Science GlobalWarming - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming:
Results 451 - 600 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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
        \_ 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.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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.
2007/6/20-24 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:47028 Activity:nil
6/21 (
        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:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
                 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.
                 \_ 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
                    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.
                                   \_ 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
                                               \_ California's "clean electric
                                                  system" is predominantly
                                                  natural gas.
                                                  \_ Depends on which year
                                                     you're looking at:
                                                     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
                          \_ 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, here's what
                                               I posted last October:
                    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
                                               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:
                                   So doubling would be $6.15. Still up for it?
                                   \_ 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
                                \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        What will we do then?
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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!
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:
                      -- 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 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 (
        \_ Predicted on the MOTD, May 16:
        \_ Predicted on the MOTD:
2007/5/18-19 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46684 Activity:very high
5/17    Southern ocean saturated with CO2
        "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?
                                                  (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.")
                                      \_ 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.
                                   \_ 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.
                                         \_ I didn't post anonymously or call
                                            you out.  -tom
           \_ JUST A NATURAL CYCLE!!!!! GIVE ME MY HUMMER BACK!!!!!!!!1!!!!
           \_ You may find 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
2007/5/14-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46625 Activity:nil
5/14    One danger of tabbed-browsing in IE7
2007/5/11-15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46594 Activity:nil
5/11    Mars also facing global warming:
        \_ 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.
            \_ 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?
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.
        \_ 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
        \_ 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!
        \- ken rogoff is a chess grandmaster. for the somewhat nasty spat
           between rogoff and joseph stiglitz, see:
           [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.
        \_ 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" (
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
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.
                                            \_ 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 (
        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.
        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
           \_ <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
        \_ 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/
              \_ 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:
                    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.
2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46366 Activity:nil 54%like:46352
4/18    Ethanol will erode the ozone layer. (
2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46363 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46354
4/18    Oops.  Ethanol is worse for the air (
        \_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
           \_ 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:
              \_ 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

           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
           \_ 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
        \_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
           \_ 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
2007/4/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46352 Activity:nil 54%like:46366
        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:
        \_ 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
           \_ 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:
                 \_ 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
           \_ 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
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: (
        \_ 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:
        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 ( 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.
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. (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
                 \_ 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.
                          \_ 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:
           See e.g.
           [On other fav motd topic, see:]
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
        \_ 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:
        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
                    \_ 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:
                                \_ 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
                                        \_ 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"
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
           --dept of energy person
           \- oh, i had not previously seen this version. has agg numbers:
     --doe person
        \_ (
           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
        \_ 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
        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
                 \_ 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:
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
              \_ 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:
        \_ 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
              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: (
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."
        \_ 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,
        \_ "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"
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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: (
        \_ 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
2007/3/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45879 Activity:kinda low 90%like:45867
3/4     So much for the peak oil myth (
        \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                    \_ 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.
                           \_ 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 (
        \_ Aw, the little wingnuts are hitting puberty?
           \_ The latest entry is Jasper Kirby--not typically considered a
           \_ If you've got nothing to say, personal attack is the way to go.
        \_ The Mercury News ran an editorial on this today:
           \_ "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
        \_ 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
2007/3/4 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45872 Activity:nil 80%like:45867
3/4     So much for the peak oil myth
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
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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: (
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
              \_ 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.
                 \_ 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
                \_ 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
                   \_ 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
                                  \_ (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.
                                           \_ 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.
                                     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.
           \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
           \_ 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
              \_ 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:
                                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.  -- PP
                       \_ Welcome to 2007.  My Buick was energy efficient in
                          1963 when it was made but not when I drove it in
                 \_ 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
                          \_ 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.
                                        \_ 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
                                        \_ 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.
        \_ 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!
