Slashdot Mirror

Many recycling programs fail because people do not want to bother with separating their trash.

So how do you prove the correlation between what's happening there and what's happening here? I think we're all curious to know.

I'm not trying to prove any correlation. I was pointing out that the article says that X is a myth and then claims that astronomers are baffled because they don't know why X is happening. Nothing more.

You already shot your credibility above where you referenced Jim Inhofe as a reliable source.

Regardless of your opinion of the source, I don't think his personal views are what caused the scientists listed to change their mind on the cause of GW. Inhofe's views may be why he is reporting on it, but in this case, the opinions of the reporter do not change the opinion of the subjects.

You do have a point. I could have picked a better source. Is Wiki a better source? How about Citizens Review (I've never heard of them either... they're Canadian, I think)? It doesn't matter as I was just showing that what one article claims as myth, another claims as fact. There are two sides to the story and people smarter than us on both sides. I feel that you can't present one side without presenting the other.

Actually you haven't. You quoted a open letter but you did not quote the source. The letter came from ECO (Environmental Conservation Organization). They were formed in 1988 to battle environmental regulations and have been linked to Exxon.

ECO link to Exxon http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? id=82

acording to several concerned scientist in canida, It is th case as of last year.> Alas, we know how greedy those canadians are and how they are basicly shills for big oil. /end sarcasm

There is a difference in what we think and what we know. This inability to bend to not knowing and being convinced that we do know for sure is the semi-religios experience I described in the parent post. There is no undenyable, indesputable evidence that PROVES humans to be the cause of warming temperature. There is however data that sugests it to be the case. It is when people question this conclusion that they are labeled and shunned aside. So instead some scientist just aren't speaking out and you are mistaking the silence for agreement.

And with attitudes like that, why wouldn't there be overwhelming concensus. If some one objects, they get labeled as a biased corperate shill, have dificulty geting work or grants or proving thier research was unbiased. I mean with a system that does that, you would be a fool to object to anything being said. It would ruin your ability to work. The world is 14000 years old, flat, there is only one true god.

You know, I always give people the benifit of doubt. I usualy stil up for the religious nutcases being attacked as well as the non religous nutcases. It isn't becouse I believe in thier message or what they believe in, It is because if find it pathetic that a person is brainwashed to the point they are subjected to this type of behavior. Some on the Global warming crowd have earned my sympathy. You seem to be one of them too. The problem is just the same. Your not in a position were you are willing to admit to anything else or even consider it. You are convinced of something becaus ethe brainwashers were succesfull in thier task. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or even some sort of atmospheric scientist to know that when report produced by the "notable, acredited agencies" (ipcc, nas, US national research council,jont science academies of the G8 nations, etc..) have constantly referenced models proven to be wrong time after time. The IPCC wich provides the vast majority of reference all the other organizations refere to claims it isn't providing proof rather a colection of evidence that points to the conclusion.

This means several things. First, they aren't claiming that there is proof of anything. second, they weren't looking for any other reasons. they were looking at the Co2 emisions and other greenhourse gasses and the effects of it. So in doing so, of course they found evidence to support that theory. But they fail to compare that result with any other know contibuting factor. When people do compare it, they become labeled as above because we know there can only be one true god!. Something of note too is that the other agencies concensus review didn't predict any models of thier own. They didn't do the research to back it up, they evaluated the IPCC report to determine if it was a fair evaluation (not flawed). And of course, the majority of reviewers didn't notice any notable flaws and asume it is corect. Yet, when someone objects to the findings (even obvious objections like the rise in sea levels that have been proven incorect or the temerature increases we should have seen by now not apearing) they are labeled, shuned, and forced away by sudo religious leaders claiming global warming is real and you need to repent or the mighty global warming catastrophy will kill you.

Man, I don't mean to sound sarcastic in this. But it is the only way to illistrate the behavior of some people. like those expressing mounting evidence as factual proof that in reality only adds a little support for the argument. If there is anything in the world that could be as potentialy dangerous as this, It deserves a debate between people who are not zealots in thier cause. It deserved debate and research into more then "I'm right your wrong", "pay a bunch of money to third world countrie or potentialy ruin your econemy" and "stop doing things the way your use to,or die".

you mean, unlike people who settle in the lahar pathways of Mt Rainier?

I really don't want the SS breaking down my door and seizing all the computers (and then I have to sue the state and wait a few years to get my stuff back maybe) because some clerk at HQ typed in the wrong address.

if you were sending viagra spams, nigerian investment emails, or phishing scams, then you certainly deserve the SS breaking down your door and seizing your computers. and don't expect them back, ever.

I hope you've heard of the grandmother who had her property seized even though all charges were dismissed.

