activities, which have aggravated the
situation further," he said."
So, the conclusion inserted by the article author is exactly
the opposite of what the study says. -tom
\_ Interesting interpretation of the text.
\_ How can you possibly read the report text and conclude
that the authors are casting doubt on global warming? -tom
\_ I didn't say that. I said your interpretation was
interesting. The actual text in the article says that
glaciers have been shrinking for a century at a near
constant rate with 2 high points along the way. The
text you quoted says this is the result of natural
effects which are aggravated by human activity. GW theory
says GW is caused by humans. The article does not say
glacial shrinking is _caused_ by humans, only helped along
by an unspecified amount on top of the natural causes
that were already shrinking them. And btw, where are all
those GW caused storms and hurricanes we were promised?
\_ "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything."
--David Byrne
\_ Or you're just deaf. Sorry it was beyond your scope.
\_ Sorry you missed Katrina.
\_ Maybe you'd like to join us in 2006.
\_ hey nimrod, climate change isn't linear.
\_ Check out the recent typhoons in East Asia.
\_ The Industrial Revolution started more than 100 years ago. See the
Global Fossil Carbon Emissions chart at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Other_effects |
| 2006/8/12-14 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic] UID:43985 Activity:low |
8/12 The U.S. is near the bottom of the civilized world in belief in
evoluation.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
So much for the myth of liberal bias in the U.S. media and
education system. -tom
\_ That's quite a leap.
\_ Americans are dumb.
\_ America! Fuck yah! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\- the turkish know better, because that is where THE ARK OF NOAH
wound up.
\_ And how many of us can spell "evolution" correctly?
\_ Don't tell the Armeniens that! |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43960 Activity:nil |
8/10 Boycott BP gas stations! BP has shown themselves to be a bad
company. They spilled 200k barrels of oil on Alaska earlier this
year, and now we discover they've allowed the Alaska pipeline to
corrode to the point where it must be shut down, cutting 8%
of production nationwide and helping spike gasoline prices.
Meanwhile their profits are up 22%.
I think they deserve a boycott. --PeterM
\_ Have you ever spent one dollar at an Exxon since the spill? If so,
you lack any credibility. On the scale of evil, it's not clear
that BP is willfully harming people's lives, while Exxon still is(
by continuing to spend vast sums on legal fees to fight paying
what they owe to fishermen). As pointed out below, BP is at least
making a show of working on developing alternative forms of
energy production, while Exxon is busy fuding smokescreen campaigns
to distort the truth about global climate change. I think a boycott
is way to severe for BP's mistakes, but i think Exxon, as a company,
deserves to die, and its executives deserve to be stripped of their
wealth and sent to a work camp for the rest of their lives.
\_ Boycotts are useless unless you inform the 47% of the Americans
who don't use the internet, drive SUVs, and voted for Bush.
\_ If the other 53% pay attention we can kill their 22% profit
increase. That's billions. It'll do some good. Further,
it'll put other oil companies on notice.
\_ so we boycott them, they don't sell that oil for a while, the
price of oil goes up (due to either to the increased scarcity
or the fact taht it just goes up over time anyway), they sell the
oil later date at higher prices. Increased Profit! I dont see the
punishment here.
\_ Better buy it all now, then. -John
\_ Is BP still a British company?
\_ Be proud. Buy American. -proud American
\_ On the other hand, their actions will increase the price of oil,
spurring demand for and investment in alternative fuels.
Coincidentally (I hope), BP is one of the larger companies working
on alternative energy sources (e.g. solar). Why screw the pooch?
--dbushong
\_ The number of consumers who care about issues like this is dwarfed
by the number of consumers who care more about price and
convenience.
\_ U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! -T.E.A.M. America WOrld Police |
| 2006/8/9-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43955 Activity:moderate |
8/9 Poll, what do you personally do to help the environment? Recycle?
Planting trees? Ride a bicycle? Nothing?
\_ I pull out so that I don't over-reproduce more kids who'll
pollute the earth.
\_ I live my life the way I like it, because I simply don't give a
damn about you hippies. Global warming is not going to affect
me before I die. -Republican
\_ AMERICA! AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\_ I strictly adhere to Al Gore's example. He leads. I follow.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
\_ I don't drive a Hummer. In addition I'm living in a cramped home
instead of a luxurious suburbian home that is far away.
\_ I could go on about how I don't own a car and how I bike
"everywhere", but I think i use as much oil for my plane travel
as a typical car commuter. How do those compare anyway?
\_ do you think car commuters don't travel by plane?
\_ not really. that's why summer auto use sky rockets from
all the SUV driving, 8 kids having, mouth breathing, red
state voting, Gh0d fearing, bible thumping morons. blue
staters don't have summer travel plans and don't fly either.
\_ plane use also skyrockets in the summer. Are you really
this dense? -tom
\_ I drive a Chevy Suburban instead of a Hummer, thus saving lots of
gasoline. I hate Hummers. http://ihumpedyourhummer.com
Seriously though, I don't find myself polluting as much as say,
the people in Brentwood or Beverly Hills for the simple fact
that I can't afford expensive stuff that tend to pollute, like a
Porsche, a big house, nice clothes (that use up more packaging and
more material and require more shipping), etc. My guess is that
the amount of pollution one emits has some tendency to do with
one's personal wealth. There are always exception of course so
I'm speaking in terms of averages.
\_ Are you out of your mind? Expensive clothes likely pollute
less. In fact, I would guess that the wealthy tend to
pollute less when comparing like items, because they can
afford to buy organic, natural, and so on. They can afford
to maintain their cars and/or buy new ones with lower emissions.
In short, they can afford the added expense of reducing
pollution. It's the poor who cannot afford to. They are the
ones driving that 1969 Impala smoking on the freeway, buying
clothes made of oil, and eating $1 double cheeseburgers
which are contributing to global warming and the destruction
of rain forests in South America.
\_ What's the gas mileage of your Chevy Suburban?
\_ 6.9 miles per gallon on surface streets. --proud American
\_ Commute by bus from Union City to Foster City. Bring my own bags to
grocery stores. Recycle (as a third resort after Reduce and
Re-use.) Power-off my machines and monitors when leaving work.
Take the stairs instead of elevators. (It happened that a PG&E
energy audit at my company found that the elevators are the #1
energy hogs in the company.)
\_ Machine(s)? Monitor(s)? Only powered off when leaving work?
Why do you have multiples and why do you only power off when
leaving work? Do you power off everything when you go to
lunch? Meetings? When someone stops by to chat for a few
minutes? How much of Gaia's life force do you murder every
day chattering away on soda?! Have you sterilised yourself
or taken a vow of abstinence? Have you signed a blood pact
to kill yourself when you're no longer carbon neutral? You
could be doing so much more! Well at least you bring your own
bags to grocery stores. That helps a lot.
\_ I have multiple machines because I need multiple machines to
do work. (VM doesn't work.) Sorry, I lied about monitor*s*.
I actually only have one. How do I do work if I power off the
machines while I'm working? I don't "go to" lunch because I
eat at my desk. I do power off the stuff when I go to
meetings. -- PP
\_ Have you been sterilised yet? Taken the carbon neutral
blood oath?
\_ Did you kill yourself and rot so as to contribute your
carbon to the environment?
\_ Holy CRAP!!! I find this fact about elevators extremely
suprising. Are elevators no longer run off of a counterweight?
I would have though that because of the counterwieght, the amount
of work done would only be that required to lift your body, which
shouldn't be much.
\_ Accelerating the elevator cage, the counter weight, and the
passengers (if any) from zero requires energy. I guess
elevators don't have regenerative brakes, so you don't get
the energy back when decelarating. The bigger the elevator,
and the higher the speed it travels, the more energy it
consumes.
consumes. -- PP
\_ I intentionally bought a home three miles from work, in a
walking district. I've been car-free for over 15 years. We
have a 3KW solar electric system which provides all our power.
Plus lots of feel-good fairly meaningless stuff like recycling. -tom
\_ All your power? So I assume you store power in a battery array
for night power use? How big is your battery array? How much
area does your solar collector take up? Where did you go to
start learning about this stuff when you first decided to do
it? thanks.