        \- e118 created ... "again"
           in other news, berkeley >> the 'fraud
2007/2/20-23 [Science/GlobalWarming, Computer/HW] UID:45776 Activity:nil
2/20    Second Life is truly retarded:
        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:
              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
        "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" (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:
     (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: (
        \_ 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
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
                          \_ 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
                                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
                                   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:
                                         Are you saying it almost doubled
                                         from 1970 to 1990? Show me your
                                         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"
        \_ 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:
        \_ You realize just how foolish the statement "all-day rush hour" is,
2006/12/9-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45424 Activity:nil
12/09   Oil is running out! Excellent Oil Age Poster here:
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:
                --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.
           "$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
        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 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
        \_ 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
        Cook using Sun power!
2006/11/26-12/5 [Science/GlobalWarming, Reference/Religion] UID:45372 Activity:kinda low
        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
        \_ 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.
              (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"
              Is this part of the scientific consensus, or only the view of
              one group of scientists?
              \_ 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
              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
                    which has a link to more details at;jsessionid=EL4ZGZEGE0A4LQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0
                 \_ I read (
                    which has a link to more details at
                    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.
                       \_ 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"
        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, 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"
        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? (
        \_ 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
        \_ "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
2006/10/20-23 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44878 Activity:nil
10/20 (
        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!
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
                                \_ i don't avoid that at all.  my opening line
                                   was "there is no such thing as a pure free
                          programs in free market rhetoric right up until you're
                          programs in free market rhetoric right up until
                                \_ 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 (
        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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ (
           "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:
           (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.
               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
                        \_ 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
                                    \_ 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:
                                       "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!
        \_ 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?
        \_ 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
2006/9/25-27 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44519 Activity:nil
        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
        \_ 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?
        \_ -- smart card sales still strong.  -John
2006/9/19-22 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44451 Activity:nil
        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.
           \_ 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
        "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 ]
           Seriously though, 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
        This guy got his finger nail torned during Shah's regime because
        of his political activities back in the day.
        \_ Non-archived version: (
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
                                \_ 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: (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,
           \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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
           "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
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
        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?
        \_ The number of consumers who care about issues like this is dwarfed
           by the number of consumers who care more about price and
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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.
           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.  -- 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,
                                   \_ 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
                                         \_ 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
                                                  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.
                                                        \_ 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
                                                              fairly frequent
        \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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 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
        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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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, shows the Athlon X2 4600+
        Socket AM2 Windsor as $330 and out of stock, but 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
           \_ 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
                    \_ s/cynical/practical/
2006/7/24-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43779 Activity:nil
        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
           \_ 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
        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
        \_ "... 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
        \- 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"?
        "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
        \_ 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
                       \_ 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." (
                 "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."
                 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"
                    \_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
                       and up. (
                 \_ Give yourself some credit, son.  Majority of stuff we made
                    for Israelli to defend itself can not be produced by
                    \_ 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. (EPA)
                    \_ US emission per dollar of real GPD has been going up
                       and up. (
        \_ "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
        \_ 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
                    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.
                    \_ (
                       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
                                   \_ 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"
                          \_ 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?
        \_ 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.
             re: india, what are you "worried" about?
             \_ Rocketman!? We'd better send him to pick up the hash in
           \_ 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
           \_ 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
           \_ 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
        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..

2006/5/31-6/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43236 Activity:nil
        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
                 \_ 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
        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
        "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!  -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?
        \_ 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:
        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:
                   \_ Interesting.  Okay, I'll check it out after work.
                   \_ the embedded quicktime movie wasn't working for me.
                      here's an alternate source:
2006/5/15-18 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43059 Activity:nil
        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
                   \_ 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: (The World) (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.
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
           \_ 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
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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
           \_ 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.
2006/4/26-5/2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42834 Activity:nil
4/26    Popular Mechanics breakdown on alternitive fuels, good basics
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
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?  (LA Times)
        \- i dont think the analysis in this FA article is good, but there are
           some interesting facts in it: ... 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
                 \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                                                  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
                                               \_ 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.
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 451 - 600 of 825   < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Science:GlobalWarming: