Slashdot Mirror

>Follow all directions given by the doctor and pharmacy exactly (that includes dosage schedules).
>Take ALL of the antibiotics prescribed, even if you feel better
>Never save leftover antibiotics for later use
>Never take anyone elses prescription

The "Patriot" Act was passed without some Congressmen and women even reading it. It was named that to intimidate members of Congress. Vote against this bill and you will be against patriotism!

The "Patriot" Act was supposed to protect us against people who want to destroy our entire society. Now its being used to harass citizens who do something stupid, and have no political motive. If they get away with this, you will see more and more extensions of government police power. History has shown that, even if they don't get away with it, they will try again.

More and more we are seeing examples of prosecutors who don't want sensible justice, but who just want other people to hurt, because of their own personal mental issues. Last week the Oprah Winfrey show provided another example: An 18-year-old man had sex with a 16-year-old woman at his school. (Big surprise, there.) Later she accused him of rape, and he was found NOT guilty. But he was put into prison for 10 years anyway. The prosecutor said that was entirely justified, and that he had no problems with the punishment.

The U.S. government is rapidly becoming more corrupt. Here are just a few examples:

Killing people and destroying their property:
N.Y. Times editorial
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."

Lying about scientific facts:
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times
The Guardian
Wired News
Union of Concerned Scientists

The present terrorism against the U.S. people is partly the result of the U.S. government's secret violence:
About a year ago, I hastily put together a short, incomplete history that shows what has happened: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.

It is foolish to base belief on arguements from authority if their is adequate information to evaluate the merits of the claim.

They've provided their report here

Report

instead of speculating, why not read the report?

The Nobel laureates who signed the statement were
Philip W. Anderson Physics, 1977
David Baltimore, 1975 Physiology or Medicine
Paul Berg, 1980, Chemistry
Jerome Friedman, 1990 Physics
Walter Kohn, 1998 Chemistry
Leon Lederman, 1988 Physics
Mario Molina, 1995 Chemistry
F. Sherwood Rowland, 1995 Chemistry
J. Robert Schrieffer, 1972, Physics
Richard Smalley, 1996 Chemistry
Harold E. Varmus, 1989, Physiology or Medicine
Steven Weinberg, 1979, Physics

Funny, I don't see Arafat on that list of signatories. I don't see Carter, either. It really shows how narrow minded these "scientists' are. Not a single literature or peace laureate was mentioned in the Union's press release.

Here

Here are their main findings:

1.There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

I must say that I'm *shocked* (*shocked*!) that anyone could suppose the Bush administration has ever been anything less than completely forthright about anything with the American public (cough, IRAQ, cough). I mean, they've never stretched or distorted facts to fit their preconceptions before, ever. Really!

Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:

• The USC Top Victories for 2003
• The USC Mission Statement
• The USC Founding Document

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed

Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:

• The USC Top Victories for 2003
• The USC Mission Statement
• The USC Founding Document

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed

Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:

• The USC Top Victories for 2003
• The USC Mission Statement
• The USC Founding Document

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed

Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.h tml?ex=1077956111&ei=1&en=a6370df01dc83363

Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RE SE.html?ex=1077771600&en=fe9176d8d470477b&ei=5062& partner=GOOGLE
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,115118 7,00.html
Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsire lease.html

Interesting timing, I just submitted to Slashdot an article about the fact that more than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

I wouldn't be too surprised or disappointed if the article gets rejected, it is a bit too flamebaity, especially with the election coming up... environment and politics is a volatile mixture on Slashdot. Interesting read nonetheless.

NYTimes requires registration, but you can read a copy of the article at The Smirking Chimp instead if you prefer.

The organisation itself: Union of Concerned Scientists.

You misstate my argument.

My argument is that if the environment is as deadly critical as environmentalists suggest then the same rules should apply to all. Just as being poor isn't an excuse to accept a thousand bucks to kill someone, nor is being poor an excuse to pollute the world--IF we are to believe the environmentalists that the threat of our pollution is so grave. Plus most of the pollution in developing countries isn't from poor people--it's from the factories of the rich and/or factories that belong to companies based in developed countries. By exempting pollution controls in developing countries you are giving a handout to the rich in those countries or the rich in developed countries at the expense of even worse health for the poor in those developing countries.