\_ Don't know what his setup up is, but most people stay
connected to the power grid and use something called
"net-metering". Basically you can produce more power
in the day time and put power back to the grid (and
the meter spins backwards). During night time you
use power from the grid. If you size you system right,
you can essentially have net grid usage of zero.
\_ Exactly. We are still grid-tied, but for the year we've
had the system, we've generated more power than we've
used. Unfortunately, with time-of-use metering they
need an electronic meter, so you don't actually get to
see it spin backwards; we did see that for the first
month we had it installed. -tom
\_ If you don't mind saying, how much did the system cost
to get installed? How long is it expected to last
before requiring maintenance or replacement? Thanks.
\_ After discounts and rebates and such, it was about
$18K. Maintenance should be nothing more than
cleaning the panels once or twice a year. Most
of the components are rated for 20 years and will
probably last longer than that: it may be
economical to replace them at some point, depending
on what happens with solar technology over the
next 20 years. -tom
\_ Not bad. I figured your break even point is about
the 12 year mark guessing you're using an average
of $200/month in electricity. Unfortunately, the
rebates and breaks aren't that big anymore so a
similar system now costs over $30k which means it
isn't possible to break even in the 20 year life
span of the system. I assumed a 4% rate of
return on your money and zero cost/profit on your
electric usage over the 20 years. If I could get
one for $18k I'd probably do it.
\_ I think the break-even point is a lot sooner
than that, because the solar system increases
the value of the house. Maybe not by $18K,
but certainly by an appreciable fraction
of $18K. -tom
\_ I thought of that but to get money back that
way you'd have to sell. The closer you
sell to the 20 year mark the less the system
is worth. If you sell earlier then you
don't get the full benefit of having it.
Also, I'm guessing it really doesn't add
that much anyway. For example, having a
pool doesn't add anything to a house. Some
people want one, some people hate them, so
your potential buyer base drops and overall
a pool generally adds zero. Anyway, your
18k is a good price and you'll make it back
by any reasonable numbers before the 20
year mark. Pricing is higher now so that
is no longer true for new units,
unfortunately.
\_ Solar system != pool. A pool is
\_ granted. see below for rest.
expensive to maintain, can be an
attractive nuisance, and is actively
dangerous if you have kids. It is
implausible that anyone would reject
a given house because it has a solar
system; it's an improvement like
new plumbing or central heating which
will consistently be viewed as adding
value. -tom
\_ But it is a depreciating asset. At
some point having an expensive thing
that will cost a lot to replace or
repair becomes a negative. The
closer to the 20 year mark, the more
negative it becomes. I like having
a roof on my house. I would not like
buying a house with a 30 year old
roof.
\_ Your central heating system is
also a depreciating asset.
Heck, the whole house is a
depreciating asset. -tom
\_ No. Central heat/ac is not
considered an add-on option.
Nor is a roof, front door,
windows, or kitchen appliances.
A solar system is. The rest of
the house can go up in value
over time even as it falls down
but a house with a nearly broken
bonus item is worth less than
a house that never had it. I'm
honestly happy for you that you
got a system cheap but you're
not increasing your house value
with it.
\_ It seems to me that both of
you are ignoring
1) the fact that energy prices
could go *way* up in the
future, changing the
economic comparisons and
1) the fact that energy
prices could go *way* up
in the future, changing
the economic comparisons
and
2) Having a reliable solar
electric system(along with
batteries and inverter)
protects you from
blackouts, which could be
a major asset beyond any
economic consideration.
\_ Batteries are probably
not a net win in urban
settings; they increase
the expense and
maintenance quite a
bit. Since I'm grid-
tied, when the grid
goes down, so do I,
although if there
were some long-term
problem with the grid
I could disconnect
and just generate
power during the day.
-tom
\_ Why don't you
have batteries?
My coworker does
with his solar
system which is
tied to the grid.
When the power
goes out, he
stays lit - day
or not. Is that
an option?
\_ It's an option,
but it's
expensive, takes
up a lot of
space, and
requires
fairly frequent
maintenance
(battery
reconditioning).
-tom
\_ Separate trash (but mainly to make the poor bastards who go through
trash for recyclables here not have such a miserable time), turn
of unneeded appliances/lights, take public transport when I can,
not buy wasteful packaging. -John
\_ I do nothing. In HS, I made sure to throw six-pack plastic
binders directly in the ocean on school trips.
\_ Carpool to work, bought a TerraPass, recycle, mulch when I mow the
lawn.
\_ I recycle my condoms. I don't want to pollute the Earth with
excess latex in the landfills. Chicks love it. -proud American
latex. Chicks dig it. -proud American
\_ Live five miles from work and bicycle or take MUNI back and forth.
Don't own a car at all. Recycle, reuse and all that. -ausman
\_ We recycle as much of our waste and garden clippings as possible
(SJ has a pretty good recycling pgm), and I'm probably going to
be working ~ 2 mi from my house when I graduate so I can RIDE BIKE!
to work. I'm planning to go partially off grid w/ a solar system
in the next year. |
| 2006/8/8-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43940 Activity:nil |
8/7 BP pisses in America's cheerios:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_field_shutdown
\_ Yeah, well I eat Frosted Flakes, so haha to BP! Nice try, you
wankers, but you can't piss on me! -proud American |
| 2006/8/4-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43898 Activity:nil |
8/3 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14171691 Conservative Christian who once promoted oil exploration changes his mind. \_ "...reached 115 Fahrenheit in some regions of the East Coast. The 76-year-old Robertson told viewers that was .the most convincing evidence I.ve seen on global warming in a long time." Ugh. What a fucking moron. Science is stupid! Untrained empirical observations trump all! \_ Repent, you dirty sinner. -proud American |
| 2006/8/2 [Science/Biology, Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43872 Activity:nil |
8/2 It's clear that GWB doesn't believe in global warming, but does he
believe in evolution? Are there indications that he supports the
Intelligent Design/Creationism theory? |
| 2006/8/1 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:43859 Activity:nil |
8/1 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3284163,00.html Israeli news editor says fuck ya'll to world reaction to Qana massacre |
| 2006/7/31-8/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43842 Activity:nil |
7/31 Customers pony up for renewable energy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/ap_on_sc/green_pricing
\_ We've had this for some time in .ch -- you have several
different choices on your power bill (mainly hydroelectric,
nuclear, a few others, or various combinations.) People seem
to be pretty willing to shell out extra bucks for "green" power,
as the price difference isn't all that much. -John
\_ We had this in California, too. It was called "deregulation"
But then Enron fucked the whole thing up for everyone.
\_ Yup. I used to buy electricity from CommonWealth Electric
several years ago, whose rate was actually 10% lower than
PG&E. Later I moved, and CommonWealth couldn't take new
accounts anymore. So I had to go back to PG&E.
\_ You couldn't transfer your account? What was the reason
for not taking new customers?
\_ I drive a big red SUV and run air conditioning at home even
when I'm sleeping or at work. You liberal wackos don't know
what you're missing. -proud American |
| 2006/7/27-30 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43821 Activity:nil |
7/27 My friend swears by sythetic oil because he gets better mileage
with it. Is it worth the extra $10-15 each oil change?
\_ If you have a car you want to keep around for a long time,
use synthetic.
If you're driving some junker that will die soon,
non synthetic is fine.
\_ And I think you also can change the oil less often with synthetic
so that might cover the extra cost alone. Do keep in mind that
once you switch to synthetic, you shouldn't switch back to
non-synthetic.
\_ i'm reading via google that synthetic oil leaks easier than
regular, so if you have a small leak already, don't go synth
\_ Keep in mind that some cars ship from the factory with
synthetic. You *have* to use synthetic for those.
\_ I use synth oil in my car. I pay 50% more per oil change but
have to change half as often so a win for me. I don't know if
mileage is better because I've used synth since my first change.
\_ My Mercedes uses synthetic oil and I go 10,000 miles between any
kind of servicing include oil changes.
\- i dont know anything about cars but i know a little about
economics ... if synthetic oil is almost certainly a "no brainer"
advantage in most cases ... and the price difference in %age
terms might be large but in absolute terms is not large, how come
it hasnt become "the standard" ... i'm sort of getting at the
"no free lunch" idea.
