What's your opinion on Global Warming?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

We're guessing you're new to this discussion??

...btw, it snowed last night where I live.

Hate the snow and the cold. If the ocean levels rise enough I could have tropical beach front property.


Bring it on :)

I don't know, what is the "right" temperature? What if this is just global recovery? Could you tell the difference?

I think man effects the environment, but not as much as the sun.

I believe the only way to "fix" man made global warming, is by reducing the world's population dramatically. Everything we do contributes to man-made global warming, building houses, laying roads, turning topsoil, and spreading fertilizer. And, anyone that tells you he knows the answer is a liar and wants something from you.

The whole Carbon-Dioxide thing is a joke, and the sheep are falling for it.

Concentrate on cleaning the things that make the Indian cry, and you'll be doing the right thing. Clean rivers, skies, and pick up the Wal-Mart plastic bags. Make devices energy efficient. Develop other forms of energy, and stop buying from the Middle East. Why make people feel guilty about living?

Wade,

Historically if you look at things, a large number of people screaming about global warming are the same people who were screaming about global cooling in the late 60's and who were predicting we were sliding into a mini ice age. 60's... 40 years ago... 40 year geological cycle... now their screaming about warming... can't be a real connection, has to be a coincidence.

I'm not sure there is a "right temperature" or that anyone can actually tell you what it is. I do think it is fair to say that we are pumping a lot of crap into the air, we whould breath better is we had less crap in the air, so lets pump less crap into the air. Other than that, there is mo reputable scientist who can definitively say the earth is warmer and 81.5% is due to polution and the remainder is the geological cycle. We just don't know how to seperate out the data yet. The only thing that can be said is that the mean temperature of the earth is risen by 0.5 degrees in the last century.

You want to wait for real havoc to start. Remember about 8 years ago the increase is sunspot activity and solar flairs. Canade and part of it's power grid knocked out due to a solar flair. A large portion of the world had the cell phone networks knocked out due to a solar flair. Well, their on the rise again, predicted to peak in 2012 and they are predicted to have a even more active time than we did 8 years ago. When you think of how many more things in the world are dependent on delicate electronic networks now when compared to 8 years ago. I think we should start now shielding CNCZone in a lead vault with huge battery backups, maybe in the bottom of a abandoned salt mine in Nevada. Of course the extremists will find some way to link this to human activity too.

Using a geological time frame, it's been a lot colder before, it's been lot warmer before. Isn't it sheer idiocy to think it's just perfect right now?

I love global warming. I just wish there was a lot more of it and that it happened a lot more rapidly. Imagine coconut palm trees on the sandy shores of an idyllic and balmy Arctic Ocean teeming with tropical fish. It's happened before, you know.

Mariss

.... Imagine coconut palm trees on the sandy shores of an idyllic and balmy Arctic Ocean teeming with tropical fish.... Mariss
I like your description of a "balmy" Arctic, but what is then the Sahara, Saigon & San Francisco weather like?
(+120F - or mostly just underwater?) :)
Pres

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?

What is it with this mindset that anything different, any change at all is bad and spells doom? If somehow a ton of gold appeared in your bedroom you'd probably complain you can't sleep because there's no room for your bed anymore.

Mariss

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?

What is it with this mindset that anything different, any change at all is bad and spells doom? If somehow a ton of gold appeared in your bedroom you'd probably complain you can't sleep because there's no room for your bed anymore.

Mariss

If Greenland and Antartica became icefree all the World's coastal cities would be under one or two hundred feet of seawater. I would say that should qualify as a change that is bad and spells doom for those cities.

My shop would also be under the same depth of water and I can assure you I would consider that bad and it would spell doom to my business.

So you are going to live at least 10,000 years? You must have one heck of a long-term lease seeing as how you don't ever plan to move. What are your long term plans for when the sun becomes a red giant in 4 billion years?

Mariss

So you are going to live at least 10,000 years? You must have one heck of a long-term lease seeing as how you don't ever plan to move. What are your long term plans for when the sun becomes a red giant in 4 billion years?

Mariss

The context and phrasing of your other posts suggested that you were imagining these events on a human time scale. You did write: How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable? which strongly implies you are imagining things on a human scale.

Not quite sure what you mean here. In a human lifespan you wouldn't notice any change at all. On a human race timespan, cave paintings depicting wildlife dates back over 40,000 years while ice 2 miles thick covered what is now New York only 15,000 years ago.

Mariss

Well then what on earth are you getting at. If your examples of changes are postulations of something that might happen eons in the future they are totally non-pertinent to the current discussion.

The question was "Do you like global warming?" I answered yes, palm trees in Alaska would be nice. You start in about stuff being underwater and 120F. So, what on earth are you getting at?

Mariss

The question was "Do you like global warming?" I answered yes, palm trees in Alaska would be nice. You start in about stuff being underwater and 120F. So, what on earth are you getting at?

Mariss

Somebody else mentioned the 120F.

Okay if you are talking about something that takes place outside a human time frame how can you call it a change. If the warming is so imperceptible that humans do not notice it then it is not changing. Your palm trees in Alaska bit is not pertinent. If there had been a change eons ago outside human perception such that Alaska was covered in palm trees now that would have always been the case from a human viewpoint so it would be no change.

But you said "imagine..." and I did and I came up with a negative counter to your imagine but then you ridicule my imagine so is your's any less ridiculous?

That's the problem with the internet. All that passes between people is written words while neither can hear the tone of voice or see the facial expressions of the other. Were you able to see and hear me you would know irony, not ridicule was intended. I respect you and what you post to ever intentionally demean or ridicule you. It's not in my nature.

Mariss

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?


Mariss


wow!
hadn t thought about that
global warming may be a great thing for us in Canada , we can ditch the skidoo's , it will be heart breaking to shoot the dog sled teams but with not having to feed them we could afford cars and trucks ,well , once we build roads and highways . the possibilities are endless , we could live like the rest of the world does

and fly fishing on open water will be great , i can t tell you how difficult it is to flick the fly line down that lil hole in the ice :D

wow!
hadn t thought about that
global warming may be a great thing for us in Canada , we can ditch the skidoo's , it will be heart breaking to shoot the dog sled teams but with not having to feed them we could afford cars and trucks ,well , once we build roads and highways . the possibilities are endless , we could live like the rest of the world does

and fly fishing on open water will be great , i can t tell you how difficult it is to flick the fly line down that lil hole in the ice :D

dertsap No!!!! All our Igloos will melt, then where will we live? And the Inuktuks will also sink into the mush from the permafrost melting so we will not have landmarks to guide us when we are hunting Polar bears.

And your fish won't be monotonously monochrome either.

Mariss

Inuktuks


may want to be carefull how you use that word ,the olympic commity probably has copyright to it along with everything else that they had claimed including "2010" , i think we'll have to skip that year due to the fact any calendar makers like hallmark will face lawsuits or something stupid like that

And your fish won't be monotonously monochrome either.

Mariss

donno bout that

man cannot create colors similar to the rainbows i was nailing into a couple weeks ago ,
beautiful !

If there is, do you really think we can do much about it?

No

We can't make it rain where we want at anytime, how in the heck are we causing global warming?

Do I like clean air, yes. Do I like cleaner cars and industry, yes.

Clean happens via the market (and some laws) since people buy cleaner (IE:efficient) and industry responds with more products. Attrition does a fair job in this area too.

I see our kids being brainwashed in this area too, and MANY ADULTS!!!

So, if carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up. Who should we blame, the oil producing countries, or the oil using countries? Seems that if they hadn't pumped the oil out of the ground, it would still be sequestered.

In the war on drugs, we blame the producers (liberals are the users), in the war on global warming we blame the users.