More likely than not the threat is NOT that grave. In that case I resent the environment being used as an excuse to justify worldwide wealth redistribution. If they want handouts for the poor they should say so and let us debate that on the economic or ethical merits.

You have, what, 1/24th the world population and you use 25% the world's energy.

The GWP (Gross World Product) was 45.9 trillion in 2001. The US GDP was 10.4 trillion in 2002 (sorry for the one year difference in stats). So the US generates 22.7% of the world's wealth. And the U.S. produces 23.3% of CO2. Are you seeing the similarity? 22.7% of the wealth and 23.3% of the CO2. We produce an amount of CO2 proportional to what we contribute to the world economy.

Further, the U.S. growth in CO2 production was 9.9% from 1990 through 1996. In the same period, China grew by 40%, India grew by 47.7%, and South Korea by 69.2%. Is it of no concern to you that the two most populous countries in the world are increasing their CO2 production at the rate of over 40% per year?

And all those goods are not flowing to other countries, either, they are mostly going to be used by you at home.

Irrelevant. Wealth is wealth. Even if most products are consumed at home the wealth enters the U.S. banking system and the effects are worldwide. If U.S. wealth goes down by 50% believe me everyone in the world will feel the pinch big time.

I don't really give a damn about your personal comfort, it's still inequitable.

Bingo! So we're talking about what is fair and wealth redistribution. Then let's make that the topic and stop making the environment a scape-goat to achieve economic rather than environmental goals.

And what rules would those be? I don't think any rational country is asking the US to give up our nuclear weapons- especially now that the threat of nuclear weapons spreading to unstable areas is greater now than ever before.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The reason other nations are starting development of nuclear weapons is a direct consequence of the U.S.'s belligerent actions. If we do not act now to reduce U.S. WMD, an arms race will ensue increasing the amount of weaponry available to terrorists, not reducing it.

Wait- so are you actually saying that you think Iran should have nuclear weapons?

Straw man. I said I don't blame them. If you were an Iranian cleric facing an 800lbs gorilla like the U.S., you'd keep your options open, too.

I fail to see how the US has demonstrated that. Treaties are taken very seriously in this country- they must be ratified by a full congress and they become a strict law

You mean like unilaterally pulling out of the ABM treaty? Let's see, pulling out of a treaty that restricts anti-ballistic missiles -- yeah, I'd say that sends the world a pretty positive message of peace and goodwill. "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along."

<obvious troll section deleted>

-l

Not true. The Russians had an operational ASAT system starting in the late 60's. . As you suggested they used the "rendezvous and explode" approach, which is reasonably well suited for taking out satellites in high orbit. However, the rendezvous takes time and can sometimes be avoided. It's not all that hard inherently, though - Kepler worked out the basic math a few hundred years ago, and as long as you keep you units straigh (JPL!), orbital rendezvous is straightforward.

It should be noted that the current U.S. missle defence system, while useless against incoming missles, is a very capable ASAT system against low-orbit satellites such as most spy satellites.

Scoring a direct hit in a head-on approach requires a very fast control loop, good sensors, and a highly reliable spacecraft system. Again, it's something that is not beyond, for instance, the Chinese. However, it isn't necessary to score a direct hit. If you deploy shrapnel (the famous "bucket of gravel") you can accept miss distances in the hundreds of meters - which can be done with pretty simple technology. Better yet, if you use a large nuke you can take out every spacecraft within 1000 km, a miss distance even North Korea could achieve.

Also, you don't have to be going in a couter-rotating orbit. all you have to do is place some gravel in the path of the satellite - it supplies the kinetic energy. A simple sounding rocket can get to 300km, which is where you find spy sats. So it is not beyond the realm of reason (though very unlikely) that you could take out a $1 billion U.S. radar bird using a $10 million sounding rocket launched at the exact right time and place. Very tricky in practice, though.

While there may be nearly 18,000 signatures on The Oregon Petition, they're not all scientists. It's been pointed out that some of the signatories are Geri Haliwell of the Spice Girls, TV Personalities, newscasters, and the obligatory dead people. This page has some details:
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/activistbriefings/ ClimateChange.htm
If you prefer a source that doesn't have the word "activist" in its title (it puts people off for some reason) You can try:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_wa rming/page.cfm?pageID=498

Now, the Oregon Institute claims that the bogus names were inserted by "enviro-pranksters", but if the petition is open to such "pranking" you have to wonder about the validity of the petition as a whole.

Beyond this, you also have to look at the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, http://www.oism.org which is the group that originate the petition. Their faculty has absolutely nobody who has specialized in studying environmental issues or climate issues. Instead, you have electrical engineers, surgeons, and chemists. Nothing wrong with that, but when they say one thing, and the specialists in the field say another, I'd prefer to trust the specialists.

We can also look at the other publications of the OISM, including their handbook "Nuclear War Survival Skills", and the "Fighting Chance Civil Defense" series.. things all originated by their founder, and supported and sold solely by their society. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with any of this stuff, but looking at it and you see a group that has a very solid 1980s or early 1990s mindset - a mindset that saw environmentalism as a "radical" issue.

For the same sort of take on the group, but with much more detail, you can check out these folks:
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

Now, because global warming has been so politicized, it's impossible to find a source that doesn't appear to have bias one way or the other. Of course, perhaps the bias is because one side is right, but that's difficult to tell for us laymen.

My choice then, is to side with the people who say that we should be taking steps to prevent a cataclysm, just in case they're right. Kind of like putting on seat-belts.. I may think that I'll never be in an accident, but that doesn't help me much if I wind up getting thrown through my windshield.

Have had it for a year, and learned a lot about them.

There are three hybrids being sold right now:

- Honda Civic Hybrid
- Honda Insight
- (2003) Toyota Prius

The Hondas use a gas engine as their primary engine with an electric engine (which doubles as a generator during braking) as a secondary source of acceleration. Think of this arrangement as a gas engine with a massive-battery-powered electric supercharger. If the electric engine fails, the gas engine will still get you there -- it just accelerates slower.

The Prius is the other way around -- its primary engine is electric, and a secondary gas engine gives it the acceleration. In the Prius, it is possible to drive (with very little gas pedal pressure) on electric alone -- something the Prius owners call "Zen driving." If the gas engine fails, you can still drive on the electric.

Reliability:
I know people who own both a Honda Civic Hybrid (HCH) and a 2003 Prius. I personally own the HCH. I would have no hesitation in buying one again. I average 54 MPG in the summer, and 45 MPG in the winter. Range is ~600 miles per tank; I drive 50 miles a day, and fill up twice a month. I have heard that it is possible to get ~700 miles/tank in a Prius, but have never got a first hand report of that.

The Honda had one early bug with deep, cold weather -- very occasionally, the electric system would shut down and not restart until the car was shut down and restarted. A flash of the computer firmware fixed it. Many people reported this problem. It also had an issue with a squeak in a support pillar, fixed by shimming with a business card. Maintenance visits are scheduled for every 10000 miles. Gas mileage is better on the highway (51 mpg) than the city (49 mpg).

The 2003 Prius has had more problems. Issues were with "highway wandering" -- it feels like the car wants to migrate around the road -- and shaking of the steering wheel at low speeds. Cause: the entire power steering rack needed to be replaced. There's also the gas engine failure called the "Big Hand" that's fixed with a similar car reboot, but it's caused by the Accelerator Pedal Assembly needing to be replaced. Many people report that they've had both of these problems. Maintenance is more frequent at 7,500 miles. Gas mileage is better in the city (51 mpg) than the highway (49 mpg).

I don't know anyone who drives a Honda Insight. Supposedly they still make ~1500 of them a year, but rumor has it that Honda is going to be dropping them.

Near-term and Farther-out Models:
The Prius has been out longer than the HCH, and is getting a technological refresh in 2004. The 2003 Prius and the HCH are both 4-seater compacts, but the 2004 Prius will be a mid-size, with better mileage (59 city, 51 highway) and better acceleration (0-60 in 10 instead of 12). There is currently a waiting list for them.

Cars/Trucks/SUVs due to be released as hybrids in 2004:

Honda Accord,
Honda CR-V,
Ford Escape

2004 or 2005:
Chevy Silverado
Saturn Vue
GMC Suburban

Here's an in-depth look at Hybrid technology from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Google HTML translation here).

Here's the best description of what it's like to drive one.

There is a federal tax deduction of $2000 for buying a new hybrid. Several states also offer their own tax deductions or credits -- check here to look them up. Some states (but not all) also let you drive them in their high occupancy lanes, even though you may only have one driver in it.

Oh, by the way -- I know that the 2003 Honda Civic Hybrids are

You're forgetting the great tax benefits you get with owning a hybrid.

And nothing to fix stuck valves
The summary is broken system with incorrect water level gauages and operators assuming that warnings were normal. Human error and some key systems giving false readings combine. But the question was why did these systems give false readings, and why did the operators think this was normal operations. Reference 1

The real problem is best described:
here"

I just don't trust the builders and owners.
I do trust the science but not the product.

The group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a New York environmental organization, Riverkeeper, plan to petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this week to ask that the two Indian Point reactors in Buchanan, N.Y., on the east bank of the Hudson River, should be shut until corrections are made. The problem, they argue, is that leaking water or steam would scour off pipe insulation, paint and other materials, forming debris that would clog the coolant pumps.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recognized the possibility years ago, and in September 1996 classified it as a serious problem, but does not anticipate that corrective action will be completed until early 2007. A commission official said, however, that the problem is complicated to solve and need not be fixed immediately because the accident that would require use of the safety system was unlikely in the first place.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, contended that the emergency core cooling system "is virtually certain to fail at some plants."

"Right now you're relying on a pipe not breaking," he said.

According to Mr. Lochbaum and to data from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the problem involves 69 plants of a design called pressurized water reactors, in which the water that is used to carry off the useful heat, and to keep the fuel from over-heating, is kept at a pressure of about 2,200 pounds per square inch. If a pipe breaks and the pressure is released, the water would boil into steam because it is heated to more than 500 degrees. The steam could not cool the fuel, and the fuel would melt.

So the plants are equipped with an automatic emergency core cooling system. Drawing water from a tank outside the reactor dome, the system can dump thousands of gallons a minute into the reactor, making up for even a large leak.

In this design, water from a broken pipe would flow into the reactor basement. The outdoor tank typically holds 125,000 to 300,000 gallons, and when it was nearly empty, the system would start drawing water from the basement instead. The problem is that if the water picks up debris along the way, that debris could clog the screens over the pipes that lead back to the emergency pumps.

At the request of the commission, the Los Alamos National Laboratory studied the 69 plants, and found that for some, the risk of core damage was multiplied 100 times because of the debris problem. It ranked the plants but did not name them; Mr. Lochbaum's group used various detailed characteristics included in the report to determine which plant was which, and discovered that the Indian Point reactors were both in the worst five.

The plants' owner, Entergy, told the N.R.C. in August, in response to a letter sent by the commission to all plants, that it had analyzed the material available to become debris, including "failed paints," and would train its operators in ways to manage the problem, including pumping water in more slowly.

A spokesman for Indian Point, Jim Steets, said that he had not seen the petition, but that "the N.R.C. has attached some level of urgency, which we're complying with."

At the N.R.C., Sunil Weerakkody, the section chief for fire protection and special studies, said that in decades of nuclear plant operation, the emergency core cooling system had been used only eight times, and that no accident had reached the stages at which pumping from the basement was required.

"Our bes

There are plenty of wind power installations that are on farms. The turbines, control equipment, and access roads take up a fairly small amount of land, so farmers can get the benefit of lease payments from the utilities and still use their land.The Union of Concerned Scientists says:

In the Midwest, wind developers are paying farmers $2,000 or more per year for each wind turbine installed on their land. Large wind turbines use only about a quarter acre of land, including access roads, so farmers can continue to plant crops and graze livestock right up to the base of the turbines. In a good year, that same plot of land could yield $90 worth of corn, $40 worth of wheat, and $5 worth of beef.