\_ It rather has become the standard for new cars.
\_ I have always thought this synthetic oil thingy is a pure marketing
scheme. regular oil works for most people, especially in California
when the weather is less of an issue. Further, unless you REALLY
rev your engine at REGULAR basis, you really won't see real benefit
of the synthetic.
\_ I change my oil half as often for 50% greater cost per change.
The benefit is real cash in my pocket.
\_ the frequency of oil change is a completely different story.
I was told even regular oil can last 10,000 miles if you don't
drive it hard.
\_ why buy a car if not to drive it hard? if i wasnt going
to enjoy my car id go get some used civic and drive it
into the ground and do as few oil changes as possible. |
| 2006/7/26-28 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/HW/CPU] UID:43810 Activity:nil |
7/26 Re the AMD price cuts Monday, http://newegg.com shows the Athlon X2 4600+ Socket AM2 Windsor as $330 and out of stock, but http://mwave.com has it in stock for $240. Also, the energy-efficient variants are only supposed to have a 10% mark-up, but no word on availability. Don't get screwed. \_ How much MORE efficient? \_ 89W vs. 65W TDP in general, 35W for a special 3800+ CPU also, although the AMD press release gave May availability, they only appeared in early July in Japan on store shelves. the same release said the 35W part drew 14W for someone doing office apps. \_ NICE. Very nice. I'm definitely getting the 35W version when it is available. This is pretty exciting!!! \_ ob for yermom! -1337 g4m3r |
| 2006/7/24-26 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43780 Activity:nil |
7/24 Kill you BOINC processes to avoid rolling blackouts. Better yet, power
off you machines and monitors when leaving work. Cuts back on both the
power to run the machine and the power to run the A/C to cool the room.
\_ By the time you leave work, the power crisis is over.
\_ By the time you've figured out how to solve the crisis,
the problem is no longer there.
\_ Not everybody stays at work till 7pm when peak hour ends.
\_ Leave the letter '' out of you sentences to save powe.
\_ Nuclear power would have solved this. The commie Frogs use it
extensively, so do the Japanese. How can they do it and we can't?
Because they standardize their plants. I say, grab some old
Navy ships with nuclear reactors and have those badboys working
again.
\_ Their citizenry also doesn't have as much power to say "NIMBY!"
Well, then again, post New Lincoln... who knows?
Well, then again, post-Kelo... who knows?
\_ There's a huge NIMBY movement in Japan, which is why the
reactors are in neighborhoods with less vocal residents (i.e.,
villages where people value the economic benefits more than
they fear the risks).
\_ In purely cynical terms it makes more sense to put a
potentially city destroying power plant in a less populated
area.
\_ s/cynical/practical/ |
| 2006/7/24-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43779 Activity:nil |
7/24 http://news.com.com/Microsoft+vs.+Google+Whos+greener/2100-1022_3-6080297.html Microsoft vs. Google: Who's greener? \_ Hitler vs. Gandhi: who's the better vegetarian? \_ Silly question, do solar panels generate more power when it is hot? Or does it only depends on a clear sky? \_ I assume you mean photovoltaic panels. Yes, it's a silly question. \_ Increased temperature inversely affects the voltage output. \_ Both are huge evil corporations. Who cares? |
| 2006/7/24-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43774 Activity:nil |
7/24 Bikes worse for the environment than cars
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf
DRIVE CAR!!!!!
\_ Yeah, but all those male bikers will become impotent,
leading to lower population, which in turn leads to lower
resource usage by human race. Aha! You know what they
say, you counter a stupid argument with another stupid
argument.
\_ "... energy savings due to the use of human power for
transportation may be offset by the increased energy used by
living longer due to better health."
Ah yes. I guess one can also argue that smoking is GOOD because
it reduces the lifespan drastically thus reducing the need
for prolonged medical treatments associated with natural aging.
In fact, ATOMIC BOMB is good for mankind because it reduces
the number of population that will pollute. Ok I get it. Thanks.
\_ DROP ATOMIC BOMB!!!!!
\_ Smoking is not good for any reason, it's just so goood... -John
\_ Do they account for the higher likelihood of bikers dying
when they get run over by cars?
\_ I'd rather die on a bike than live in a car. Seriously.
\_ Well, get to it man! We don't have all day!
\_ 1) They don't have a higher likelihood of dying in an
accident than drivers (per exposure hour).
2) Read the paper. -tom
\_ Until we kill all the people, the world will be unsafe from further
human inflicted harm. |
| 2006/7/19-21 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance/Investment] UID:43730 Activity:nil |
7/19 1927-1933 Chart of Pompous Prognosticators
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_01/seymour062001.html
\- it's a little strange to see Irving Fischer descibed as
"PhD in economics"
\- it's a little strange to see Irving Fisher descibed as
"PhD in economics" ... somewhat interestingly, his advisor
was JWGIBBS of Gibbs Free Energy fame. |
| 2006/7/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43696 Activity:nil |
7/17 Wow. Does this end the argument of "USA should adopt Kyoto"?
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/0703/112.html
"China burned 1.9 billion metric tons of coal in 2004. By 2020,
predicts the China Coal Industry Development Research Center, it will
burn 2.9 billion tons a year. That increment alone will send as much
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each
driven 15,000 miles a year. This puts into sobering perspective the
meager efforts of the U.S. to stave off global warming by improving gas
mileage."
\_ The US still emits more greenhouse gases than anyone else, so
reducing US greenhouse gas emissions is still the best bang for
the buck. Just because China is on track to surpass the USA (and
there are also 100 coal fired power plants in the planning stages
here maybe China won't surpass us after all) doesn't mean reducing
US emissions won't have an effect.
\_ My point is, cars in the US don't mean squat as far as emissions
go, and since China isn't affected by Kyoto, it's a drop in the
bucket. -op
\_ 1. cars in the US contributes a great deal
2. the world is in a such mess today mostly due to industrial
nation's behavior in the past 150 years. It is unfair for
US/UK to ask China to curb its CO2 emission while it was the
US/UK emission has gotten us this far at first place. Imagine
what the world would be like for China/India/Brazile emit
CO2 freely for next 100 years.
\_ Sorry -- I'm not following what you're trying to say
here. We should give those nations a break, or are you
saying it's going to be horrible in the next 100 years if
we do?
\_ I am saying that it is unfair and unjust to blame
China/India/Brazil for CO2 emission when they haven't
done their share yet. If G7 are truely interested
in environment, they should offer energy saving,
environmentally-friendly technology free of royalties
so China/India/Brazil can adopt these technology
without additional cost. Otherwise, those 3rd world
country has no interest nor incentive to hear this
global warming issue caused by G7's past and present
behavior.
\_ Haven't done their share? If you believe the world
is going to fry, then everyone has to do their part
to keep that from happening, not shift the pollution
to somewhere else. If you believe each country has
an inalienable right to pollute a certain amount
before cutting back then you don't believe in GW and
Kyoto is just a way to cripple the West for the
benefit of China/ India/Brazil.
\_
3. China is a vast, and POOR country. Yet in many front
it has done a lot more to reduce carbon emission than USA.
It has gotten rid of motocycles in first-tier cities; it
has one of the most strigint emission *AND* milage regluation
on the planet (which US car companies are lobby hard against)
for consumer automobiles.
AND. it put punitive taxes on things that deemed
environmentally unfriendly. This includes cars that displays
environmentally unfriendly. This includes cars that displace
more than 1.5 litre, disposalble chopstics, and golf
equipments. USA, on the other hand, has stated repeately
that US life style is "non-negotiable" when it comes to
energy preservation.
\_ Golf car limitations are going to save the world? You
can't believe that.
4. In the end, it's about energy consumed per capita.
Chinese citizen's energy consumption per capital is something
like 14% of an average US citizen. It is something that
Americans not willing to face.
\_ No, it isn't about energy/capita. It matters a great deal
what that energy does and how efficient it is used. If
the US had Chinese levels of efficiency the US economy
would collapse and the air and water would be toxic.
The technology now exists to produce reasonably clean
energy. As China/etc have minimal infracstructure, saying
they should use technology of the last 100 years so they
can catch up in how much they have polluted makes no sense.