It really depends on where you are living if and when "global warming" occurs. I said "if" because scientists or our "learned" people always seem to "discover" certain ideas. these ideas sometimes they catch on and influence others, and in turn cause others much confusion. Yet, most "learned" people are so specialised that often, they fail to look at the big picture. I believe that solar activity is causing this climate change and it may not necessarily be permanent.
Personally, I think that we have a lot more to learn about our environment and to be at one with nature, this being that we try to have less impact on our environment and try to be sustainable in the long term. We are also at loggerheads with ourselves as to the changing nature of our environment. We also do not have sufficient data to prove or disprove certain events that are occuring now with respect to climate change. First of all, is our climate really changing, or is it just a short term phenomenon. Other planets are also being affected by this solar activity.
However, we still need to be comfortable and be able to enjoy ourselves, otherwise what is the purpose of living in this world?
there are others, of coursel that will make a lving out of the fear we have of climate change...the most recent major problem we had was the Y2K fear. I happened to work in the IT industry at that time, and found that much of the fear people had was quite unfounded. There were many people who thought that the world was going to end, that airplanes were going to just fall out of the sky, and all machines were going to go haywire the moment the clock strike midnight in the year 2000, .... etc. There was so much fear that many IT professionals made a huge profit from that fear and user ignorance. My advice to many was just shut down their computers on the last day of December 1999, and when they switch on the computers on new year's day 2000, and reset the date to 2000 in the BIOS. Most later model computers that were not Y2K compliant (that is, the date cannot roll over to 2000 automatically, ) would accept the new date and continue working. Only very few older computers cannot accept the year 2000 in their BIOS. Remember that in 1999, many computers were Intel Pentiums and their BIOS were quite advanced. Of course some software cannot accomodate the year 2000 in their program, but program shortcoming can be modified accordingly.
I have lived many years, and have seen numerous occurances of fear mongering by people who should know better. Some do that to gain profit from fear, but some are just plain ignorant. I am sure with this "global warming or climate change fear' we are going to see a number of people getting rich from "carbon" trading, and also others profiting from the "greening of the envoronment". All consumers will get are higher prices, and a lower standard of living, and the environment getting the crumbs.
These sorts of examples are plentiful throughout history, and if anybody care to do some research, they will uncover them easily. Of course, recent events can be masked by red tape, or perhaps some records may never see the light of day due to national security or some FOI rulings.
But common sense should prevail .... although someone once said that common sense is not so common after all.
One way or another, I do not fear climate change. I think that it is grossly irresponsible for anyone to spread rumours of our oceans rising and covering cities etc. and causing widespread choas as a direct result of climate change.

If there is, do you really think we can do much about it?

No

We can't make it rain where we want at anytime, how in the heck are we causing global warming?

Do I like clean air, yes. Do I like cleaner cars and industry, yes.

Clean happens via the market (and some laws) since people buy cleaner (IE:efficient) and industry responds with more products. Attrition does a fair job in this area too.

I see our kids being brainwashed in this area too, and MANY ADULTS!!!
Yes it’s true, many people have been brainwashed into this stupid theory and it’s somewhat funny. I have to say that it is a fact that one volcano eruption puts out the same amount of greenhouse gasses as cars do in the whole world in 10 years. So if it is because of that, it would be here with or without our help whether we like it or not.
Just to add Al Gore wrote a whole book on Gloabal Warming, what does that tell you.

1) There is global warming. It's been occurring naturally since the "little ice age".
2) Human intervention or cause is no more dangerous a contributer than a fly on the face of a charging elephant.

The above is a paraphrase of a statement by a "Professor Emeritus" of the University of Wisconsin I heard on a radio talk show. He retired years ago and works at a desk still provided him by the UW. He originally set up that department. His description of the PC version of "Global Warming" is "Hooey".
When asked why he hasn't given his opinion before he said "Nobody asked". After all, he might give an opinion different than the grant giving people want to hear from an eminent authority. Especially one they can't censure.

Well, I think many members of this Group have a much broader picture of climate change and the environment because in our type of work, we have to do a lot of thinking and looking at all sort of ideas etc. If we were to express some of our opinions to the so called "greenies" group, we might be condemmed to hell! Many strongly believe the burning of fossil fuel is the direct cause of climate change. ..
On a different note, will we really get global warming, ...or perhaps some parts of this World may experience warming but other parts may perhaps get colder? Did I hear that our earth's "magnetic pole" will change in the "near" future? Does it mean that our earth will spin clockwise instead?

I'm a mountain snowmobiler, I've long since gotten used to greenies hating me. We've fought greenies over snowmobiling in Yellowstone, and many other national parks and forests. Their all emotion, very little logic. You bad, we good. That's about the best they can do. Sometimes a well informed one shows up. But, if you can get them to give you references, you can usually poke holes in their argument big enough to drive a semi through. The worst is the "Professor" of such and such, too important to give the peasants references, and to busy to accept your uneducated rebuttal. The second worst is the news media greenie with an agenda. "The environment is worth lying for."

CNN showed up to Yellowstone and brought gas masks for the park employees to wear. They don't actually have their own. They shot the story, packed the gas masks back up, and left. Now all the gullible people think park employees wear gas masks. You try to explain this to people, and most don't realize the engines in the snowmobiles are 4 strokes, that are much cleaner than a street bike. A Yamaha R1 motorcycle engine, mounted into a snowmobile, isn't allowed in the park. It won't pass emission requirements. Personally, I always thought snowmobiling in a volcano was the perfect place to recreate, what the heck could we do that won't be wiped out in the next eruption? But there I go again, using logic. I'm glad the park has restrictions. But, to close the park's roads to snowmobiles makes no sense.

I feel it is just a cycle that the earth is going through. I could be wrong. it wouldn't be the first time. There just isn't enough data to support their claims.
Duane

Emotional Answer; Yes, we are causing it and we will all die tomorrow unless we go back to living like in the Middle Ages (wait, it was hotter then :eek:)

Logical Answer; Not enough information, and nothing we can do about it anyway.

FB

Well, yes, we seem to be groping in the dark to find solutions that in some cases we are not in control of, and not in our power to solve.
Sad to think that most of our actions are based on insufficient data. Unfortunately, the porer countries have to suffer for any "carbon" policy this World dictates. the only thing we can do is to find a sustainable policy based on calculations and known data, and work on that. we can first manufacture goods that are longer lasting and durable, and more energy efficient, with a policy on how they should be recycled when the need arises. We can also use energy more efficiently so we don't burnt unnecessarily fossil fuel. We can start reforestation in denuded places. We can start cleaning up the environment and stop harvesting the seas and oceans like there is no tomorow. There are so many things individuals can do to support our future. We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term. Do we still have to burn fossil fuel like we burnt logs on a fire. Why are we still using the internal combustion engine? Are we so ignorant while claiming to be so advanced in technology? Can we use other forms of reaction to obtain the required power or energy instead of exploding fuel in a chamber with the attending noise, vibration, pollution and toxic gases? Aren't our scientist and engineers smart enough to design better products? Looks like we aren't so smart after all...with more than a hundred years of producing the same old internal combustion engine...Am I the only crazy person to think that there are better ways of using our fossil fuel?

Well, yes, we seem to be groping in the dark to find solutions that in some cases we are not in control of, and not in our power to solve.
Sad to think that most of our actions are based on insufficient data. Unfortunately, the porer countries have to suffer for any "carbon" policy this World dictates. the only thing we can do is to find a sustainable policy based on calculations and known data, and work on that. we can first manufacture goods that are longer lasting and durable, and more energy efficient, with a policy on how they should be recycled when the need arises. We can also use energy more efficiently so we don't burnt unnecessarily fossil fuel. We can start reforestation in denuded places. We can start cleaning up the environment and stop harvesting the seas and oceans like there is no tomorow. There are so many things individuals can do to support our future. We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term. Do we still have to burn fossil fuel like we burnt logs on a fire. Why are we still using the internal combustion engine? Are we so ignorant while claiming to be so advanced in technology? Can we use other forms of reaction to obtain the required power or energy instead of exploding fuel in a chamber with the attending noise, vibration, pollution and toxic gases? Aren't our scientist and engineers smart enough to design better products? Looks like we aren't so smart after all...with more than a hundred years of producing the same old internal combustion engine...Am I the only crazy person to think that there are better ways of using our fossil fuel?

What fossil fuels? The earth creates oil just like it does diamonds, gold and other minerals. I remember 30 (when they talked about another ICE age) years ago when we were going to run out of oil at the current use in 25 years. Now the world uses more, we are finding more and get it out more EFF than ever before.

The worlds poor nations are excempt or don't care about so called GW or our rules.

The engines we use now run so clean you can't even kill yourself with the fumes now, it has to afixiate you.

The USA is the cleanest nation in the world for what we produce per capita and how EFF we do it. Sure we use more OIL than other nations, but it is justified.

Everyone lines up to come here, not leave. Think about that part.

Proper Quote: "We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term"

See Prosper, that's kind of the point. I think there are people capable of making decisions that would help the environment. But, the people that are whipping this all up, don't have a clue.

It's just like the spotted owl. The scientist (they claimed to be anyway) claimed that if we shut down logging, it would save the spotted owl. So, we did. We killed the logging industry in Washington State. So what happened. The bird is still declining. Turns out, spotted owl are adapted to a sparse woodland mountainous environment. Not the overgrown, put every fire out, greenie directed policies. And, it turns out that one animal, the horned owl, is adapted to a dense forest (there native to back east). It also turns out that the horned owl is the natural enemy of the spotted owl. So 10 years later, the wildlife people announce a horned owl culling. About 500 animals to start with I believe. But, the greenies that promised that the birds would be saved by shutting down logging, no where to be found. Not an offer to repay one cent of all the needlessly lost jobs. Or, all the fuel and money and environmental damage caused by shipping wood in from all over the world. From places that don't regulate deforestation properly. They now claim that shutting down the forest helped other animals, and "Saved" the forest. They made a dramatic claim, without any proof. Are they liable?