Co-counsel Shawn Newman explained, "We have a Kafkaesque situation in which the government can take your property without a conviction. The government and their paid informants are like bounty hunters who share a percentage of the proceeds." In this case after three years of enormous effort and expense McGavick and Newman were able to win back her property and a $100,000 judgment for damages. Her loss of business, damage to her reputation and emotional distress were not recovered with that award, but it was better than her client received. He was offered a choice: plead guilty to drug sales and receive a 9 month sentence and you may keep half of the value of your $800,000 property when the county sells it, or, you can fight the drug charge in criminal court and you may win, but in that case all of your property will be forfeited.

The purposes and uses of the cards vary dramatically. In some countries, the cards are needed only to travel abroad, while in others, they are needed to travel within the country as well. The information contained on the card can also vary. Some cards list country of origin and citizenship. In some cases, race or tribal affiliation has been listed on the cards as well. ... apartheid ... South Africa ... Rwanda ...

Global Roots
More than 100 nations have a form of national identification and use them
in a variety of ways to improve security, assist law enforcement and make
the delivery of services more efficient.

In Spain, for example, an ID card is mandatory for all citizens older than
14, and they're required for many government programs. Argentinians must
get a card when they turn 8 and then re-register at 17. Kenya requires its
citizens to carry an ID at all times. Germany likewise requires all
citizens over 16 to carry a card that's similar to a passport.

Belgium first used ID cards during the German occupation in World War I.
Today every citizen older than 15 has to carry one, and it is used as proof
of age and identity for an array of consumer and financial transactions. It
also allows Belgians to travel to several countries without a passport.
Police officers in Belgium can request to see the card for any reason, at
any time.

Finland has one of the most sophisticated systems in the world, including a
voluntary smart card that comes with a computer chip and serves as a travel
card, or "mini-passport," in at least 15 European countries.

Much like the Defense Department card, which is officially called the
Common Access Card, the Finnish ID enables users to electronically sign and
encrypt online documents. Eventually, it would allow users to improve the
security of cell phones by scrambling calls. To protect against fraud or
misuse, officials limit the amount of personal information contained on the
chip.

If a new ID card system is developed in the United States the initial users
are likely to be immigrants and foreign visitors. Last month, Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced legislation that
would require foreign nationals to use high-tech visa cards containing a
fingerprint, retinal scan or other unique identifier. It also would create
a centralized "lookout database" containing information about known
terrorists and other U.S. visitors deemed threatening.

Larry Ellison, chief executive of Oracle Corp., the world's largest
database software maker, favors a voluntary card for all citizens, much
like what the Air Transport Association endorsed. But he agrees that such a
system might ultimately serve the same purpose as a national ID, if people
found that travel and other activity was too inconvenient without it.

It makes little economic sense to build a solar generation plant on the moon, when we can do the same here on Earth. If we assume a power requirement of 2000 watts/person (quoted from the article), it should be possible to meet this requirement with only 630 square feet of PV panels per person (see calculations and references below). This is not an unreasonably large land area when compared with the 2.8 hectares per person required for food production. The real obstacle to widespread PV deployment is not a shortage of land, but the cost of PV equipment (panels and energy storage). Why would we build it on the moon? This would only make it more expensive.

The idea of using microwave satellite relays to distribute the power may have some merit. This would solve the issue of energy storage if we could transmit power to the other side of the world.

Today's commercially available PV panels are about 15% efficient. Their output rating is based on an irradiance of 1000w/m^2. This means one square meter of PV panels has a rated output of about 150 watts. The average insolation in the united states is about 5.5 sun hours. The average daily energy produced by a PV array is the product of it's rated power and the insolation. This means a square meter of PV panels will produce on average 825 watt hours/day (150 * 5.5). Given the value of 2000 watts/person and multiply by the number of hours in a day, you get an energy requirement of 48 kilowatt hours/day (2000*24). Take the this energy requirement and divide by the energy produced by a square meter of PV panels to get the number of square meters required: 48000 / 825 = 58 m^2 or 626 square feet.

Please don't reply with the argument that it takes more energy to produce a solar module than it will produce in its lifetime without reading the this.

"Hey! Can I play the lawsuit lottery too?! I deserve a piece of that!"

--

I already hate the fact that seatbelts are too tight and that there are laws mandating their use (especially here in MN where you can be ticketed for not wearing one while having no other violations).

Washington State (USA) has had three judges declare that unconstitutional. See here and here and more here or you can always Google it.

There is a pilot project in Clallam County to install wave power generators from www.aquaenergygroup.com/ of Seattle. More articles here

http://www.greenwave.com/news/issues/sprawl/3775
http://www.nrglink.com/pressreleases/pr120901aquae nergy.html http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov_2001/makah_ tribe.htm