Global Warming The debbil made me do it

Dan wrote in
:

On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.


The US already has nuclear power.


Bertie

On Mar 14, 10:57 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dan wrote :



On Mar 13, 6:22 pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real
or not, I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be
done by humans to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or
"build more wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do
that (unfortunately) have a negligible impact on our energy
production needs. No matter how much everyone wishes for it, we're
not going to escape our need for big-box power plants that run on
fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless we're willing to
largely dismantle modern society.

And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit
that you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the
theory in the first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels
are going to rise -- and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but
how will humans adapt to it? That is a more logical place to direct
our intellectual and financial efforts, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Nuclear power is an energy generation option, but not politically
feasible in the US.

The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

"Dan" wrote:


The US already has nuclear power.

Bertie

Just not enough of it.

Indeed.

Times and technology have changed; time to ramp up nuclear infrastructure.

Still have to get past the NIMBY problem with the waste, though. And other
problems...

"There is a possible impediment to production of nuclear power plants, due to
a backlog at Japan Steel Works, the only factory in the world able to
manufacture the central part of a nuclear reactor's containment vessel in a
single piece, which reduces the risk of a radiation leak. The company can only
make four per year of the steel forgings, which contain radioactivity in a
nuclear reactor. It will double its capacity in the next two years, but still
will not be able to to meet current global ddemand promptly. Utilities across
the world are submitting orders years in advance of any actual need. Other
manufacturers are examining various options, including making the component
themselves, or finding ways to make a similar item using alternate methods. "

-Wikipedia

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
on the "shrill" side of the debate (Like Dan's "refutation" by a
:geo-scientist" that used a key number that was off by a factor of 2000.)

Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
"geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Well, look who's back.

What surveys?

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation are all
on the "shrill" side of the debate

Yep. Your side.

(Like Dan's "refutation" by a :geo-scientist" that used a key number that
was off by a factor of 2000.)

Reference?

Are you talking about the ol' Perfesser?

Do post that one again, please!

Also, Jay Maynard is right in that the overwhelming majority of
"geo-scientists" get paid by the very people that are pushing for quick and
irreversible decisions that give them unlimited power.

Baloney. You're making an accusation of mass professional corruption. You
can't back it up.

Think of them as the ancient highpriests tickling the ear of Pharaoh.

Right. Science is religion. Where have we heard that one before?

http://www.creationists.org/evolutionisreligion.html

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:cOhCj.74411$yE1.5053@attbi_s21...
Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe
that virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is
cooking the books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that
there is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers
all over the world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the
money.

Actually, surveys indicate that while some "geo-scientists" agree, the
number are not nearly what Dan Luke would like to believe.

Also, the number of cases of fraud and deliberate misrepresentation
are all on the "shrill" side of the debate

Good for you. Admitting your a shrieker is the first step.


Bertie

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:22:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Again, to believe in your conspiracy theory, you have to believe that
virtually every practicing geo-scientist in the world is cooking the
books to perpetrate a massive hoax.

That is nuts.

Okay, I'll agree with that -- but I also agree with Jay Maynard that there
is a "bandwagon" here that is quite compelling to researchers all over the
world. And if you're not on it, you're not in the money.

Except if you are in the US where the administration has been rabidly
anti global warming and adamantly against changing the way we operate.
Here, until very recently being pro global warming was definitely not
the place to be if you wanted your research grants.


So, setting aside, for the moment, the debate over whether it's real or not,
I'm still waiting to hear from you what can realistically be done by humans
to "save the planet" from global climate change.

And I mean things that are real, not "switch to solar power" or "build more
wind mills" -- which are nice, warm-fuzzy things to do that (unfortunately)
have a negligible impact on our energy production needs. No matter how
much everyone wishes for it, we're not going to escape our need for big-box
power plants that run on fossil or nuclear fuels -- at least not unless
we're willing to largely dismantle modern society.

Neither are all or nothing approaches nor would they require
dismantling society as we know it. In some areas wind and solar
(passive AND photovoltaic) are viable resources and in some areas
they are a lost cause. Coal fired plants can use carbon sequestering
along with stack gas washing to produce clean energy from coal and
contrary to claims there is a pilot plant in Florida that found the
recovery to be profitable rather than an extra expense.

My daughter heats a house three times the size of ours with passive
solar. Yes they have to supplement with natural gas but they use a
fraction of what we do in this small home. Plus they have far colder
temperatures and a lot more wind at 9000 feet in the Colorado Rocky
mountains.

If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel. With 120 million family homes
switching the incandescent lights to CFLs would eliminate the need for
roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric generation plants. That
would free up part of the electric grid so it could be used to power
electric cars which at current rates for most of the country
(excluding California) make the cost of operating one a fraction of a
gas powered car.

Just those two simple items would cover a major portion of the CO2
reductions that scientists say are needed. Add to that carbon
sequestering and we'd probably make it with plenty of room to spare.
We could increase our standard of living for less than we pay now.


And, since I don't know anyone who is willing to do that, I submit that
you're worrying about the wrong things. Assuming you buy the theory in the
first place, the earth is going to warm up, sea levels are going to rise --
and the REAL debate isn't how to stop it, but how will humans adapt to it?
That is a more logical place to direct our intellectual and financial
efforts, IMHO.

IF sea levels did rise by 10 feet it'd displace about half the earth's
population. Rainfall patterns would change drastically and weather
would be subject to far wider swings in temperature and precipitation
than we see now. Now that would really be expensive... for the
survivors.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

With 120 million family homes switching the incandescent lights to CFLs
would eliminate the need for roughly some where between 4 and 6 electric
generation plants. That would free up part of the electric grid so it
could be used to power electric cars which at current rates for most of
the country (excluding California) make the cost of operating one a
fraction of a gas powered car.

It would also generate a booming market in hazmat remediation, as common
household accidents that would result in lamp breakage turn into major
environmental disasters...not to mention simply disposing of them when they
finally do burn out.

As for the electric car, let me once again use those two magic words:
"mission profile". I'll consider one when I can get one that will go 400
miles on a charge, while hauling four people and a substantial amount of
stuff, and recharge in 10 minutes so I can go 400 more. My current vehicle
will do that quite easily, and I bought it because I need that capability.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell you
that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially in light
of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be needed
to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the economy in
short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission profiles of
many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run roughshod
over the people.

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-03-14, Roger wrote:
If we all just practiced conservation there would be no need for new
power plants and we could eliminate the need for importing crude to
use in auto fuel. That part is simple math. Raising the fleet
average to 30 MPG would be far more than sufficient to make us
independent of foreign oil for fuel.

That's not conservation, that's deprivation.

Raising the fleet average to 30 MPG would require replacing a large
portion
of the fleet with European-style econoboxes. Simple physics will tell
you that that's going to dramatically lower fleet safety, especially
in light of
the massive numbers of large commercial trucks that would still be
needed to
transport goods. (Getting rid of those would *really* wreck the
economy in short order.) There's also the minor matter of the mission
profiles of many
folks, who a European econobox simply won't fit.

And all of it done so that politicians and bureaucrats can run
roughshod over the people.




Yeh, they stay up nights planning ways to do that.

Got your shack in Montana yet?

Bertie