Radio Paradise

Recently Active Forum Topics:

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 101, 102, 103 ... 132, 133, 134 Next

helenofjoy

helenofjoy Avatar

Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 26, 2010 - 5:12pm
How 'bout them ice shelves?

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 26, 2010 - 2:35am
kestrel wrote: Putting together an EARTH web site for teachers/students/people incl page on climate change, still under construction, but please take a peek. http://murphsearthreport.com/

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 9:40pm

The FP Guide to Climate Skeptics
Can't tell the legitimate concerns from the nonsense? FP is here to help.

The field of climate science is under duress, which is wholly different than saying it's discredited. While recent headlines about the woes of U.N.-led efforts to assemble a comprehensive picture of the science have caused gleeful headlines on The Drudge Report and other skeptical media outlets, the vast weight of the evidence — from melting glaciers to warming oceans to satellite temperature readings, and much more — still points to a changing climate caused by human activity. (...)

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 4:47pm

Standard issue denialist and pseudo-skeptic Inhoaxer:

Q. Who are the perpetrators of the hoax?

A. That’s the United Nations and the IPCC, clearly.

Q. Major energy companies have said they believe the scientific consensus on climate change. ExxonMobil said the appropriate debate isn’t on whether the climate is changing, but what we should do about it. NASA, NOAA, the Pentagon, the Pope, evangelical leaders, top executives in all industries, and governments all over the world including China and India—they’ve all acknowledged climate change. Do you believe that all of these entities have been scammed by the U.N. and a handful of scientists in the IPCC?

A. What you’ve just said is not true. There’s not unanimity at all even though you want to believe it.

NOAA and NASA and all these organizations, these people are all tied in to the IPCC. There are a lot of companies, oil companies and all that, who would like to have cap-and-trade. That’s where they can make money.

Q. What do you believe is the motive of the U.N.? What is the motive of the scientists who are perpetrating the hoax? How do you think they stand to benefit?

A. They stand to benefit government grants and private sector grants like the Heinz Foundation.

We have scientists who are really sincere, and they’ve watched what’s going on and they have a hard time believing it. Those are the ones who started going to me probably seven or eight years ago, saying they’re cooking the science on this, someone’s got to say it, and I said it. And then more of them came. I listed them on my website. I’ve been very clear all along who the perpetrators were, what the motives were.

kestrel

kestrel Avatar

Location: Southern shore of Lake Superior
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 25, 2010 - 3:47pm
Putting together an EARTH web site for teachers/students/people incl page on climate change, still under construction, but please take a peek. http://murphsearthreport.com/

Welly

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 12:12pm

oldviolin wrote:

What if the exhaust could be redirected to amplify the output of a steam turbine, as with a turbocharger? It would take some fairly simple engineering for some gifted folks in that field I would think. There would obviously be some further exhaust gases, but maybe a different output could be concieved, on until there were only nominal pollutants.

The problem is that the embedded energy that goes into making the stuff that we throw away is lost forever.
You may get the equivalent of a barrel of oil's worth of energy out of burning a ton of garbage, but it likely took 4 barrels to make the stuff in the first place.
It doesn't make economic sense.These facilities are not scaleable and are built to burn at a certain efficiency rate. If the garbage is reduced at any point the contract usually allows the operator to bring ingarbage from another jursidiction to keep the burn rate constant.
It does nothing to encourage reduction of consumerism or waste reduction.
And then there are the air emissions...dioxins being one of the worst players.
I could go on...and on!

marko86

marko86 Avatar

Location: North TX
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 10:03am

Beaker wrote:

Actually, it seems you have missed the salient point and for some unknown reason, over-stated what the article actually says. One more time:

"Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings." This study had ... "confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

But hey, thanks anyways for your even-handed contributions to this topic.

So it is irrelevent that they have under-estimated? This is either willfully ignorant or you really do not understand the scientific process. I suspect this will be same tired argument that will be brought up as the IPCC revises their estimates in the future based on newer and better data/research. The earth's climate is extremely complicated and there is still much they do not know but on the other-hand there is much they do know and nothing has changed to the 2 under-lying facts. A.) Global warming is occuring and B.) It's prevalent cause is the greenhouse gases made by people.

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:29am

Inamorato wrote:

There are, and some not far away, like me. I think there is a growing awareness that burning things to get energy is ultimately not very green, as appealing as it might seem to make our vast amount of trash just "disappear" into energy.

Inamorato

Inamorato Avatar

Location: Twin Cities
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:14am

Welly wrote:

Any RPeeps in Minneapolis?

Finance & Commerce

Tech and Energy February 24, 2010

Welly

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 9:02am

Any RPeeps in Minneapolis?

Finance & Commerce

Tech and Energy February 24, 2010

by Bob Geiger Staff Writer

Following last week’s introduction of a bill that would scrap municipal garbage burning and landfill gas as renewable energy sources, the chair of a House panel said existing burners may be exempted from a proposed ban.

“We make exemptions for things all the time. And this is a thing that I think can be dealt with,” said state Rep. Bill Hilty, DFL-Finlayson, who heads the Energy Finance and Policy division of the powerful House Finance Committee. Hilty said he “can’t think of a compelling use for refuse burners,” or for having the public produce enough waste to feed landfills containing materials that generate methane gas — some of which are tapped by utilities to generate energy.