What fossil fuels? The earth creates oil just like it does diamonds, gold and other minerals. I remember 30 (when they talked about another ICE age) years ago when we were going to run out of oil at the current use in 25 years. Now the world uses more, we are finding more and get it out more EFF than ever before.

Okay, you may be right, as I am not hearing the whole truth...perhaps the oil companies are lying about the scarcity of oil so that they can command a high price? I realy don't know but that. I have heard that oil is much harder to find and most of the oil are of poor quality. Also, they have to pressurise the well or use steam to extracted the last remaining gallon of oil in some cases. Maybe we have better technology in our search or we have better machines to do the difficult work? I don't know how much oil reserves we have, I think no one really knows for sure. I seem to have the theory that in this World, almost everything is finite, and we are capable of exhausting our resources eventually. We are also capable of causing animal and plant extinction...maybe it is not all "our fault", but we are able to hasten extinctions very easily.

The worlds poor nations are excempt or don't care about so called GW or our rules.

Yes, I do agree because they are just too poor to do anything else. They have to burn fire wood just to do basic cooking, or they will starve to death...are we doing anything to help them, or just pass comments and critisise them for wanting to survive. They do care..I visited China recently and many people there are very unhappy about the pollution, but without their polluting industries, they will all die....either way, they will eventually die but at least they won't die doing nothing. It is easy for us to say that our developed world has less pollution etc. We have to remember that we import a lot of cheap products from the "poor" countries. They create the pollution in their countries, we consume what they create..so who really is responsible? Many developed countries have shares or own large factories in the poorer countries where labour is cheap and also their laws regarding pollution is lenient. ((I won't mention names, but there are lots of famous brands of products owned by multinationals), also remember Bopal in India a few years ago? I am not blaming anyone for any pollution problems but it is just food for thoughts, that's all.


The engines we use now run so clean you can't even kill yourself with the fumes now, it has to afixiate you.


Perhaps the engines that are running in vehicles in the developed countries are less polluting but what about the ones in the poorer countries? How are they going to progress if they are in a vicious circle?Also, new technology cost a lot of money, and companies owning patents charge a lot for the licences. I dont' blame them for whatever amount they charge, but where does this lead to?
Remember that in the end, we can blame anyone for creating pollution, but it will go unresolved, and also cause a lot of anger and resentment to all parties concerned. There must be a solution but are we willing to make compromises? Ultimately, are we living in one World or are we divided in our quest for a cleaner environment?


The USA is the cleanest nation in the world for what we produce per capita and how EFF we do it. Sure we use more OIL than other nations, but it is justified.

It is wonderful to know that the USA is leading the World in a cleaner environment. Perhaps the USA is the cleanest nation in the world, and there are many who love to migrate to the USA. How about then helping the rest of the World to become "clean"? Would it cost poorer countries the earth for that too happen? I was in the USA a long time ago. I met many nice people there, and I enjoyed my trip. Americans have a high standard of living and a good technological base. I may be wrong but I always thought that it is the migrants that made America great, both past and present. What about the railroad workers, the pioneers, of people like Albert Einstein, and many scientist that were refugees during the second world war, etc. did their part in contributing to the present America. With such a good base to work on, the younger generation will have a very good chance of keeping up the pace. Yes, indeed, it is very important for any country to accept hardworking and decent migrants to make a country great.


Everyone lines up to come here, not leave. Think about that part.


I live in Australia, and I am happy here. Personally, I like to live in Australia because I am surrounded by the most unique flora and fauna. It also has many climates, and we have many nice places to visit in the "bush". We have a small population, about 21 million inhibitants. We have big cities as well. I will always call Australia my home, no matter what!

I don't think anyone said Australia is a bad place to live. From what I remember, you have a problem with Indonesians (everybody) trying to move there. Besides, why did you change the subject from global warming to nationalist chest pounding. I don't think that was his point.

Here in the states interesting things are going on:

Some people hate hydroelectric dams, cause they want to revive the fish migration populations. Lots of lawsuits. There goes that form of clean energy.

Every time someone tries to install a wind mill around here, they get challenged in court. Lawsuit. There goes that form of clean energy. Not to mention the Audubon society claims they kill birds and some type of squirrel like animals. The only place that has been installing them is Texas. President Bush put saws are in place to support wind energy back when he was governor, environmentalist are mad though.

Tital generators, blocked by environmentalist, and home owners that don't want their view spoiled. Lawsuit.

Everytime someone proposes installing a solar chimney, they get blocked at the local government level. Not in my backyard.

Every time someone wants to burn wood, You guessed it, lawsuit. Going on in Oregon as we speak.

Garbage incineration, lawsuit. Nashville Tn is good example.

Nuclear Energy, lawsuits and marches, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Going on in Grand View Idaho.

Fusion, nobody wants to fund it. They'd rather give money to those that won't work. Or on the flip side, the energy corporations block it's funding. So, they took their research over to Europe.

Laws covering new house energy efficiency, the home builders association groups blocked that.

So, the Engineer not only has to pull a energy bunny out of his azz. He also has to do it in such a way that doesn't offend someone. I mean, how do you do this? There's no magic energy solution. Energy has to be found, harvested, transported, utilized, and then disposed of. So, instead of ranting on engineers, how about proposing some solutions.

I don't think anyone said Australia is a bad place to live. From what I remember, you have a problem with Indonesians (everybody) trying to move there. Besides, why did you change the subject from global warming to nationalist chest pounding. I don't think that was his point.

Well, okay, when I wrote about Australia, it was meant to let people know that we live in our country and we are used to the life. So, under normal circumstances, no one likes to migrate to a foreign country because it has so many pitfalls. Eg. language difference, culture and traditions, new laws to remember etc. etc.. Nationalist chest pounding? I personally am fascinated by the unique environment here in Australia, so I feel that we should be careful what we do. Depends on how one reads my statement.. I wa implicating that if we consume too much, we eventually will suffer the consequences. Look, I agree that we live in this world for a short time,and many people like to enjoy life to the fullest and exposed their "bright side" and contribute their "two cents worth" to society..but we are producing too much garbage as well.




Here in the states interesting things are going on:

Some people hate hydroelectric dams, cause they want to revive the fish migration populations. Lots of lawsuits. There goes that form of clean energy.

Every time someone tries to install a wind mill around here, they get challenged in court. Lawsuit. There goes that form of clean energy. Not to mention the Audubon society claims they kill birds and some type of squirrel like animals. The only place that has been installing them is Texas. President Bush put saws are in place to support wind energy back when he was governor, environmentalist are mad though.

Tital generators, blocked by environmentalist, and home owners that don't want their view spoiled. Lawsuit.

Everytime someone proposes installing a solar chimney, they get blocked at the local government level. Not in my backyard.

Every time someone wants to burn wood, You guessed it, lawsuit. Going on in Oregon as we speak.

Garbage incineration, lawsuit. Nashville Tn is good example.

Nuclear Energy, lawsuits and marches, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Going on in Grand View Idaho.

Fusion, nobody wants to fund it. They'd rather give money to those that won't work. Or on the flip side, the energy corporations block it's funding. So, they took their research over to Europe.

Laws covering new house energy efficiency, the home builders association groups blocked that.


Well, at least you now realise that you have a social problem rather than an enviromental one. Why do the "greenies" behave in such a way. Are those people who oppose building "energy structures" still live in caves? If not, why not" Living in houses produces pollution, so why should they be hypocrites? When I was in the USA, I was warned to be careful of being sued. We had to study litigation as part of what we were doing. Being sued takes a lot of emotional energy and also makes one very discourage. Unless a person is rich and can afford legal reperesntation, it wil be a lost cause. Now, don't take it that I am critising American society..I am not. I think that in any society, there are quirks that occur and nobody seem to have any power to stop it. So, if you tell me that you have all the above situation when trying to generate "green" energy, then I feel that it is going to be a tough one to overcome. Society sometimes creates its own downfall. If you cannot generate energy by building structures, (for whatever reasons) then I am at a loss for words. I wish you good luck for the future then. I only hope the "greenies" in Australia does not create this situation.


So, the Engineer not only has to pull a energy bunny out of his azz. He also has to do it in such a way that doesn't offend someone. I mean, how do you do this? There's no magic energy solution. Energy has to be found, harvested, transported, utilized, and then disposed of. So, instead of ranting on engineers, how about proposing some solutions.


Engineers? Am I ranting or blaming Engineers? I graduated in Industrial Engineering. My interest lies more with Information Technology at the moment as well as horticulture. What I meant was, with all the talk of our technology, we are still groping to find an alternative energy source. I am at the moment experimenting with Energy derived from Sugar. I feel that sugar derived from any "green matter" may be the way to go. I am not suggesting changing the sugar to alcohol, but using it directly in a reactor.
However, I realise that many people will just laugh at me for my stupidity or ignorance, that is why i keep to myself in this. But I still plod on regardless... Being an individual, it is difficult to work full time, and also spend time researching and doing experiments. I have along way ahead of me, but I'll send my research papers to the next person who will continue when I pass on. So, I am not just talking, but doing something to solve the problem. I apologies to anyone in advance if what I wrote hurt anyone. My intention was to make people aware of our need to be sustainable if we want to survive long term future on this finite earth..