Cleaner technology didn't exist at the time the West was
building up and who do you think developed all that tech
in the first place?
\_ I think you're confusing 'crushing poverty' with 'energy
conscious policies'. These aren't the same things.
conscious policies'. These aren't the same thing.
\_ refer my point number 3 on policies. Point number 4
is pointing out the fact that USA is the biggest
CO2 emitter on the planet. Drag China into
this Kyoto discussion is just an excuse for USA not
deal with the problem and blame China for it.
\_ China is on the same planet as the rest of us. You
either believe in global warming, which makes it a
global problem and this China's responsibility as
well or you think China should ignore the world and
pollute like madmen and kill us all.
\_ "About 2,300 pounds of carbon equivalent per person (16% of
our individual greenhouse gas emissions) are released to the
atmosphere through our use of *personal* transportation every
year." http://www.csua.org/u/ggf (epa.gov)
"In 1997, transportation sources emitted approximately 31
percent of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion (or
460.4 million metric tons of carbon) in the United States."
http://www.csua.org/u/ggg (epa.gov)
Either your drop is very big or your bucket is very small.
\_ And how much are we realistically talking about decreasing?
The above link says China will be increasing its CO2 output
by 1 Billion metric tons. So more than twice all of the
output of all cars in the US.
\_ Yeah, we should get China to reduce too. But that
doesn't mean we shouldn't do it ourselves.
\_ China has four times the population as the US.
\_ end the argument how? in that china is exempt from Kyoto,
and can pollute all they want, or that US should adopt teh protocol
to make up for China's excesses?
\_ Yes, because US has non-negociable policy, and polluted most in
last 100 year. China outlaw then disposable chopstic and 1.5
litre golf equipments, do alot more reduce cabonr emission.
\_ You must be trolling. Chopstick and golf carts....
\_ By 2006, not 2020, 25% of world's greenhouse gas annual emission
comes from the US which has 5% of the world population.
\_ And produces what % of the world's goods?
\_ A rapidly dropping %, while China is rapidly rising. What
do we make these days that China can't either produce at
half the cost or just copy?
\_ You didn't answer. The answer is the US produces roughly
25% of the world's goods with 25% of the world's energy.
And to answer your question, there is no way in hell China
can produce the same goods with the same or less energy.
More cheaply in terms of dollars but not in terms of energy
or related pollution. The disconnect between price and
energy/pollution is where you fall down.
\_ URL for "produces roughly 25% of the world's goods"
please?
\_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (epa.gov)
\_ Give yourself some credit, son. Majority of stuff we made
for Israelli to defend itself can not be produced by
China.
\_ I thought there are arms trade between China and Isreal.
\_ yes. but none of the good stuff end up in China's
hand... don't blame Israel for it.
\_ And consume what % of the world's goods?
\_ Thus driving what % of the world's economy?
\_ Borrowing what % of the world's savings in order
to consume that % of the world's goods?
\_ US emissions per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (EPA)
\_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
and up. http://www.csua.org/u/gge (epa.gov)
\_ "Alas, it doesn't do anything to improve the dismal chemistry of
coal, which sends 2.2 tons of carbon dioxide into the air for every
ton that is burned." How's that work? Is the rest of the weight
from oxygen?
\_ Yes. One CO2 (12+16*2) weighs more than one C (12), and one H2O
(1*2+16) weighs more than two H's (1*2). |
| 2006/7/17-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43687 Activity:nil |
7/17 Subcommittee to Hold Global Warming Hearing
More on the Mann Hockeystick Fraud
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1989.htm
\_ The statistical argument is totally a red herring. That global
warming is occurring is completely obvious and is not disputed
by anyone credible. That there is a human contribution to
global warming is similarly not under serious dispute. Tools like
Wegman exist only to give the administration an excuse to avoid
doing anything about it. -tom
\_ This doesn't say it's a fraud. It just raises a couple of points
that don't even seem significant. Do you understand the significance
of their points? I think you are full of shit and your use of the
term "fraud" pretty much shows you to be a fool. Most of the points
are essentially statiticians whining about not being important
enough (in a paper written by statisticians).
\_ posted by jblack
\_ Yet another effort to deny global warming.
\_ What is wrong with challenging dogma? There are lots of reasons
to believe the earth is warming up but the Mann Hockeystick is
not one of them.
\_ UrlP
\_ http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1989.htm
If you bothered reading the link instead of robotically
saying, "UrlP" everytime a statement is made that doesn't
match your _political_ views maybe, oh fuck it, nevermind.
What I find interesting about the global warming non-debate
is how many pro-GW scientists have zero background in
climatology and how so few of those who study the greatest
source of the planet's heat agree with or in many cases are
actively speaking out against GW, but I'm sure the folks
studying the sun are all just whack jobs.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/gg3 (realclimate.org)
Or by all means rant and swear some more.
\_ So your link says what I said. Mann is garbage yet
we still have Gore making movies for public
propaganda purposes including it and yet where is
the scientific community (or the press) coming out
to say "no, no, no it isn't like that!"? It makes
for a very visually scary picture but isn't
statistically reliable yet based on that numerous
people on the street and in government see it and
want to make dramatic policy shifts based on it.
Madness. Thanks for the link backing what I said.
\_ Neither your link nor mine backs what you said.
You are frothing.
\_ I read both. They do. Whatever. And really,
just because someone says you're wrong does
not mean they are frothing, ranting, or
any other personal attack you'd like to spam.
Gosh, maybe they just disagree with you? What
is the point of putting in personal attack
anyway? It doesn't make you look smarter.
\_ Your frothiness has nothing to do with
whether pp was incorrect; you're still
frothing. Take a deep breath and point to
points.
\_ Anytime you'd like to make a point and
stop making empty personal attack I'll
be there to chat with you. Like I said,
"whatever". If that's frothy, you must
be really 'sensitive'. That's not my
problem. The link quite clearly states
that Mann is nonsense and they'd like to
put the hockey stick behind them because
the failure of the science behind the
hockey stick chart is distracting from
their real message. These guys are
looking to move forward while some people
here are stuck on defending a broken
chart. My point is right there in the
link. Your point is... not here. If
you'd like to make one, I'll be around.
\_ Have you actually *looked* at realclimate? They
are pretty firmly in the "global warming is real"
camp.
\_ Yep, I read it all the time. Have you read it?
Have you read the link I posted?
\_ I know you are, but what am I?
\_ I'm sticks and you're stones and ... oh
wait, that's not right. Hmmmm.... |
| 2006/7/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:43607 Activity:low |
7/9 ok, India just test fire a missile that is capable of carry nuclear
warhead and has the range to hit Beijing.
How come there is no "concern" when India test its missile and
develop nuclear bomb?
http://voanews.com/english/2006-07-09-voa21.cfm
\_ Why the "quotes" around "concern"? Probably India actually notified
other nations of the test and where the rockets were pointed. And
of course Kim Jong Il is a crazy little man.
\-^man^rocketman:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Economist/RocketMan.jpg
re: india, what are you "worried" about?
\_ Rocketman!? We'd better send him to pick up the hash in
Potsdam.
\_ how come there is no talk of saction again India? I mean
missile testing alone is not an illegal act. our over-reaction
was anticipated thus being leveraged by Kim Jong Il.
\_ Wow, the Purina Troll Chow is really getting results! -John
\_ The politically correct answer is because India is a
democratic society, unlike NK, therefore they will not go
nuts and start to attack others. But seeing how we've set a
perfect example of how corporate greed and money can
overweight right and wrong in a democratic society, I think
we should be making a bit deal out of it too. Who knows,
India may decide to bomb little countries that have oil
too.
\_ No, the answer is simply because India is a responsible
country and NK is not. Iran is not. Israel is. The US is.
Britan is. China is. France is. And at the moment, for the
time being, Pakistan is. |
| 2006/6/9-13 [Reference/RealEstate, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43332 Activity:nil |
6/9 I REALLY need to reduce neighbor sound in my place. How much does
it cost to add sound insulation for a 300 sqft room? Thanks.
\_ If you're in an apartment or townhome with shared surfaces (wall/
floor/ceiling), the only things you can do to fix the problem are
1) get your neighbor to be quiet, 2) get your neighbor to move out,
3) move out yourself. No amount of sound insulation will prevent
sound from coming through support structures unless you make a
floating structure inside your room, kind of like a room in a room.
