The Coming Climate Change

[rokag3]

they would create the perfect society

governementalitism : Survey and punish the latest avatar of the left that create healthisme(the expression passive smoking come from the german passivrauchen) ,fascisme(yes it's the left National Socialism).

Anarchy should not be mistaken with anomie Though anomie is commonly associated with low regulation, Durkheim postulated that overly rigid (e.g. totalitarian) societies would also produce anomic individuals
And this is what we can discover now a Very rigid society with anomic individuals.
So since you are not leftist (are you so sure about it?) do not let your society become too rigid (e.g. tolerance zero)

[TomB]

Originally Posted by rokag3 governementalitism : Survey and punish the latest avatar of the left that create healthisme(the expression passive smoking come from the german passivrauchen) ,fascisme(yes it's the left National Socialism). Anarchy should not be mistaken with anomie Though anomie is commonly associated with low regulation, Durkheim postulated that overly rigid (e.g. totalitarian) societies would also produce anomic individuals And this is what we can discover now a Very rigid society with anomic individuals. So since you are not leftist (are you so sure about it?) do not let your society become too rigid (e.g. tolerance zero)

In the context that it appeared, that is an interesting note and reference. Does it apply to the prior few comments or is it a general comment on the blog? In the first case I don’t see where any of the half dozen prior authors were advocating positions related to alienation or purposelessness. Perhaps one could read my comment that “I’m too cynical to care”, so as to meet Durkheim’s definition of anomie but I think it is a stretch. As has been said in other posts I’m an old, retired scientist and I will admit to having the frustrations of a man that is too old to dream of changing the world but that is a common affliction of aging and certainly not anomie. If the comment was made with regard to the entire blog and all its participants then I just can’t see how it could be valid. There is no way that even a small percentage of the entries could be said to argue for creating a perfect society. Most in fact argue that the policymakers are so self-serving that they are out to screw the society.

There are large differences in the background education of participants especially when one considers how people are educated in Europe, Asia, N. America, S. America and Africa. I notice that this comment come from Greece so it is very remote from my background. Being from one of the cultures that asks blunt questions I have to respond to this post by asking “What the hell are you trying say?” I don’t mean that to be belligerent, I really want to know.

Tom B

[Robin Hewitt]

Strangely enough I actually care

I just don't want it to fizzle out, all the swindlers pocket the money and say, "It was nice while it lasted", the politicians patting themselves on the back saying,"Look at all the new taxes we managed to sneak in".

It should end in recrimination and penalties, but I don't think there's much hope of that

[rokag3]

Does it apply to the prior few comments or is it a general comment on the blog?

it's a reflexion about this sentence

they would create the perfect society

I am anarchist(no chef) and many people make confusion betwen anarchy and anomism(no law)

the purpose of my reaction was to make it clear that this "perfect society" through her appearance of rigidity was in fact favorising the birth of an "anomique" citizen.

and yes I clearly see the danger of those politicians who want to make "THE perfect society" since THE problem is the unicity of the concept which implied use of the lowest common denominator that is "ignorance"

[dufas]

What is "THE perfect society" ???? According to many descriptions that I have read, these perfect societies not only restrict freedom in the first place, but, "THE perfect society" cannot sustain freedom in the long run because, eventually, someone is going to pass a law, rule, tax, or regulation to limit or eliminate some given 'freedom' at some future time and after awhile, there is no freedom at all.

The freedoms that are in play now is the 'freedom from ****..' scenario. Freedom from self responsibility, freedom from being offended, freedom from etc, etc, etc... which removes freedoms to do much of anything from everyone else.

I would say that there is no such thing as "THE perfect society". Each society that is perfect only exists in each individual's mind. The closest thing that can come to this "perfect society" ends up being a huge set of compromises between millions of people, each compromise is chipping away at someone's freedom. One does not live their own hopes and dreams, they live someone else's.

The politicians could care less, they are only concerned about power for themselves and getting re-elected. [Let's give the populace more of someone else's labors and we can buy their vote....]

Hell, next door neighbors or relatives can't even agree on how each other lives, how can one expect complete strangers or even nations to keep their hands off other people's lives ??


PS......

Something happened at my daughter's school Friday that is in the vein of the "perfect society" thought process that some people have . Some of you may agree with the concept, I do not.

Due to Obama's declaration http://factreal.wordpress.com/2009/0...ring-approved/ that he would like to see mandatory public service for everybody, my daughter's public school has made it mandatory that each student perform X number of hours of public service in order to graduate. While I am all for charity, volunteerism, and public service, the mandatory service in these venues or one will be punished by the loss of something smacks me as indoctrination by the schools into the socialist mindset. Hitler had his youth 'brown shirts' and the communists forced people to to do anything they wanted to. History is coming back to the future....