I think something that is lost is how resiliant the earth really is.

We let bacteria clean up oil spills and leaks. Remember the Exxon Valdez? They said it would take 25-50 years for the area to return to normal. 10 years later, there is hardly a sign of it.

There are more trees on earth now than we we started to keep tract, mostly because we plant them.

Conservation comes alot from demand as much as laws. We want more eff and that goes hand in hand with clean very often.

Humans are also part of this earth and our needs (and wants) have to be considered along with conservation.

You are right, FBJR. We sometimes look at this World in a "human" perspective. I say human because we are quite ignorant in the mysteries of this World (Nature). We don't understand fully the mechanisms of what the recovery process of Nature is.
Also, there are so many things we cannot predict, guess this World is steep in mysteries that we humans will take a very long time to decipher and understand...but it makes it even more interesting precisely because of this enigma.
I am quite confident we as humans, will survive for a very long time. As long as we keep up our good works and we'll be all right for the future. We need to be nice to each other and be peaceable, share our ideas and apirations.
I wish all you "Happy Days ahead!!!"

You are right, FBJR. We sometimes look at this World in a "human" perspective. I say human because we are quite ignorant in the mysteries of this World (Nature). We don't understand fully the mechanisms of what the recovery process of Nature is.
Also, there are so many things we cannot predict, guess this World is steep in mysteries that we humans will take a very long time to decipher and understand...but it makes it even more interesting precisely because of this enigma.
I am quite confident we as humans, will survive for a very long time. As long as we keep up our good works and we'll be all right for the future. We need to be nice to each other and be peaceable, share our ideas and apirations.
I wish all you "Happy Days ahead!!!"


I agree with all of that and dittos on the last line :D

Cattle Flatulence and SUVs arent the problem. Anyone with half a brain can see that we are still in a solar maximun instead of the sun moving into its normal solar minimum like it should have years ago. For the last 2 years here in So Ca. we have had 103F degree days in the middle of DEMEMBER. Broke the record by nearly 20F!!!! There is nothing on this earth that can change things that rapidly. Absolutley nothing. The 1st thing we have to understand is that the movement of the outer planets OUTSIDE OF THEIR NORMAL ORBITS could not be caused by anything that goes on on this planet. The unabated huge SOLAR FLARES that have happened within the last 3-4 years are not caused by anything that is going on on or in this planet. Its totally an OUTSIDE form of interference. Physics teaches us: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." ( Newtons third law). To get planets to change their orbits even a little bit requires an interdiction of huge proportions to upset the balances of all the connecting forces that hold them together. I think its safe to say that the govt has been lying to us for many years about many many subjects. Global Warming us just one of them. There is ample historical evidence that a series of comets, asteroids, and even a large planet comes into contact with our solar system every 4,000 + - years. The Ancients wrote about them in detail. The Sumerian tablets recently found have extensive detail about these comets and the destruction to our planet that was left in their wake. Other ancient texts like the Kolbrin Bible have the same type of details that were left out of our Roman inspired bibles of today. All this info is out there, One just needs to use common sense and begin to think outside the box.
Michael

Thanks Michael, and all those who are now seeing things in a better light, and using their common sense to do some research in a balanced way.
No doubt we should be aware of our slowly dwindling resources (although we still have enough for the forthcoming generations) and take care to use them wisely. We also should take steps to minimise or reduce our pollution. However, climate change has little to do with the present "climate change" People seem to be so worried about this climate change that they become so fearful. This fear always lead to panic and action that leads to our destruction if we don't be more aware. Fear always breed more fear and in the end, we destroy ourselves by our illogical actions. There are so many examples of this kind of attitude throughtout history of the human population that there is no need for me to mention them.
However, instead of now trying to think of how to overcome and adapt to the coming changes, we are all squabbling over thoeries that we know to be incorrect. We need to think of ways to make this climate change work for us to our advantage, and also make the necessary changes in some places to survive. By doing so, we are going to benefit and also enjoy the advantages of the change in our environment. Remember that change occurs in the normal course of our ever "evolving" environment and there are occurances in the Universe that we, as humans, cannot change.

Hi Michael,

You’re actually mixing 2 different cycles. The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year). The last maxima, in the late 1990’s, (it’s an 11 year cycle) were responsible for wide ranging outages of cell phones, satellite feeds and even power outages. Sunspots are relatively cool spots on the suns surface. When they collapse the result in solar prominences or flares (for the larger sun spots). This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta). It’s also responsible for the aurora (the proton hitting oxygen and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere). Considering how much more dependent we are now of delicate electronics like computers, 2010-2011 is going to be an interesting time.

There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle. I haven’t read his paper yet, so I’m a little skeptical. Not that the global warming effects are due to the cycle, but that he has found a way to separate this cycle from the other possible variables.

As an interesting side note, the South Africans were complaining about the low turnout for the Al Gore Live Earth concerts due to snow and unseasonably cold weather. You just can’t rely on that global warming.

However, I do like blaming things on the cows if I can. It gets the PETA people really agitated. :)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Look at the graph about half way down the page (smoothed sunspot cycle), were actually at a pretty low spot for the past few years. But it's going to geg bumpy soon.

I this brief writeup the protons I alluded to are lumped together in the general term ions.

Prosper, not informing the public as to how to protect themselves is criminal. Not telling them what is going to happen is also criminal. We in this country have faced Civil War, 2 World Wars, and the Great Depression. Fear did not cause widespread panic or cause us to become paralyzed. We did what we needed to do to survive and PREVAIL. If the public is informed the same way as was the news of all those aforementioned wars etc. I think the vast majority of people will be more interested in surviving than rioting.
Forget about the envoirnment. It will be years before anything remotely resembling an enviornment will emerge. After this passage we will pick up the pieces and go on. Unfortunately most within 100 miles of an ocean or large body of water will not survive. If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
Michael

[QUOTE=sdantonio;317992] You just can’t rely on that global warming.

QUOTE]

Dear Steven,

Over here in the UK, we had a really hot April.

Out came the "Global Warming" people.. "Obvious proof, "we told you so "etc.

May and June were pretty cold and miserable, and a bit rainy.

Out came the "Climate Change" people. They were the same people of course, plucking dodgy data to support their very lucrative industry.

They simply will not go away.

Best wishes

Martin

......The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year).....This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta)........There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle......

Here are some IFs. After all if the Global Warming Crowd are allowed to play the if - then game and predict doom and gloom surely I can do the same.

There are a number of scientists who are of the opinion that solar flare activity also acts to reduce the cosmic ray flux hitting the Earth. And because cosmic rays may have an influence on cloud formation a reduced flux could cause a reduced cloud cover which could decrease the Earth's albedo which could contribute to warming.

So we are moving toward a period of enhanced solar flare activity...therefore there is warming from reduced cloud cover and we are at the maximum, or mid point (?) of an increased solar energy output...so therefore it is a double whammy.

But all good (?) things come to an end. In ten years time we should be in a low solar flare condition...i.e. lots of (or at least more) clouds and at the same time we will be well into the decline of the 40 year solar energy cycle...so double downward whammy.

If it all comes to pass it will be interesting to see how the gloom and doomers rationalise it. Of course if it doesn't come to pass I guess a lot of people will have waterfront property facing the wrong way.

Geoff,

Excellent "IF Game". I like the way you think. The only point I would make is that is the past 10 years or so the sun has become noticeably dimmer (noticeable to very sensitive scientific instruments). This is due to soot (particulates) in the atmosphere. I have no idea at all how much this would counter the effect of the reduced cloud formation, if at all.

So do we hurry up and pump more soot into the air. I think this would have it's own problems.

There was a study just released today. One of the global warming folks big "if's" is the possible melting of the Greenland glacier (sea levels rise, mass panic, Las Vegas gets flooded, Elvis returns, etc). According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped.

Looks like I'm not getting my beach front property any time soon :( (going to be stuck 50 miles inland I guess)

If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
Michael

Wow, that explains why last week I saw the White house on the back of a flatbed truck with a sign saying "Ohio or bust" on the back. And of course Haliburton blew up the levies in New Orleans by planting dynamite underwater because George Bush hates African Americans. Of course this can't be proven or disproven because the only way to see under water is with mask and snorkel and the government didn't issue masks and snorkels to the residents of NOLA. More population control theories brought to you by the far left bloggers... sewing the seeds of terror worldwide. (I think that one was from the Michael Moore blog, but I could be wrong about the source).