You can try to make truce with an agreement like "no noise between
10pm and 7am" or something like that. My previous neighbor was a
drug addict or something. There was no choice other than moving
out.
\_ I have no choice, I have a condo. Hip-hop penetrates
through everything. -pp
\_ Put your speakers right up to the wall and blast country.
\_ Err, why not just knock on their door and ask them to
turn down the base?
\_ While this might be technically true, you can certainly do things
to reduce the amount of sound coming through. Adding insulation,
rugs, an extra layer of sheet rock all help. If you really
want to reduce it you need to add a lot of extra mass to absorb
the energy or isolate the studs, which are both expensive. -ausman
\_ I recently checked out pricing on foamy stuff to reduce noise for
my computer case. It was shockingly expensive. Try an audiophile
shop online, maybe it's cheaper for bulk rate stuff for your walls. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43311 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/07/news/economy/greenspan_oil/index.htm Greenspan on speculators driving up oil prices and cashing out "Speculators...[T]end to advance the adjustment process so when corrections occur they are far less abrupt ... We are literally seeing significant acceleration of energy production in the corporate sector and a decline in demand. That would not have happened without the financial sector." Greenspan is a genius, so let's apply it to real estate: "Real estate speculators advance the adjustment process so when the bubble pops its far less abrupt (makes sense ... deflating bubble versus pop). We are seeing significant acceleration of housing construction (true, when the slope was positive) and a decline in demand (true, now the slope is level or dipping). That would not have happened without the real estate speculators." Genius!!1! |
| 2006/6/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43269 Activity:nil |
6/4 Beads of sweat poured down Bruce's brow. He was a trained
fighter, skilled in various forms of meditation and concentration
of chi energy from the best martial arts teachers in the
world. He learned from the best Yogis from India to control
his energies, which enabled him to be the best fighter as
well as the best lover possible. There wasn.t a woman in the
world he hadn't fucked where he had lost control. Yet with
Barbara he had no control whatsoever.. all of his teachings
were gone! The primal sounds of her pleasure.. the heat of
their contact, the sounds of his balls slapping against the
outside of her pussy.. He was no longer Batman, the cold and
unemotional knight of justice. He was no longer Bruce Wayne,
the suave millionaire playboy. Right then, right there, he was
just a man. A man with needs and desires. And Barbara.. she
was just a woman.. with her own needs and desires. It was like
a fuse was lit inside of him, and it was going to..
"ERRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!" |
| 2006/5/31-6/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43236 Activity:nil |
5/30 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/30/redford.oil Robert Redford the Left Wing Nut speaks out against oil dependency \_ Oil dependency isn't (or shouldn't be) a left/right issue. I think everyone can agree that being dependent on other countries for vital resources of any kind is a bad thing. Redford trolling aside, OPEC announced their new ppb and also announced that combined OPEC output has a spare 2mm bpd capacity which seems slim to me. That capacity will be a daily use number in only ~2 years for the world as a whole at current consumption rates. I don't believe in Peak Oil hysteria but I do believe that it takes 5-10 years to start getting oil from a new oil tap. I wonder how much new oil will be coming online in the next few years. \_ You don't believe in the concept of Peak Oil, or that it is imminent? I thought the only issue of contention for Peak Oil is when it will/has happen(ed). is when it wil happen or if it has already passed. \_ I don't believe we'll end up on bicycles in five years. I do believe that oil will become expensive enough that doing things like tapping Canadian shale and other pseudo-oil alternatives will keep prices roughly where they are now. I don't think we'll simply "run out" and spin into a global economic catastrophe. A lot of things are self regulating. \_ Peak oil isn't about running out of oil. It's about running out of surplus production, production that will gradually slow down later on. \_ Part of the problem is that discoveries of new oil peaked in the 1960s, so there are no "new oil taps" to turn on, and unconventional sources take too long to scale up. \_ When was all the stuff in the Gulf of Mexico and off Baja found? \_ I don't know, Canterell (Mexico) was discovered in 1976. It takes a long time to build up an infrastructure and oil companies don't go after the hard stuff until the easy stuff is used up. Note that oil discoveries in the USA peaked in the 1930s, production in the 1970s, world oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s, so it makes sense we're close to the peak in oil production although of course the world is not the USA. |
| 2006/5/30-6/3 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43235 Activity:nil |
5/30 http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php Excellent info on US Energy Flow Trends. 22.4 out of 27.9 energy from petroleum for transportion is lost energy, which is expected given the inefficiency of modern internal combustion engine. However, 27.8 out of 40.3 electric power sector is electrical system energy losses, which is quite surprising to me. Is the current electric grid system as good as it can be, or is there room for improvement? \_ Do "electrical system energy losses" include losses at the point of generation? If you're burning coal in a power plant you only get a certain percentage of the energy ... \_ It's been a while since I read anything on this but IIRC, when they talk about the electric grid losses they mean the losses that occur during transmission from point of origin at the plant to your wall socket (or at least your local hook up out on the street). I have no idea how they calculate losses at the power plants themselves. \_ Transmission line losses are not that bad. Something like 2% for every 1000 miles of high voltage wire? \_ no idea. maybe someone with a browser will come along and help us out. ;-) "Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998" |
| 2006/5/26-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Crime, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43197 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
5/26 http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/54921_energy18.shtml "Enron has been the largest single doner to GWB" Is this really true? I thought Walmart was. \_ Kenny who? |
| 2006/5/25-28 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43186 Activity:nil |
5/25 Creedish Occupied Government! Amish World Conspiracy!
http://www1.autistici.org/loa/snd/survivor/official/uncreed -John
\_ This is a lot of work into something that isn't so funny. |
| 2006/5/23-25 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43162 Activity:nil |
5/23 Pat Roberton (76 yr old) can leg press 2000 pounds thanks to his
"protein shake". Isn't the world record somewhere around 1300 lbs?
http://www.tinyurl.com/kqh6h
\_ Me too. 100 pounds at a time.
\_ Does that mean Madelaine Albright can kick your ass?
\_ Absolutely! She's a beast! RUUUUN! |
| 2006/5/19-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43106 Activity:nil |
5/18 Do sport creams like menthol actually help with the healing process,
or is it just something that makes you feel better temporarily?
\_ I don't know what "sport cream" is, but I doubt it helps with
the healing process. the only thing that does is something like
petroleum jelly, which keeps the wound moist. This is why you
shouldn't waste money on things like Neosporin (which aren't
any better than petroleum jelly).
\_ he's talking about muscle/joint injuries, not abrasions
\_ In the last couple years I've had 3 different doctors
tell me to use Polysporin on various cuts/wounds I had.
They specifically didn't say Neosporin though. Maybe they
are all wrong though and petroleum jelly is just the same.
\_ Antibiotics are not a hoax, and "active ingredients"
is not marketing.
\_ If you're talking about Ben Gay or something that burns like
Tiger Balm, they're not good substitutes for icing overworked
muscles to reduce swelling, and they're not as effective as
warm/hot towels or baths in relaxing the muscles later. Then
again, your best ally is time.
\- look you guys are not doctors. cremes/jelleies are not good
for some wounds where you want oxygen exposure. for example
sometimes neosporin jelly is bad but neosporin power is good.
so it depends what you are healing.
\_ You may want to comment on the comments about neosporin,
not menthol. |
| 2006/5/17-22 [Politics/Domestic/911, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43077 Activity:nil |
5/16 Not only our planet's getting warmer, but also dimmer. Watch
Dimming the Sun on NOVA/PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html
Almost everyone agrees that the greenhouse effect traps heat. But
in this episode, we see that the counter effect of visibile pollutants
that cuts 10-20% of light (and causing Global Dimming in the past 50
years), which ultimately cool the temperature of the earth. For
example few days post 911 saw a lack of contrails from airplanes
and scientists observed more sunrays passing through, which raised
as well as lowered global temperatures at a bigger swing than ever
seen. Interestingly, if we keep producing heat and but cut pollutants
that block sunrays that cool the earth, we may actually accelerate
global warming.