[jhowelb]

Gore Attaches Global Warming as Cause to Last Weekend's Storm in Northeast

Former vice president points toward weather events as evidence of climate change during 'strategy conference call' for supporters.


By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/16/2010 6:22:24 AM



If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

“[T]he odds have shifted toward much larger downpours,” Gore said. “And we have seen that happen in the Northeast, we’ve seen it happen in the Northwest – in both of those regions are among those that scientists have predicted for a long time would begin to experience much larger downpours.”

But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting.

“Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.”

So what did Gore suggest? He proposed to solve these weather events he tied to climate change by revamping the American economy to being powered by “clean renewable energy” and phasing out the reliance of foreign oil.

“And we now face the opportunity to start doing something about this,” Gore said. “Rather than continuing to spend billions of dollars on foreign oil, we can make a transition to clean energy and pass that money here at home on clean renewable energy sources, creating millions of new jobs, building new industries – making us more secure.”

One solution of weaning the United States the reliance on foreign oil would be to open up parcels to offshore drilling of the U.S. continental shelf, a policy Gore has opposed. However, he did underscore the national security a need of fossil fuels presented the country.

“We can address the security threat that I mentioned,” Gore said. “And incidentally, a large number of top ranking generals and admirals have warned that fossil fuels and our nation’s fragile electricity grid pose significant security threats to the United States.”

Gore’s remarks are consistent with the media view of the issue. Journalists have repeatedly preferred the alarmist view on the climate over any opposition even when the weather is inconveniently different than predicted.

[Jkirk3279]

Nuclear proponents would have us believe there's no other choice than nuclear power.

Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that Global Warming is a conspiracy designed to destroy the economy and enrich certain interest groups.

Neither of these arguments are supported by facts.

In the future, when we know how to decontaminate nuclear waste -- which we do NOT -- it may be useful for space exploration.

But right now, we can harvest all the energy we need with Concentrating Solar Power.

Sunlight is abundant in the American Southwest: and electricity is commonly broadcast 1,500 miles.

A 1,500 mile radius from Nevada covers half of the continental United States.

So even without building a better electrical backbone we can solve half our energy needs. And store the heat from the sun overnight in insulated oil tanks, with natural gas as the backup.

This addresses both concerns, and this also creates jobs that can't be outsourced.

So don't whine about the problems of regulating and building nuclear plants: support Concentrating Solar by pushing our politicians to streamline the approval process for American companies that want to build.

[Robin Hewitt]

On the UK news today, Advertising Standards have banned a whole bunch of Government AGW propaganda because it simply isn't true. They got thousands of complaints

[dufas]

Originally Posted by Jkirk3279 Nuclear proponents would have us believe there's no other choice than nuclear power.

And...Concentrating Solar Power would have us believe that there is only one choice, the same goes for coal, natural gas, and water power. There is a group running around my area wanting everyone to use bicycle power, generators and alternators powered by people pumping stationary bikes....

Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that Global Warming is a conspiracy designed to destroy the economy and enrich certain interest groups.

Many Democrats, foreign countries, and individuals that are AGW advocates have already expressed that bringing western, free enterprise countries down is part of the stated goal. They called it 'leveling the playing field'

IPCC and the UN wants to levee huge taxes to go to them for their use. Most of Al Gore's income and businesses are based on AGW and if AGW does not go in the way he has planned, he stands to lose millions. The multi-billionaire, George Soros, is playing both sides of the fence with billions invested in Venezuelan oil and billions in Green power technologies.

Saudi Arabia along with other near eastern countries including China and Russia want a piece of the UN's tax grab stating that these funds would make up for their losses in oil sales.

Neither of these arguments are supported by facts.

When one only listens to the 'facts' they want to hear, one makes idiotic statements like that...

In the future, when we know how to decontaminate nuclear waste -- which we do NOT -- it may be useful for space exploration.

Actually, there is a way to get rid of nuclear waste that was postulated back in the 50s before there was space flight, it was re-introduced in the late 70s during the building of our space fleet, then, in the 80s, it was discounted and shoved under the table when the anti-nuke people came to power because it was a viable solution.. See if you can figure it out.....

But right now, we can harvest all the energy we need with Concentrating Solar Power. Sunlight is abundant in the American Southwest: and electricity is commonly broadcast 1,500 miles. A 1,500 mile radius from Nevada covers half of the continental United States. So even without building a better electrical backbone we can solve half our energy needs. And store the heat from the sun overnight in insulated oil tanks, with natural gas as the backup. This addresses both concerns, and this also creates jobs that can't be outsourced. So don't whine about the problems of regulating and building nuclear plants: support Concentrating Solar by pushing our politicians to streamline the approval process for American companies that want to build.

But those pesky environmentalist won't let huge sun farms be built in many areas. They have already stopped a dozen or so in California. Something about not want to disturb the cross eyed flitter flutter and it's cousin, the legless wambatt
....