Sorry, I just can't let this one go by.

Dear Geof,

Far from me to suggest that your science is in anyway flawed, but I was curious about albedo. Wiki is a pretty dodgy source of knowledge, but here goes.....

In realistic cases, a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) is required to characterise the scattering properties of a surface accurately, although albedos are a very useful first approximation.

Probably entirely true.

The words "a very useful first approximation", however, made my hair stand on end.

Sounded a bit too much like the stuff from the Climate experts.

Best wishes,

Martin

... According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped....

Yes I read that one.

The "soot" bit I have read about and I think it is not soot but things such as sulfur dioxide which can cause high level haze. As far as I can gather reading different sources there is disagreement whether this cause cooling or warming.

martinw; It sounds like the Wiki people are getting a bit carried away...they do sometimes. Here is the simple minded meaning I am using; "The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object". Viewed from above, on average, clouds are whiter than ground and they scatter back incident radiation. There is controversy, as I mention above, as to whether clouds are net warmers or coolers.

Dear Geof and Steve,

Thank-you for the posts.

I live and learn.


Best wishes

Martin

Martin,

The easiest way to think of albedo is, as Geoff said, white. To be a little more specific, the lighter the color the more it will reflect light, the darker the color, the less reflected light.

In planetary physics, celestial bodies are generally characterized by their albedo. Given a star 93 million miles away your less likely to bump into a clean snowball than a lump of coal because more light will be reflected from the snowball (and it will be more easily seen) due to it's higher albedo (or coefficient of reflection).

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

There is so much junk science associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria it too much to keep track of.

The earth is always in some type of ice age, I believe were coming down off one now, but when thats done we'll be coming into another one at some point.

AlGore's global warming map was critically flawed. He used a Mercator projection. He was showing polar areas that had receded. Well the numbers would have looked quite different with an accurate map projection.

Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet.

The whole "we only have thirty years of oil left" thing is total BS too. Thats what they were saying many years ago, we'd be out now if it was true. Thirty years from now they will be saying the same thing, and there's a reason for that too. It is because of accounting practices that consider future reserves to have less value based on how far into the future they will be available. SPV (Sum of Present Value) Its BS.

What I am expecting to happen is we (society) will give in to the BS the greenies are pushing (its already happening). Years from now everything will still be okay and those wacko's will claim we were saved thanks to them, and they'll just get worse then!!

.... Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet............

It is okay to be a skeptic but make sure your scepticism is well founded.

What you say is correct for ice that is floating in the sea. When ice on land melts and the resulting water flows into the sea the then the sea level will rise.

There is enough water in the ice on the Antartic continent and Greenland that if it did melt then sea levels would rise many tens of feet.

The big question is will it melt.

The big question is will it melt.

And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

On and on it goes...

Best wishes


Martin

And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

On and on it goes...

Best wishes


Martin

True, and if it was remotely possible that we could do anything about it I may accept that reasoning.

I have read one article by a climate scientist/oceanographer who pointed out that IF the fossil CO2 we have released is the cause of the warming, and IF we stopped emitting fossil CO2 completely right now the warming would probably continue for 50 years, maybe more. Climate/weather responds with an enormous lag; after all on an annual basis the shortest day of the year, i.e. the day with the least sunlight, precedes the coldest month of the year by about six weeks.

I have stated it before; IF the CO2 is responsible for the warming a lot of people had better start learning how to live underwater; there is no way to avoid it even if the world's entire economy was shut down.

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

Your Physics is not iffy; that is the crux of the controversy.

If you have clouds only during the day and clear at night it is obvious that the net effect is cooling.

If you have clear during the day and cloudy at night the net effect will probably be heating.

If you have completely clear skies day and night there are very wide diurnal temperature swings; these are typical desert conditions.

If you have constant overcast cloud day and night you have small diurnal temperature swings.

But in the third and fourth situation which gives the greatest NET heat gain? It depends on where this is happening, does the earth's surface in that region have a high or low albedo? There are so many variables you can make your reasoning fit any conclusion.

The response of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Crowd is: "it is so complicated we will ignore it."

My Witch Doctor/Environmentalist said I shouldn't worry about running out of oil or global warming caused consuming it. He claims there isn't enough oxygen left to burn it. What we need is a carbon dioxide fuel cell. lol

Dear Geof,

Many thanks for your last post. This is interesting stuff.

For what it's worth, my real problem with Climate Change is my childish suspicion of politicians and those who shout in their ears loudest.

Climate Change , (rather like Terrorism) is such a fantastic opportunity for the power-hungry to boss and restrict the activities of the citizenry.

Sorry, ranting again...

Please keep the physics coming.

Best wishes

Martin

.... my childish suspicion of politicians and those who shout in their ears loudest.....Martin

I am not entirely sure this is childish :) .

I am not entirely sure this is childish :) .

Childish? Childish?

Too long ago to remember about that...

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof and Steve,

I'm still curious about cloud albedo, and in-coming and out-going radiation .

Geof said a few posts ago that deserts have huge diurnal temperature swings. This is clearly observable. Would I be right in saying that this is due to the a lack of water at ground level which cannot possibly form significant clouds above the desert, despite huge levels of solar radiation? I think so.

Now, suppose you go to the Alps or Rockies for some skiing.

All around are heaps of snow, and the Sun beats down all day. OK, the air temperature is low, but you don't feel it because the Sun is radiating to you and being massively reflected by the snow.

Why are the nights so cold and cloudless? There is plenty of wet stuff lying around (albiet in a solid phase) for some water vapour to be formed by the day-time solar input, but the night skies tend to be clear. Is it simply that the ground albedo chucks all the Sun's effort into outer space? Does altitude feature in the behaviour of H2O in these circumstances?

I have a mountain to climb.

Best wishes

Martin

martin; You seem to be developing a tendency to answer your own questions :) . But your ascribing the lack of clouds over deserts to the lack of ground moisture is a horse before cart way of looking at things.

Most water vapor, which may become cloud and then rain or snow, arrives with the wind. The source of most water vapor is the sea although downwind of lakes and in some cases forests the atmospheric water content is elevated and cloud formation may be enhanced from these sources.

To see why a desert is a desert you just need to look upwind. In the case of many deserts upwind is a lot of land, sometimes very bumpy land which has seen lots of cloud and precipitation of rain or snow. By the time the wind gets to the desert region it is very dry and simply cannot form clouds. Some deserts are in coastal regions and upwind lies the ocean, however, in these cases often the ocean is cold as is the case for Atacama. Even though the wind is off the ocean it does not have much moisture because of the cold current up the coast.

Your mountain situation is somewhat similar in that upwind is down..in elevation that is. The air, that may have been moist when it started its journey upwards from the low lands, cools and the moisture precipitates out so by the time it gets to your ski area it is dry and cannot form clouds. The snow in your ski area arrived in air that was travelling quickly and had such a high moisture content it did not get all the moisture squeezed out lower down. Another name for fast moving moisture laden air is a storm.

And you are quite correct snow has a very high albedo; once it has fallen it does not absorb solar energy much so it tends to stay. But sprinkle a little dirt on it and it is another matter.

One of the great global warming scientists, philosophers and statesmen speaks out (I'm being sarcastic here).

I saw an interview with Robert M. Kennedy Jr, son of Robert Kennedy, (duh... that's kind of obvious) the brother of our president John Kennedy. He was a very pro global warming guy, by which I mean that he ascribes all global warming to human caused pollution and talked of the dire consequences to come (He actually made Gores' predictions sound a little meek).

Part of the way through the interview he made the statement "if you don't agree with me then you are a liar" in rebuttal to John Stossel who wrote a book that pretty much disagreed with a lot of RMK's points of debate (it was a split screen interview with Stossel and RMK Jr.). RMK's point was that the big oil companies bought off Stossel so that he (Stossel) would point the finger of global warming elsewhere). RMK was also making sweeping statements like all scientists and Meteorologists agree with RMK's point of view.

That's what we need. Good, honest open debate in a straightforward and intelligent manner bu experts in the field.

That's what we need. Good, honest open debate in a straightforward and intelligent manner bu experts in the field.

Dear Steve,

I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. The problem is that "honesty and openness" is a slim commodity given the nature of Government funding.

There is an official policy, and God help those who question it. They will not be fed at the trough.

Best wishes

Martin

Considering the recent Live Earth concert, it occurs to me that any of the speakers might have said:

"My friends, I know the earth-saving lifestyle we ask of you may cause some hardship; no great battles are won without many embracing personal sacrafice. However, also know that as you rise through the ranks, as you grow in celebrity and influence, you will, rightly, no longer be expected to bare the burden of self-sacrifice. Our good friends Al Gore, John Edwards, Hollywood, the music industry, and many many others, are wonderful, humble examples of how there need not be a contradiction between extravegant lifestyles and supporting the cause of mother earth. By the time you are seen as a spokeperson for the 'cause', you will have well earned a life of leasure. So take heart. Gia bless. Now lets rock!"