\_ Operation Dark Storm! -John
\_ Global warming actually raises temperatures before it lowers them.
-- John Kerry
\_ ...and your point is?
\_ most people are too stupid to understand global warming.
by showing that the issue is complicated, you reduce the
ability to convince the average public that GW is real.
you should watch this preview on MBP/GW:
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount_classics/aninconvenienttruth
\_ Interesting. Okay, I'll check it out after work.
\_ the embedded quicktime movie wasn't working for me.
here's an alternate source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiP6dqPynE |
| 2006/5/15-18 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43059 Activity:nil |
5/15 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/05/15/britain.chavez Chavez says "capitalism is extreme individualism, which is using up the world's non-renewable energy reserves at an alarming pace... the fact that 90 percent of vehicles carry no more than one person is a stupid thing... Our planet will not put up with this... We're all in peril... Bush has committed genocide and should be imprisoned by an international criminal court." Many people in Berkeley, including me, agree with everything this dillusional crook has said up to this point, which is quite disturbing. Are we considered unpatriotic liberals who should be put into secret jails? \_ Almost everyone in Berkeley is a communist. Just look at their hippie shirts, tie die VW, bicycles, and stinking BO from a feeble attempt to save water and the environment. \_ Look up genocide, and yeah, individualism = bad. -John \_ "A broken clock is right twice a day" \_ Messenger != the message. No politician in their right mind and in a position of power in the US can get away with saying stuff like that, no matter if it's true or not. He also said that the twin towers used more energy than "some African nations" which is an interesting statement, and might be true. Anyone know? As for Bush being the "worst genocider" or whatever, that's clearly not true (Darfur?), although he's definitely in the top 3. \_ Definitely in the top 3? Wow. Do they even teach grade-school level history any more? Clearly critical thinking skills are out the window. You might be confused -- "genocide" != "politics I don't agree with". \_ Well the entire Venezuela consumes more energy than the twin towers, so we should send suicide hijackers to demolish it. \_ How has Bush committed genocide? Or do you just not know what the work means? \_ Well killing thousands of people definitely helps, although technically it's not genocide since Bush doesn't give a shit what race/ethniticity they are, they are parked on his shit what race/ethnicity they are, they are parked on his oil. \_ Uhm, I think the dictionary definition part of genocide has more to do with it being "not genocide". \_ Then why did he/you say it is genocide? It isn't. \_ Genocide's hard to prove in this case, but watch The Dimming Sun and, taking into account the US's refusal to sign Kyoto, say we won't end up being responsible for a lot of death and destruction. \_ There are no true enviromentalists. They are all hypocrites. The fact is you want to breed. And breed you will. Until you dig a hole in the ground and off yourself (no coffin allowed!) then you can't be a true enviromentalist. No recycling drives, hybrid cars and other delusional, half-hearted attempts will change this. The only way to 'save the earth' is to eliminate humanity. \_ You conclusion is, to put it mildly, pretty fucking stupid. Work your troll skillz, young grasshopper. \_ How is it stupid? How is it wrong? \_ Unless you're living this life, your words are hollow. Kibbitzing on how people you don't like should live the lives you don't like is lame. |
| 2006/5/14-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43054 Activity:nil |
5/14 Where would you find the world's biggest man-made islands? The
world's tallest building? The world's largest man-made marinas?
The world's largest theme park? The world's tallest hotels?
The world's largest shopping malls? The world's largest indoor ski
resort? The world's first underwater hotel? Dubai, world's fastest
growing city at a cost of $100 billion USD:
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/dubaiprojects
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/37925466 (The World)
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/56426971 (sales office)
(each island starts at $25mil/each, all sold out in 8 hours)
\_ What a waste of money. If they have so much money, they should
build lots of freeways, mega malls, and endless suburbs so that
they'd have a much better quality of life. You can't even have
pets or raise camels in Dubai City. -dim's #1 follower
\_ Their super mega infrastructures cost $100 billion USD. Where
the hell did they get that kind of money?
\_ Uh, I don't know. Your $4/gallon gas? Regardless, $100B isn't
a lot of money these days. US spent a lot more on the Iraq War.
\_ And there't not even a single underwater ski resort to
show for it.
\_ http://www.theworld.ae
http://www.theworld.ae/video/The_World_Video4.mov
http://www.theworld.ae/video/The_World_Video4.wmv
\_ Very impressive. My impression of the Arabs used to be that
they're primitive beings who lived in huts and used camels to
travel. I guess they're a bit more sophisticated now -ignorant
\_ Without reinforcing extreme stereotypes, it's useful to point
out that Dubai's a great example of income disparity: the
wealthy live in the Crystal Palace, while the poor are lucky to
have a camel. Oh, and there are a lot more poor than wealthy.
\_ So? One of the free market Republican theories says that
wealth from the rich funnel down to the poor and everyone
has something more in the end.
\_ "My father rode a camel, I drive a car, my son flies a
jet plane. His son will ride a camel."
\_ And yet real world implementations of the trickle down
theory have resulted in more poverty and a lower standard
of living for the poor. Also, Reagan-era advisers who
first pushed trickle down have admitted that it was a con
job.
\_ If you're going to say something so blatantly stupid
you should at least try to find references -pp
\_ STFW, ass.
\_ Ad hominem when you can't find references.
So typical liberal. -pp
\_ What about "voodoo economics"? -!pp
\_ Uhm, I don't think that's unique to liberals,
but it's most definitely common to motd.
\_ Places like Dubai are a result of the temporary oil phenomenon.
In a decade or two these places will be ghost towns; without the
means to import mind-blowing quantities of food, industrial goods,
and cheap labor, only a small population can be sustained. Note
that many Middle Eastern countries have very high population growth
rates.
\_ Dubai gets 6% of the revenue from oil. The rest is tourism
and service and finance. The wealthy people not only put money
in Swiss banks, but also Dubai banks.
\_ Everyone will be hurting once oil production peaks. How
many will be able to afford to go there, will there be as
much need for financial centers, etc.? The point is that
the loss of the primary resource extraction can have grave
consequences on secondary and tertiary economic activity.
I'm not talking just about Dubai, but the whole region.
If they are successful in turning into a Middle Eastern
Singapore, then yes, it could work. But what happens if
importing food suddenly costs 2x, 4x, 10x as much?
\_ Where do you think those people will go?
\_ Somewhere else. Not like there is no precedent for this,
look at the massive immigration in Europe or the United
States.
\_ Remember that oil fields have fairly slow declines, and if we're
really in a global peak oil situation, rising prices should keep
export income strong for quite some time. I do agree that in the
absence of oil there's no 'there' there, but perhaps with a slow
enough decline in oil revenue they will diversify their economy.
\_ Modern oil recovery methods extract oil much more
quickly, so the later an oil field was developed, the
quicker the decline. Witness the difference in the decline
of the very mature oil fields in the United States, which
are declining slowly, compared to say Canterell or the North
Sea, which are practically collapsing. Also, many oil
exporters are trying to pump oil too quicky to take
advantage of the current high oil prices, which ultimately
hasten the decline and reduce the total amount recoverable
due to damage to the geological structures. If we're lucky
decline will be 3-4% year to year, but it might be as high
as 8%!
\- there is a quite good article on peak oil,
alternative sources for oil/hydrocarbons,
the state of stocks etc in the recent e'ist
issue with the Band of Democrats cover. |
| 2006/5/12-17 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43031 Activity:nil |
5/11 I bought a few expensive LED lightbulbs. Comments: when they say
an LED is equivalent to X watts incandescent bulb, it's marketing
bullshit. In reality, it's more like X/2 or X/3. LED bulbs may
save you a lot of energy, but they're simply not that bright.
Secondly, they look very very unnatural. With incandescent bulbs,
you get various frequencies and things look natural. With LEDs,
you get cold white light and you feel depressed, which is perfectly
ok if you're into goth or rave. Screw energy savings, I'm going
back to 60-100W heat generating bulbs and 300W halogen bulbs.
\_ ... or use fluorescents...
\_ What type did you go with? Most of the LED bulb manufacturers
have "soft" versions.