His comments came after the Feb. 18 introduction of H.F. 3060 by state Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis. That measure would delete municipal garbage burners and landfill gas from technologies that utilities can claim as sources of renewable energy. That’s pertinent to utilities because it takes away two energy technologies specified in 2007 legislation that requires Minnesota electric utilities to produce at least 25 percent of their energy from renewable resources by 2025.

Both waste-to-energy and landfill gas are considered renewable energy technologies under that legislation, which established Minnesota’s renewable energy standard. Hornstein voted for that bill, but said Hennepin County’s 2009 proposal to increase the amount of garbage from 1,000 tons to 1,212 tons a day renewed his interest in the issue.

“To look at garbage as a renewable fuel means encouraging production of more garbage because it produces more energy,” said Hornstein, who added, “I think we need to have a real, honest conversation about what is renewable energy and what are the characteristics of renewable energy.”

Read the rest here

R_P

Gender:

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:44am

marko86 wrote:

So did you actually look into it any further? I don't know why I bother but here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Misinterpreting-retraction-of-rising-sea-level-predictions.html
"

A new skeptic argument has emerged that upon close inspection, is a polar opposite to the scientific reality. This week, scientists who published a 2009 paper on sea level rise retracted their prediction due to errors in their methodology. This has led some to claim sea levels are no longer predicted to rise. This interpretation was helped no doubt by the unfortunate Guardian headline "Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels". However, when you read the article and peruse the peer-reviewed science on future sea level, you learn that the opposite is the case.

The IPCC 4th Assessment Report predicted sea level will rise between 18 to 59 cm by the year 2100. Many consider this a conservative estimate as observed sea level rise is tracking at the top range of IPCC estimates (Rahmstorf 2007, Allison 2009). However, a study led by Mark Siddall examined how sea levels have changed over the past 22,000 years in response to temperature change (Siddall 2009). This enabled them to predict how sea level would respond to future warming, estimating sea level rise between 7 to 82 cm by the year 2100. Siddall's paper concluded that this increased confidence in the IPCC projections.

However, a later study using similar methods to Siddall 2009 came to dramatically different results, estimating sea level rise of 75 to 190 cm by 2100 (Vermeer & Rahmstorf 2009). Why the discrepancy? Judging by the acknowledgement in Siddall's retraction, one speculates that Vermeer and Rahmstorf discovered flaws in Siddall's methodology and notified the authors. Siddall saw that the errors undermined their results and retracted their paper. So we have two papers using similar methods - one predicting low sea level rise, the other predicting high sea level rise. The low sea level rise is found to be in error. While some are spinning this result to imply no sea level rise, in actuality it increases our confidence in high sea level rise.

That should be "a new pseudo-skeptic argument has emerged"... {#Mrgreen}

Also interesting, demographically:

The first case study I've posted reveals how a coalition of US coal companies sought to persuade people that the science is uncertain. It listed the two social groups it was trying to reach – "Target 1: Older, less educated males"; "Target 2: Younger, lower income women" – and the methods by which it would reach them. One of its findings was that "members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others' motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions on scientific issues".

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:40am

jadewahoo wrote:

oldviolin wrote:

Our differences are what make us stronger. Simplicity of character is the natural result of profound thought...
At some salient point, however, belief is a concept without a worldly backdrop. Hence the knock is heard and the door opened, but only by
and for a humble spirit.

You went away and left long time ago
Now your knocking on my door
I hear you knocking
But you can't come in
I hear you knocking
Go back where you been I begged you not to go but you said goodbye
Now your telling me all your lies
I hear you knocking
But you can't come in
I hear you knocking
Go back where you been You better get back to your used to be
'Cause your kind of love ain't good for me
I hear you knocking
But you can't come in
I hear you knocking
Go back where you been I told you way back in '52
That I would never go with you
I hear you knocking
But you can't come in
I hear you knocking
Go back where you been
~Dave Edmunds

Watch it, buddy. I carry a pitch-fork with your name on it. {#Wink}

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:40am
oldviolin wrote: Our differences are what make us stronger. Simplicity of character is the natural result of profound thought... At some salient point, however, belief is a concept without a worldly backdrop. Hence the knock is heard and the door opened, but only by and for a humble spirit. Dig.

jadewahoo

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:38am

oldviolin wrote:

oldviolin

oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:34am

sirdroseph wrote:

Now, now you're gettin all existential on me, {#Wink}

I am but a simple man. It is what it is; all that fancified stuff is for the philosophers. {#Frustrated}

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:28am
hippiechick wrote: We have millions of squirrels in our hood and I have never seen one even close to being that well endowed. You better make it over here then !

HazzeSwede

HazzeSwede Avatar

Location: Hammerdal
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:26am
Beaker wrote: But hey, thanks anyways for your even-handed contributions to this topic. ,,De Nada ! Looks like marko answered the rest of your post.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:25am
HazzeSwede wrote: Talkin about my nuts are you,,?? We have millions of squirrels in our hood and I have never seen one even close to being that well endowed.

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:25am
HazzeSwede wrote: Talkin about my nuts are you,,?? *Now*, you are talkin my kind of philosophy!

sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Not here, I tell you wat
Gender: Male

Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 8:24am
oldviolin wrote: sid, at what point can the context be seperated from perspectives or perceptions? Reality is thought in terms of actuality, so where does one draw a distinction of what exists? Now, now you're gettin all existential on me, I am but a simple man. It is what it is; all that fancified stuff is for the philosophers.

Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 101, 102, 103 ... 132, 133, 134 Next