That same Robert kennedy is one of the Kenndys' and other Martha's Vineyards "ecoists" who are fighting the installation of wind turbines offshore (5 miles out) because they would ruin their view. If you are believer in man-made global warming fine, but live by your words or get out of the way of those who are doing something that may help at very minimal impact to the "global environment"......RMK, Al Gore, John Edwards...hypocrite is thy name. Read about GWB, someone who actually constructed and lives in a "green friendly home" and made improvements to the White House to reduce its impact on the enviroment. He may not be right on everything but he follows through on his commitments.

In Australia we are looking down the barrel of a federal election. The left wing party has been in opposition for about 15 years and look as though they might get back into power based somewhat on their take on "climate change" and their accusation that the conservative ruling party haven't done enough about the "problem".

The ruling party say that the "climate change" case isn't conclusive and unless there is tangible scientific proof they won't be making any radical changes to policy. Depending on your view this looks like prudent governance or stubborn refusal to see a problem.

The opposition party have clung onto the global warming mantra and looking at the polls, they may have hit a nerve with the great unwashed. Despite the questionable science and associated hyteria, the "climate change" beat up/recognition looks like a winner.

In the south west of Western Australia we have a piece of God's own country at a town called Denmark. Here the forest, river and sea meet in what used to be a farming / forestry town. In the seventies a lot of hippies formed communes and the dreadlocks, rainbow garbs, kombi vans, bare feet and pot, turned the place into a hippy/greeny refuge.

The town has since become a mecca for cashed up retirees from larger cities but the local council is still pretty strongly greeny and the town prides itself on its environmentally friendly, tree hugging history.

In the adjacent southern coastal town of Albany they have a wind farm with about a dozen big 3 bladed turbines made in Germany. Each blade of the turbines is the size of a Jumbo jet wing and the wind farm generates a large proportion of the town's energy due to the prevailing sea breezes off the southern ocean.

Strangely however when the state government suggested that they install a green / natural energy wind farm at the greeny Denmark shire the environmentally aware council and inhabitants of the tree hugging Denmark would't hear of it and blocked the initiative.

As the (north) Americans say, go figure.

Romans chapter 1 in the Bible says that men would worship and serve the earth that God created instead of worshipping God. Now they are trying to do His job for Him. I think Al Gore is slightly less qualified than God to handle the job. Environmentalism is good to the 70% level. Beyond that it costs the same to clean up the next 10% as it did to clean up the first 70%. EPA will never go away and will always suck the cash out of our pockets for marginal gain. They will not be satisfied with emissions until my diesel is running on water. Reason is not one of thier strong points. When your leader sounds like he is addressing a kindergarten class when he speaks and will not answer questions, there may be something wrong with the "theory". Junk Science?

Hi Pete,

If you pushed a sexular environmentalist (and all the ones I have run across personally are secularists or "neo-pagans" they will counter by telling you that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that got us in this mess to begin with. While I agree that Al Gore is less qualified to play God than, lets say, the typical 5-year old, there are many in the left wing of the Democratic party in this country who have put him on the same level (unfortunately). The problem your getting into here is that you are dealing with a text that can be twisted to mean just about anything through spin and interpretation.

genesis (bold emphasis in mine)

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Hi Pete,

If you pushed a sexular environmentalist (and all the ones I have run across personally are secularists or "neo-pagans" they will counter by telling you that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that got us in this mess to begin with. While I agree that Al Gore is less qualified to play God than, lets say, the typical 5-year old, there are many in the left wing of the Democratic party in this country who have put him on the same level (unfortunately). The problem your getting into here is that you are dealing with a text that can be twisted to mean just about anything through spin and interpretation.


On the topic of spin and interpretation are the double entendres here deliberate?

Are all evironmentalists "sexular" or is your finger too fat for your keyboard? :D

And the second sentence is not entirely clear; are the 'many in the left wing' equating Gore with God, Gore with a five year old or a five year old with God?

I dooo hope your lectures on physics (assuming you give any) are more elucidatory:D

elucidatory? Or elucidative?

elucidatory? Or elucidative?

I don't know :confused: . Anyway you wouldn't expect a Physicist to know the difference would you? :D

physicist? Or Physicist?

You should have seen Kennedy getting all bug eyed with Glenn Beck. Kennedy is a complete idiot. He says a bunch of stupid stuff. He claimed that Glenn hadn't read the IPCC report and that he has, but it hasn't been released yet. The guy started quoting the definition of fascism as corporate power dominating government. It's worth a look.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7661322663307980544&q=glenn+beck+robert+kennedy&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


"suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship", sounds a lot like what Kennedy is participating in. If you don't believe in Global Warming you should be charged with treason. Humm. Guess he didn't get much from his dad.

Global Darkening, a Looming Catastrophe

A catastrophe that dwarfs global warming has been recently discovered; it's called Global Darkening. Leading environmental scientists first noticed this phenomena on June 23 of this year. Careful scientific measurements showed daylight hours were beginning to decrease.

At first the daylight decay was less than a minute per day. This alarming trend has accelerated and now several minutes are lost per day. Computer models using this recent scientific data show global darkness (the runaway Blackhouse Effect) will make the earth uninhabitable within a few years. Left unchecked, the world will be plunged into complete blackness unless something is done immediately. One needs only to look at our planetary neighbor, the Moon, to see what the Blackhouse Effect has done to its dark side.

Eco-solar scientists claim the only possible explanation is the sun is being used up and the cause is obviously man made. Our use of solar power is consuming precious solar resources at an ever increasing rate. The causes can be seen everywhere; wastefully turning sunlight into electricity, environmentally irresponsible sun tanning, using windows to admit daylight in millions of homes. The list is endless and it all has an untold negative effect on our fragile solar ecosystem. We must take drastic measures immediately before it's too late.

A few irresponsible scientists claim this is just a natural cycle. They cite a few unsubstantiated reports from the Southern Hemisphere that daylight hours are increasing there. They have been paid by the solar cell industry.

As responsible people we cannot wait for all the science to come in on Global Darkening; by then it will be too late. The Blackhouse Effect is real, it's occurring now and our profligate, solar-dependent Western lifestyle is to blame. All responsible scientists agree daylight hours are getting shorter now and everyone knows computer models can accurately predict the future. 10-day weather forecasts prove it.

We must aid in stopping this growing crisis. Solar cells and solar hot water heaters must be banned. Solar offsets must be paid by tan people to pale people. Concerts must be held to raise awareness and all windows must be boarded-up. Crops, the biggest waste of limited solar resources, must be plowed under. A comprehensive desertification program must be instituted by progressive people everywhere immediately. Do it for the children; don't they deserve their day in the sun?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
sometime this year you posted a comment that you felt that world as we know it was going to be "de-engineered". I can't remember the exact words you used but I did do a search through all your previous posts this year and didn't see it. Do you remember making that post and if so when? Can you expand on your theory a bit? The reason for my curiousity is that it's what I believe is happening also.

By the way, I know your views on global warming, the environment, etc. are a bit contradictory to mine. I have always believed that we must look after this earth we live on in order to protect it for future generations (litter, pollution, fosil fuels, etc.). I'm not saying you do or don't believe in those things but I must admit that since reading your posts I've started to look at many of these subjects in a more objective way. i.e. how much is real and how much of it originates from the fear/panick business in order to benefit certain industries/individuals.

Speaking of looking after the environment, the area where I live in Spain has terrible tasting water (undrinkable) and until now we have always bought bottled water. I hate bottled water due to the amount of energy it took to bring you the water (transport from factory to distributor to shop to home) and the amount of plastic that gets dumped into the landfill afterwards. Finally I splashed out and bought a reverse osmosis water filtration unit. I looked at the instructions and saw that it has a waste pipe that gets connected to the waste water system for backflushing. As I fitted the system in the basement directly under the kitchen, I just left a drain pipe to backflush into a bucket. I turned on the system only to find that water is constantly coming out of the drain pipe. I check the manual, didn't find anything, check the internet and discover to my amazement that that is how the system works. Due to the constant movement of water from one side of a membrane to another, the microparticles get left behind. Constant movement of water meaning that it permanently dumps water into the drain and I'm not talking about drip/drip either but a 1/4" tube running permanently. Talk about being dissillusioned about a product, now I have to find a use for the waste water. (plants?)

(Sent to you by pm as well)

......Due to the constant movement of water from one side of a membrane to another, the microparticles get left behind. Constant movement of water meaning that it permanently dumps water into the drain and I'm not talking about drip/drip either but a 1/4" tube running permanently. Talk about being dissillusioned about a product, now I have to find a use for the waste water. (plants?)


Dependent on the salt content of the original water and the efficiency of the RO unit the reject water may not be suitable for plants due to a higher salt content.