\_ Incandescent light doesn't look natural; you're just used to
how it looks. Unless you're using full-spectrum bulbs (which
also look strange when you first install them), incandescents
are extremely yellow. -tom
\_ CFLs are almost as efficient and have a very nice spectrum. Any of
these type are more pleasant through a lampshade, btw. |
| 2006/5/10-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43011 Activity:nil |
5/10 The H Prize approved by the House:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12722581
\_ Here's a revolutionary idea! Let's create new cities that
have built-in mass transit and have walkable stores, schools,
libraries, and shops. That way we don't even have to waste
energy on moving objects (vehicles that weigh over 3000lbs)
from one place to another all the time, save time, and ultimately
reduce dependency on foreign energy source which is what this
prize is all about in the first place. Do I win anything for
this revolutionary idea? |
| 2006/5/10-12 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43008 Activity:nil |
5/10 http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060509/sc_space/isntitionicairpurifiersmakesmog Isn't it Ionic? Air Purifiers Make Smog \_ Yeah, I really do think... |
| 2006/5/8-9 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42978 Activity:low |
5/8 Blair says nuclear strike on Iran is "absolutely absurd". This is
identical to Dubya's position that such talk is "wild speculation".
Straw, who was fired, added that a conventional strike wasn't coming
from the U.S., diluting Dubya's "all options on the table".
\_ Don't worry we won't attack Iran unless the evidence is a
"slam-dunk"
\_ like the 'evidence' we used to 'justify' the attack on Iraq?
\_ No one in England pays attention to Blair these days.
\_ Congratulations, ObviousMan, you got the subtle innuendo!
\_ Because Blair commands the US forces?
\_ Bush 2004, Draft 2005! |
| 2006/5/8 [Transportation/Bicycle, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42969 Activity:nil |
5/8 We are the cyclists. The most energy efficient beings on the planet.
Everything we do aimed at conserving the earth's resources. Altho
the construction of our tungsten graphite bicycles emitted 14,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide, mine is a lovely red.
Behold a traffic jam - we will cycle on the pavement for we are
above mere traffic regulations. (Hits dog).
Do not worry, your dog was biodegradeable. |
| 2006/5/7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42963 Activity:nil |
5/7 Cyclist: We are the cyclists. The intermediate stage between
humans and pure energy. I see you are driving a "car". We have
dispensed with such primitive modes of transport. All we require
are our bicycles, our shiny helmets, our burex shorts, and the tarmac
surface paid for by billions of dollars from your road taxes. But
now we must go, for altho the lights are still red, mere rules do not
apply to us.
\_ dont bitch if you get runned over.. since u dont obey the law |
| 2006/5/1-4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42876 Activity:nil |
5/1 RealClimate rules. Real climate science blog by real climate
scientists. Joe Bob says check it out.
http://realclimate.org |
| 2006/4/26-5/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42834 Activity:nil |
4/26 Popular Mechanics breakdown on alternitive fuels, good basics
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=1&c=y
\_ if we use too much alternative fuels, what about
petroleum based products like plastics and tar (for roads)
will these increase in cost (cheap plastic)?
\_ Could you rewrite this? I'm actually not sure what you're
asking.
\_ things like plastics could be cheaper due to volume of
crude oil processed for fuel purposes.
\_ I think they understated the importance of cost-of-manufacturing
in terms of resources for the different types. (Especially WRT
ethanol) |
| 2006/4/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42715 Activity:moderate |
4/6 Another violator of Nuclear NPT... Let's bring this topic to the
Security Concil and impose economic sanction... wait... how to impose
economic sanction upon ourselves?
http://tinyurl.com/j6dfn (LA Times)
\- i dont think the analysis in this FA article is good, but there are
some interesting facts in it: http://csua.org/u/fgi ... and it is
generating some waves. i think that gaidar fellow in his comments
raises the reasonable matter of "why should the us expect cooper-
ation on iraq if the us is switching to a warfighting rather than
deterrance stance." [it is possible the casualness of the argument
is because it is in foreign affairs. i note the footnote a "more
detailed article" in the forthcoming issue of IS, which may be
better, but i doubt it]. --psb
\_ this is why I don't believe in NNPT. Without any sort of
check and balance, USA *WILL* use nuclear weapon at their
free will.
\_ The USA had nukes long before anyone else. We had the rest
of the world on it's knees, the only healthy economy, an
incredible industrial base, unmatched military might, bases
all over the world, an incredible logistics system and what
did the evil Americans do? We rebuilt the world.
\- the us promoted free trade, the us loaned people money
[and set up the BW institutions], the us provided a
giant market ... "the us rebuilt the world" is like
ALGOR inventing the internet.
\_ Don't let history hit your ass on your way out the
door. The US actively built and provided money to
rebuild the world. And even if your version was the
only thing the US did that's still infinitely far from
what any and every other country in the history of the
world has or would have done in a similar position.
\- I think you've made the point you are a clown
quite nicely, e.g. "the us had nukes long before
anyone else" etc.
Thanks for helping to make my point.
\_ They're going to modernize our nuclear arsenal, and with it they'll
build a satellite controlled system to control and guide these
missiles. THe system will of course be decentralized, and they'll
call it SkyNet. |
| 2006/4/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42697 Activity:high |
4/5 What do you think the optimal human population of the Earth would be?
As in, what would provide the best balance of happy, safe population,
with enough people to conduct large-scale projects but minimize
competition for resources and damage to the environment?
What benefit is there, given current tech and resources, to having
more than say 500 mil people living at once?
\_ Why is 500 million people the mark? Why not 6.7 billion, the
current population? I've heard people argue that the population
will level off in the next 50 years, but don't know enough facts to
know if I should beliieve it or not. -dans
\_ Issue of poverty and population can be best examplified by
records of Imperial China. Through out the imperial history,
Emperor was obsessed with "average agriable land area per
person" as leading economic indicator. "Economic stimulous"
usually involves on how to increase "agriable" land, and
irrigation infrastures. It is true, that at much poverty was
due to imbalance in land ownership. But at some point,
one would reach the limit of how much agriable land one can
increase... limited by amount of water. Yellow River used to
be larger than Mississippi. It has literally being sucked
dry. Not to mention completely destruction of natural habitat.
\_ Because with the current population, the majority of the people
live in poverty, and we have a lot of pollution and environmental
concerns, and resource scarcity such as oil. With 500 mil
worldwide, we could all be relatively rich, and live in nice
places on the coast and such. Why is more better given the cost?
I doubt the population will level off soon globally (why will it
exactly?) but that is sort of irrelevant to my question.
\_ There is far more than enough food around today to feed
everyone, and enough space to house everyone. Poverty is
more due to inefficiencies in distribution and excessive
concentration of population than overpopulation. How you'd
solve this I don't know (we've seen that planned economies
don't help.) I think dans touches on a good point below,
that agrosubsidies in the rich world are a start. Now when
you start hitting 10-15 billion people, that's a new
ballgame. As for the "500 million people would all be rich
and happy", that's illusory; you wouldn't have the
concentrations of population to maintain a modern industrial
society. Maybe when we have robots for everything, that'll
be true. -John
\_ "There is far more than enough food" -- assuming oil &
natural gas are cheap and plentiful. It took 10 calories
of fossil fuel to produce every 1 calorie you are
consuming.
\_ I question the "more than enough food"... at least, I am
approaching the question not as what is physically possible
but what is optimal, i.e. what is most sustainable and
pleasant for those who are alive. I don't think it's
illusory; you would have as much industrial concentration
as is necessary... you wouldn't need that much of it and
anyway, modern industrial society has a lot of problems
and isn't unquestionably good as it currently exists.
\_ No, my poiont was that given what we currently have, 5
to 6 billion is very sustainable in terms of food,
resources and comfortable living space. It should be
a breeze keeping everyone fed and housed; the fact that
we are unable to allocate limited resources in a more
efficient (note that I don't say equitable) manner,
at least to some sizeable degree due to hokum such as
agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable. I fear that 10
to 15 billion won't work out terribly well, although I
think it's possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
time figuring out how to manage. In the meantime,
stupid shit like the catholic church railing against
contraception is pretty worthy of a good smacking. -John
Anyway I take it your answer is 10-15 billion? I think
many people seem to approach this issue as "how many CAN
we have" rather than thinking what is optimal.