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Jkirk3279 Nuclear proponents would have us believe there's no other choice than nuclear power. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe that Global Warming is a conspiracy designed to destroy the economy and enrich certain interest groups. Neither of these arguments are supported by facts. In the future, when we know how to decontaminate nuclear waste -- which we do NOT -- it may be useful for space exploration. But right now, we can harvest all the energy we need with Concentrating Solar Power. Sunlight is abundant in the American Southwest: and electricity is commonly broadcast 1,500 miles. A 1,500 mile radius from Nevada covers half of the continental United States. So even without building a better electrical backbone we can solve half our energy needs. And store the heat from the sun overnight in insulated oil tanks, with natural gas as the backup. This addresses both concerns, and this also creates jobs that can't be outsourced. So don't whine about the problems of regulating and building nuclear plants: support Concentrating Solar by pushing our politicians to streamline the approval process for American companies that want to build.

I think you are putting words in other people’s mouth just to falsely show alternatives are weak, while presenting an unsupported alterative proposal. Yes, real nuclear proponents will tell you that it is the only solution but most of them are French and they know they get most of their power via nuclear. Beyond that group nuclear advocates take a much more nuanced view. It is possible to separate the long lasting Pu from the 10 year half life by products and if we store the short life material for 100 years it will be at natural levels while we can burn the Pu in a fast reactor. Had we worked on developing the process for the last 20 years we would be good at it. That may not satisfy your definition of cleanup but it’s not too unreasonable. Although some will argue that AGW is Al Gore’s way of getting rich most climate skeptics will point out that (1) the earth has gotten warmer from 1850 to about 2000, but that seems to have stopped and further that warming was not as dramatic as the ones called the “Medieval Warm Period”, the “Roman Warm Period” or the “Minoan Warm Period”. If all those ended after 150 or 200 years why is this one so unique? Gore argues that the climate has gotten warmer and it is AGW. We agree it has gotten warmer but the last three times that is happened it prefaced a sudden very severe cold period. I don’t that is a conspiracy based argument.

Then you quickly jump to a completely unsupported hypothesis, nuclear is only good for space travel. That seems silly given that 30% of electricity is now nuclear generated.

I fully understand the process of solar concentrators. Further I understand that the heat storage medium is typically molten salt not oil, I think the specific heart is greater. But I also understand that:
1) Being able to build power distribution lines that cover 50% of the country is not the same as providing 50% of the power. Most of those western states your power grid will reach do not use power like the eastern megalopolis.
2) Western solar does not provide power at night or even at the east coast day break. We have no way to store power over night. Saving power in hot oils or molten salt does not yield steam at a high enough temperature to run a turbine. Go back and review your thermodynamics book, specifically the sections that calculated the efficiency of Carnot Cycles.
3) Only about 1/3 of the US power usage is electric. Of the 1/3 that is petroleum based transportation about 1/2 is trucks, buses, planes and trains. Although you might have half the cars running on battery in 10 years, many must travel more than 150 miles between recharges so Western Solar Concentrators would not address a big part of the problem. Trying to address the 1/3 of US power that goes to heating buildings via electric power at night seems like it would cool your proposed hot oil bath very quickly.
4) If you add up all the material that must go into the solar concentration system and the required distribution grid plus all the exotic battery materials in the cars there is a lot of by-product pollution and a lot of energy needed to build it. Just how long does it take to break even?
5) To build the grid from Nevada to everywhere we would have to use voltages that were much higher that is currently the case. There already are rumors that living next to today’s high tension lines cause health problems; are you certain that what is necessary with your proposal is safe?

I don’t want to say your thoughts have no merit. I just think that there are as many unknowns in your proposal as there are in nuclear, photovoltaic, clean coal, western coal shale, the hydrogen economy or cold fusion. Please explain your ideas and defend against the counter arguments, just don’t disparage alternate ideas. If you can come up with fact based counter arguments against alternatives then state them in separate notes. But when you disparage then present poorly argued alternatives you give up much of the audience you are trying to sell.

Tom B

[Jackhammer]

There may actually be some climate change and we could fix that. The answers have already been put before congress. The problem is they don't do anything until they have learned how to profit from it. IE Al Gore. 485 million went to one of the concerns he is involved with. 6 months now and no new jobs from him and his crew. What a bunch of crap. We are headed for the most oppressive government the world has ever seen. The EU authorities are the one who is pushing the agenda. "We just want to be fair". Again CRAP!! Listen fellows we are headed for a downturn in the way we live life. We will live under those who do the bidding of government or you be one who lives under the directions of those impowered. Nothing in between. And if you voice opposition well that's just hate speach. Against the law to grow your own food! Who thought up that bright idea. Sounds crazy doent it? Neal

[MyCattMaxx]

This is a little OT but....

YouTube- THE GREAT RENEGER

YouTube- THE GREAT RENEGER