You have discovered the fallacy behind using RO to get potable water from a poor supply; the supply flow needs to be many times the consumption.

Why don't you put in a solar still? It is possible to get litres per day from a correctly setup solar still and it does not need to have a tracking or focussing system. Google 'solar still' and maybe include 'mother earth news'.

If you cannot find anything I can post some sketches.

I'll second that.
A "solar still" is the way to go.

It takes a bit of maintenance -but it is the way Mother Nature does it.

Operational costs are about zilch but for some labor/time.

Certainly I'm in a good place to do it as there's plenty of sun here and I do have a flat roof to place any sort of gizmo that I feel like putting up there. Thanks for the help guys!

Certainly I'm in a good place to do it as there's plenty of sun here and I do have a flat roof to place any sort of gizmo that I feel like putting up there. Thanks for the help guys!

Dear skippy,

Dig a big hole in your back yard. Put a big bucket in the middle of the hole.

Put a sheet of clear polythene over the top of the excavated hole, and weight the sheet round the edges with more stones so that the sheet has no tendency to fall into the hole.

Place a small stone on top of the sheet directly above the centre of the bucket below. The sheet will form some kind of inverted cone.

The general idea is that ground moisture will be heated inside the hole (due to in-coming solar radiation trapped by the polythene sheet), and will condense on the underside of the sheet. It will then drip into the bucket awaiting your collection.

If you are feeling brave, you could attempt to augment the ground moisture with "grey water" from your house, but I'm not sure about the possibility of bacteria making the the leap into your bucket.

Ah well, just a thought....

Best wishes

Martin

BTW, that idea came from a "Boys Own" comic a long time ago.

Might just work though..

Best wishes

Martin

The Mother Earth News design is practically identical except the plastic forms a concave vee on a sloping roof and the condensed water runs down the inverted ridge of the vee and is collected at the bottom. The "ground" is black fabric; I thick landscape cloth or something like that would work. The water is intorduced at the top and percolates down. If the sun is intense and the flow is small all the water evaporates before reaching the bottom. Occasionally the fabric has to be replaced becasue it tends to get a build up of salt and dirt when the water is taken to complete evaporation.

Grey water is a no no because the still makes a perfect incubator for nasty bugs. Sometimes depending on the source water the incoming supply needs to be disinfected with bleach.

The Mother Earth News design is practically identical except the plastic forms a concave vee on a sloping roof and the condensed water runs down the inverted ridge of the vee and is collected at the bottom. The "ground" is black fabric; .

Dear Geof,

Mother Earth News !!!!!!

Lorks, it all comes flooding back.

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof,

Mother Earth News !!!!!!

Lorks, it all comes flooding back.

Best wishes

Martin

Macrame and candle making :) , long hair, bell bottom jeans, tie dye shirts.

Macrame and candle making :) , long hair, bell bottom jeans, tie dye shirts.

Dear Geof,

Please stop right now!

Given my advanced years, it is cruel to remind me of the folly of youth.

BTW, my attempts at tie-dye T-shirts were, frankly, pathetic.

Best wishes

Martin

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Life is so tough isn't it?

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Dear Phil,

I "feel your pain" but help is at hand in the form of "PLAN B"... a fully functioning , energy gobbling de-salination plant right on your back-doorstep.

Bring it on guys...

Best wishes

Martin

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Dear Phil,

Maybe the de-salination idea was not a good one.

It is hard to tell from your photo how far above the sea your back yard might be. Rising sea levels may still get you.

IMVVHO, build an Ark.

Best wishes,

Martin

Global warming is a BIG LIE. Here are a few questions to consider. Where did all that ice come from on the poles? Scientists use greenlands ice to see when a volcano erupted. They found one that erupted 2500yrs ago. If 2500yrs of ice melted from greenland how far would ocean levels rise? Greenlands ice, glaciers, and all this other ice that is/has been melting all came from precipitation. Thus it all started in the ocean and is all returning to the ocean...the water cycle. So will the ocean rise 200ft?

Martin,
we've got a good rise in height if the sea level rises. Global warming would be a good thing for me as I might be able to fish from the chairs in the picture.

On seeing your post about the desalination plant I wondered if maybe you had read about these things in the UK because that's the way things are going here. I can't tell you how many of these huge plants (the size of a very large factory) they have installed and are planning to install here. No one ever reads about the energy requirements of these plants and regarding the output back to the sea, all they say is that it is toxic. By how much no one ever says....
Hey, one has to love that British humour...

On seeing your post about the desalination plant I wondered if maybe you had read about these things in the UK because that's the way things are going here. I can't tell you how many of these huge plants (the size of a very large factory) they have installed and are planning to install here. ...

Dear skippy,

As a back-up system in case of drought, a reverse osmosis desalination plant is going to be built near the site of the 2012 London Olympics. This should be capable of supplying 140 million litres of water per day to the London water network. The plan is to take the water from the Thames Estuary because this has only 30% of the the salinity compared to sea water ( I think). Critics of the scheme say the energy consumption will be double that of a conventional treatment plant. You may be amused to hear that leaks of purified water from the London water mains run at about 915 million litres per day.

Best wishes

Martin

......You may be amused to hear that leaks of purified water from the London water mains run at about 915 million litres per day.

Best wishes

Martin

It is not really very amusing is it? Typical kind of short sighted attitude that I think is dropping us into a lot of future problems. Maintaining existing infrastructure is not 'sexy' so it doesn't get done. But there always seems to be a will to embark on grandiose projects...which will then be allowed to decay for lack of maintenance.

. Maintaining existing infrastructure is not 'sexy' so it doesn't get done. But there always seems to be a will to embark on grandiose projects...which will then be allowed to decay for lack of maintenance.

Dear Geof and Skippy

Geof

Wisdom... but the behaviour of Thames Water isn't really that different from that of most human beings, is it?. Routine maintenance is utterly boring compared to the excitement of a new project. That is just human nature.
I'm guilty in spades, so maybe I should not point the finger at my water company.

Skippy

I could well be wrong, but I think that the main by-product of an RO desalination plant is just brine. If that salt can be pumped out into the sea without creating local high saline concentrations, IMVVHO, no harm done. The salinity of the oceans will not be compromised because the purified water from the plant will find its way back, over time, to the seas, either by drainage or rainfall.


Best wishes

Martin

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, which is what Skippy observed in his system. You have to have a high flow through to keep the osmotic pressure difference low enough that you can pump against it.

On the other hand evaporative desalination can have an effluent that makes the Dead Sea look like rain water; this effluent is toxic and needs a large dilution factor before marine life can tolerate it.

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, which is what Skippy observed in his system. You have to have a high flow through to keep the osmotic pressure difference low enough that you can pump against it.

On the other hand evaporative desalination can have an effluent that makes the Dead Sea look like rain water; this effluent is toxic and needs a large dilution factor before marine life can tolerate it.

Dear Geof,

I agree to disagree about nothing.

http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch20.htm

Salt pans used for evaporative desalination obviously leave (pretty much) pure salt which might be difficult to dispose of ( add to my fish and chips?).

My understanding (limited) is that small commercial and domestic post-treatment RO units are for purifying water that is in no way salinated to any great degree. They might be used to take away a nasty taste in the Skippy household by , typically, a five stage filtration process, or to produce purified water for an electronics assembly facility.

I believe that in that kind of "non-desalination" application, the throughput efficiency is about 75% in terms of what volume of water goes in and what "pure" product comes out.

Best wishes

Martin

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. In spite of all the doomsayer's shrill screams, I think you'll turn blue first.

Change is natural, lets live and adapt to the changes, the people how want to stop change are mad, but lets not hasten change by burying our heads in the sand , as what we do now will affect all our children no matter what race creed religion or colour, so it is up to us to develop new and better ways so they may build on our ideas.

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, ..............

Sorry to have been missing in action, but life has been happening. Apparently you guys have been doing a good job holding the fort without me... :)

Reverse Osmosis has some definite limitations. A process that looks quite promising (that I did some work on for a researcher here) is "Forward Osmosis". It's a 2-stage process that uses a saline interface, is more efficient and easier on components (less frequent membrane replacement).

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

Dear tmaker,

Hedge your bets,

Buy a snowsuit and insulated boots. Add T shirts, sun cream, shorts, and sandals to your shopping basket.

Best wishes

Martin

the only thing shure about "climate change"is that the gment will use it to lever more cash out your/my pockets

mike

the only thing shure about "climate change"is that the gment will use it to lever more cash out your/my pockets

mike

Dear Mike,

It's just too good an opportunity for them to ignore, isn't it? It's as though their wildest dreams have come true.

Gloomy..

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Mike,

It's just too good an opportunity for them to ignore, isn't it? It's as though their wildest dreams have come true.

Gloomy..