\_ No, my poiont was that given what we currently have, 5
\_ No, my point was that given what we currently have, 5
to 6 billion is very sustainable in terms of food,
resources and comfortable living space. It should be
a breeze keeping everyone fed and housed; the fact that
we are unable to allocate limited resources in a more
efficient (note that I don't say equitable) manner,
at least to some sizeable degree due to hokum such as
agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable. I fear that 10
to 15 billion won't work out terribly well, although I
think it's possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable. We also have the
technology to grow massive amounts of food in a fairly
sustainable manner; we don't because it's currently
uneconomical to do so. I'm also convinced
that getting rid of a lot of the mechanisms standing in
the way of getting people fed would create more
prosperity for a lot of the currently "poor" world, and
prosperous people tend to crank out fewer babies. I
fear that 10 to 15 billion will be very tough, albeit
somehow possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
time figuring out how to manage. In the meantime,
stupid shit like the catholic church railing against
contraception is pretty worthy of a good smacking. -John
\_ It may be sustainable. But is it better than if we
had 500 million instead? Would those 500 mil be
better off? That's my point. I guess it's debatable
whether, if that's so, we should expand to 10 billion
and be more crowded and "rat-racey" just for the sake
of having more people living at once... it's not
clear to me that there's any benefit to that.
\_ I can't argue whether it'd be "better" or not--I
suppose this goes pretty strongly into subjective
criteria. I like having big cities available,
but I'm not fan of huge crowds; off the top of my
head, I'd state a number of around 1-3 billion as
"optimal", but that's just an unfounded guess as
to how you'd have enough nice seaside plots for
everyone available. -John
\_ Is poverty a function of population, or a function of
relative wealth? If it's the latter it won't go away by
decreasing the population. Did you know that we produce way
more food than the current population of the food can
consume? Unfortunately, between subsidies and transportation
costs, it is not economically viable to ship food from the US
and Europe to feed starving Africans. Sad but true. The
argument for population levelling off is that population in
developed countries is in decline (or expected to in the next
1-3 decades), and that population in the developing world is
stabilizing due to hunger, disease, etc.. -dans
\_ Well I understand that removing population also removes
output obviously... but the fact remains that certain
things are obviously limited such as land and oil.
Lots of related environmental issues to that. And just the
simple economics of everyone owning a nice home instead of
being, say, packed into apartment blocks. Food is not
a big problem right now, however, there are related
issues to ever-increasing productivity demands and
industrial farming, and issues such as collapse of fishing
stocks. Pollution output would be much more manageable.
Relative wealth isn't much of an issue in a world without
such inherent scarcity of productive land, water, etc.
(re: stabilization due to hunger/disease... the quality of
life by this point is atrocious. Plus they colonize other
places... Europe is on a path towards a Muslim majority.)
Could we sustain the consumption level of the first world
for all the current population? I doubt it. I think
increasing pop to the point where it's leveled by hunger
and disease is clearly not optimal.
\_ I share many of the doubts you have, but I disagree
with your implication that they are foregone
conclusions. Economists at beginning of the 20th
century projected that the world would be buried in
horse manure if the population trend and use of horses
for transportation continued. What they didn't predict
was the rise of automobiles. What point are you trying
to make about the growth of the Muslim population in
Europe? Are you suggesting that Muslim culture is
somehow backwards or incompatible with traditional
Western culture? Sure, the news is full of examples of
this, but you're also conveniently ignoring the
millions of Muslims peacefully co-existing in Europe
today that serve as the counter-example.
Unfortunately, $ETHNIC_MINORITY peacefully co-existing
usually isn't newsworthy. Many people are happy to
live in crowded cities, New York, San Francisco, and
Tokyo all serve as examples of this. -dans
\_ That point was simply that third-world immigrants
can and do come in to places where growth might
otherwise have stopped, and apparently retain high
growth rates. Please don't insinuate all this stuff
where it's not warranted.
\_ Moving people from place A to place B does not
create a net growth in population. -dans
\_ Not directly but it does allow a growing
population more room to continue high growth
rates. There's a minimum amount of food, water
etc etc that each person needs to survive. By
spreading out, there will be more people after
a generation or two than there would have been
otherwise.
\_ That's a rather simplistic model. As I
understand it, developed countries are
expected to have zero or negative population
growth rates even after you account for
immigration and the possibility that
immigrants will exceed the local birth
rate. You seem to make many of the same
wrong assumptions that proponents of planned
(ne utopian) communities, population
controls, and eugenics made in the early
20th century. -dans
\_ you seem to misunderstand what i'm saying
and actually make one of my points in
your response. the region the people
are moving to overall may end up with
zero population growth as you say but
that is only because the new comers
are in fact continuing to breed at
higher rates, as i said.
\_ Net zero or net negative. If the
same immigrants did not move to
developed countries, do you think
they would have fewer, the same, or
more children in their country of
origin? If you think they would have
more children in their country of
origin, how many do you think would
survive to adulthood? -dans
\_ I think in many cases they have
more than they would at home. Their
kids are cared for and educated by
welfare networks and the parents
are also taken care of with
generous unemployment support and
maternity sabbaticals. I think
one reason growth rates are low
in EU and Japan is the high freedom
of women. Culturally, third world
women don't have this freedom and
this is also embodied into orthodox
Muslim religion. But like I said
originally, this whole argument is
a tangent. -op
\_ Tangent to what? What is your
point? You can't have a
discussion about the `optimal'
population without considering
that maybe this will be
acheived naturally without
human meddling. Growth rates
\_ What? Why not? It's really
_not_that_complicated_.
I didn't talk about making it
so, just what it might be.
in the US are low too. The
above ideas about welfare
networks and `generous
unemployment support' are not
particularly informed. Also,
\_ Ok, why not?
did you know that the infant
mortality rate for families
below the poverty line in the
US is incredibly high? The
under 18 mortality rate for
people below the poverty line,
which includes infant mortality,
is also very high. You asked
\_ ok... so is that good?
maybe there wouldn't be
that kind of poverty if
there were a few billion
less humans.
about the `optimal' population
of the earth. That is,
frankly, a very scary idea
couched in unassuming, sterile
scientific terms. There are
only two ways to reach the
optimal population:
One is to let nature take its
course and hope things balance
out. This is scary because, it
might not work out and we might
make ourselves extinct. Then
again, a combination of human
ingenuity, foresight, and
nature's funny habit of
balancing things out might save
us.
\_ My question wasn't so much
directed at fears for survival
but on the academic question
of whether we'd all be better
off with fewer people.
The other is to assert an
optimal population number, and
try to engineer society to meet
it. This is really scary
because the only way to do this
is for someone(s) to
subjectively decide who
deserves to live, and who
should be killed (or not
allowed to live in the first
place). If you cannot see why
this is a sick idea, you have a
serious problem. -dans
\_ Again, this is all a bunch of
irrelevant posturing. You
freak out at the implications
of the question, but those
implications are your own
unwarranted fantasies.
\_ What wrong assumptions? Who expects this
growth rate and for how long into the
future? The point is, the Europeans
themselves that have low growth aren't
even a major factor. It's the rest of
the world that's growing, and declining
Euros means a demographic shift.
Growth is exponential.
\_ I mean this in the most genial way possible, but I think there's
a problem with the phrasing of the question. The issue is not
population control; it's lack of frontier. We need to terraform
some other planet, and quickly.
\_ yeah, because Europe has so many fewer people now than it did
before they colonized the Americas. -tom
\_ It's a simple question given the current technology and situation
which won't include a terraformed alien planet in the foreseeable
future (at least not supporting a significant pop). So, what's
the problem? Your answer is not to answer and just say we need
frontier. But we don't have it so that's a non-answer.
\_ What I'm trying to say is that thinking in terms of
conservation is smart, but devoting all of our energy to that
and none to solving the problem of limits is not.
\_ There *is* no realistic frontier. Period. Any possible
frontier offplant is tens of generations away from being
viable, and will never absorb significant "excess"
population. Unlimited energy could allow undersea
living in artificial habitats, and underground living,
but is that any way for humans to live?
\_ Yes. Make it possible, and see who goes for it. |
| 5/20 |