Best wishes

Martin

Well you could always stash your conscience and sense of ethics under a handy rock and come up with some sort of plausible Carbon Offset Scam and bask in the glow of your own halo :) and the piles of filthy lucre you would amass.

Well you could always stash your conscience and sense of ethics under a handy rock and come up with some sort of plausible Carbon Offset Scam and bask in the glow of your own halo :) and the piles of filthy lucre you would amass.

Dear Geof,

The government over here is floating the idea of a $30 " green" tax for each plane trip. I wonder where the revenue will be spent ... probably MP's pensions, and "vital" first-class trips to distant climate conferences that always seem to be in places like Phuket rather than Southend.

Still gloomy...

Best wishes,

Martin

Let's take advantage of global warming. Canal the water from the ice melting at the poles to the arid regions. In fact, we have a lot of dry lakes out here in the High Desert where I live that I'd like to see filled.

Since these lakes and canals are water, they would have a moderating effect on the climate. Could also grow more food, limit the effects of drought, and use for recreation.

The "global warming" has been known since 2004 to be "solar system wide." Even Pluto moving farther from the Sun is warming up. Mars hasn't had any ice caps of late.

lol, now this forums is a hoot. I love it.

2004? Nope.
NASA has known for years that there was a recession of the Martian ice caps. It just doesn't make for sensational headlines, and is kinda contradictory to it's AGW hero Jimmy Hansen....who incidentally makes an interesting statement....

--"The war of words in the global warming debate gets fierce (and even a bit morbid) in a Denver Post article in which Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray calls global warming “a big scam.” That’s not the morbid part.

The retort from James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead.”
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/09/26/anti-global-warming-noise-wont-stop-until-some-of-these-scientists-are-dead/

That's what I like! Real Science from Real Scientists!!

“Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead.”....That's what I like! Real Science from Real Scientists!!

I think you must admit that it is probably accurate.

Contrary to popular belief, I am neither in the yes or no camp in terms of if Global warming is a man made problem. I am in the "benefit of the doubt" camp.
We just cant be sure either way.
My argument is, we need to become dependent on renewable energies regardless. Why wouldn't we want to build a network of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc, where we once and for all, will never need to worry about where our energy is coming from, and its impact on our earth?

I am not saying this video is true or false, but it does show another side of the debate. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
That been said, we might as well sort out our energy solutions regardless of if there is man made global warming or not.

Contrary to popular belief, I am neither in the yes or no camp in terms of if Global warming is a man made problem. I am in the "benefit of the doubt" camp.
We just cant be sure either way.
My argument is, we need to become dependent on renewable energies regardless. Why wouldn't we want to build a network of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc, where we once and for all, will never need to worry about where our energy is coming from, and its impact on our earth?

I am not saying this video is true or false, but it does show another side of the debate. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
That been said, we might as well sort out our energy solutions regardless of if there is man made global warming or not.

Dear ynneb,

I absolutely agree with all that. Thank-you.

My guess though, is that the renewable lobby somewhat over-state the realistic contribution that they can make, given the current level of energy demand. IMVVHO, it is obvious that we need to preserve fossil fuels as a resource as a raw material for the manufacture of plastics, lubricants etc. etc. etc. rather than pissing it out of our flues, tail-pipes and power stations.

The answer is nuclear power. I do not think that there is a realistic other option unless we are prepared to live in tents...and we are not.. are we?

Best wishes

Martin

.... I do not think that there is a realistic other option unless we are prepared to live in tents...and we are not.. are we?

Best wishes

Martin

Even the tents would be out: They are either synthetic or cotton the most energy intensive crop there is (I think).

It is back to the caves people :) .

Even the tents would be out: They are either synthetic or cotton the most energy intensive crop there is (I think).

It is back to the caves people :) .

Dear Geof,

I have always been excited by caves , mines and other underground dwellings. Maybe it is something to do with being a mole in a previous life.

On reflection, I'm not sure if I would wish to share my burrow with that nuclear crap.

Best wishes

Martin

With enough renewable energy our standard of living will not need to change at all. All I am suggesting is lets start building towards it now. Its a long term and permanent solution.

Consider this.... enough solar energy falls on our earth in one hour that can supply the worlds energy needs for one year, and thats not taking into account wind, wave, and other energy solutions.
Consider this..... Renewables last for ever. Petrocarbons might last for 100years, nuclear might last for 50 years at our current consumption.......then what? Then turn to renewables? Why not now?

Consider this.....How many trillion dollars have been spent on wars to secure our petrol supplies. What sort of a kick arse renewable system could we have built with that same trillion?

Lets build for the long term and not just our short lives. Lets leave a renewable legacy for our kids and not just think about our own short lives.

If there is only enough uranium to last 50 years, how can we justify having to guard the waste for the next 10,000 years just so we could party for 50 years.

We dont need to live in tents, we just need to plan today and be wise for tomorrow.


http://www.youtube.com/v/kYKOjnCwmG8

Mars undergoing global warming. (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html)

Pluto undergoing global warming. (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html)

These articles date back to 2003 & 2002.

I think a bit of clarification is in order on the 'going Nuclear' idea.

Nuclear fission is a temporary solution and a bad legacy to leave to our children's future. The idea of let's have it today and our children can clean it up later is the kind of thinking that governments have been using for years on alot of things.

Nuclear fusion is the only terrestrial form of power creation that will see mankind into the next 3000 or more years. Yes today it is in it's infancy and as yet not viable for large scale use but the physics of the technology has been proven and we do have some small scale reactors 'sort of ' working.

If you, "governments" want to tax 'us' for global warming then the boffins working on Nuclear fusion should get it.

Once we have mastered that kind of power generation and miniturised it, man-kind can then reach for the stars realisticly and find another planet to f*ck up for the next millenea (god i need a spell checker).

Rant over.

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Well said.

Best wishes.

Martin

Thanks for that Martin.

On the other hand, Using less electric is good too. They have recently been harping on about it on the telly, "Switch things off,Switch things off"!

The only thing I want to do is switch the telly off. But because of the genius who made my television, when you switch it off it loses all the channel settings and you have to reprogramme it again when you switch it on. So you leave it on standby right.

Wrong! I live in a part of the UK where farmer down the road switches his BIG machine on and I get a brown out about 2 or three times a week so I bought a UPS to keep the telly on standby permanently.

Then we went "Digital" cos the TV reception got so poor since the farmer down the road started growing trees for fuel in the field at the back.

Now these Sky boxes, latest technology right, press your remote to switch it off, little red light comes on and I go to bed happy in the knowledge I've turned it off (on standby) and saved the planet.

In the morning I turn it on to watch the news and noticed the 'Sky box' is still warm to the touch, I say warm, It's alot hotter than I would like for something that has been off all night. Pondering the idea that laying a slice of bread on top so I can have toast when I get up, I did a bit of research into this phenomenon and was suprised to find that switching it on standby just turns off the video output and the rest of the works has been happily burning my electric.

I do have the option of turning it off at the plug but thats "down the back" amongst all the cables and spiders webs and I don't feel like crawling around and stuffing my arm into those places before I go to bed every night.

I'm sure that we have the technology to make a small circuit that uses a gnat's fart of electric to keep all our precious gadgets on standby instead of the usual 12 Watts that my TV uses.

Lets make the manufacturers save us from ourselves!


Regards

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Could I possibly congratulate you for a most magnificent rant??

The very thought of all those gadgets on stand-by and their wretched remotes is enough to make anybody seeth.

By the way, how can it possibly be that mankind seems incapable of coming up with a battery compartment cover that doesn't break within a fortnight?? All mine are held together with Band-Aid, masking tape, rubber bands etc. If we can't solve that problem, what hope have we of "saving the planet"?

Best wishes,

Martin

yup cj..... why is it that any audio visual bit of harware does that
you cannott switch the fookers off unless you unplug then
our big telly,ninty wee,dab radio,surround sound stuff ,and it all Humms away
on stand-by
ffs save the planet ...........bolloks

Here is something that may be of interest. Chilling stuff really. These are not my words

A document published by the Institute of Public Policy Research is entitled "Warm Words - how are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?" It was written to advise pressure groups and environmental campaign organisations on how to mould and influence public attitudes to climate change.

The following paragraphs, with only minor changes of wording, appear twice in the document and form the overall conclusion drawn from what the authors call "research".

"Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away form the "advocates debate" described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.

The "facts" need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government's new climate-change slogan - "together this generation will tackle climate change" (Defra 2006) - gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

Best wishes

Martin

Sorry..double post..

Martin

Have you or anyone else on this site seen the documentary shown by the BBC called the 'Global Warming Swindle'? I doubt it gets shown in America. It's very believable and make's Al Gore's production look really bad.

Of all the people that are complaining about global warming, how many have planted a tree? Or better yet, how many have planted an acre of Christmas trees? Everyone wants to scream holler and yell and wait for someone else to do something.
Sad regards Walt..