Solar could take up plenty of room, I suppose. People seem to think of giant arrays of solar cells in the Arizona desert or somewhere. But if there were installations on top of industrial plants, apartment buildings, office buildings, parking garages/lots, etc., plenty of power could be generated from spaces that are already occupied.

In any case, I doubt wind/solar farms would ever get put on land that could potentially be a national park/national mounment/wilderness. There's a lot of empty land out there, even with all the suburban sprawl that's going on.

But, $400M received in tax breaks by an industry that pays $33 BILLION dollars in taxes isn't a big deal, considering we're getting cleaner air out of the deal, which I'd say falls within the realm of the public good, which is what our collective taxes are supposed to be used for.

Doubt it? Check this out:

Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. Our results are consistent with a report by the Alliance to Save Energy that estimated the benefits of individual federal corporate income tax provisions. Their results showed that in 1989 preferential treatment yielded $1.8 billion to $4.6 billion in individual income tax benefits to the oil industry (Koplow, 1993).

0.17x - 0.11x = 2B, x = 33.3B

Why would you expect people who can't keep holes from forming in their reactor vessel to plug holes in their firewall?

One of my my first thoughts after my lights went out (well, not really first) was "I wonder if that worm had anything to do with this." But at the time I doubted that they ran power plants on Windows so it seemed like a very idle thought -- until I found out that the problem started with FirstEnergy, that they owned Davis-Besse, and that they had already had problems because of Slammer! That got me really scared and mad at the people who are running our important systems.

I live a few miles away from Davis Besse, one of FirstEnergy's nuclear plants. In Feb 2002, they shut it down for maintenance (and I believe refueling). They found that boric acid had almost completely eaten through the steel cap on top of the reactor. A few more months and bad things would have happened. It's a very controversial issue around the area (Ottawa County, Ohio) as most area residents don't want to see the plant restarted.

FirstEnergy was also recently found guilty of breaking pollution laws when they rebuilt a power plant and did not install modernized scrubbers. No ruling on what they will be fined has come out yet.

Here is an AP article with a bit more info, and an article detailing the hole in the reactor vessel. TONS more info available via 'davis besse' on google.

How do you use wind power on a car? Wind turbines wouldn't work, maybe a sail?

It's already been proven that there is NO global warming,

In what universe? Seriously, you may have issues with the political implications of global warming, you may have issues with the implementation of damage-control policies before a true consensus of the scientific community has been reached, but that statement is just plain wrong.

I don't have any doubt that it is repeated ad nauseum in hysterical screeds by the likes of Rush et al, but you would do yourself some good by attempting to understand the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Here are some starters:

The US Global Change Research Information Office

The American Geophysical Union

The Union of Concerned Scientsts

The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research

UCS Debunking of the 'Skeptical Environmentalist'

globalwarming.org's constantly updated list of scientific references

I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.

It's already been proven that there is NO global warming,

In what universe? Seriously, you may have issues with the political implications of global warming, you may have issues with the implementation of damage-control policies before a true consensus of the scientific community has been reached, but that statement is just plain wrong.

I don't have any doubt that it is repeated ad nauseum in hysterical screeds by the likes of Rush et al, but you would do yourself some good by attempting to understand the opinions of people who actually know what they are talking about.

Here are some starters:

The US Global Change Research Information Office

The American Geophysical Union

The Union of Concerned Scientsts

The Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research

UCS Debunking of the 'Skeptical Environmentalist'

globalwarming.org's constantly updated list of scientific references

I could go on but I won't. There's still lots of debate, and this is as it should be, but global warming has not been "disproved" except in the minds of politically motivated ideologues.

The Union of Concerned Scientists did some great work in the area of light truck / SUV efficiency - they even worked up a cost-effective mod to the Ford Explorer that improves efficiency *and* performance without increasing Total Cost of Ownership - cool. Info here

The US is a net CARBON SINK.

Actually, the majority of antibiotics given to livestock are not administered to prevent infection. They are given to healthy animals in order to promote their growth. There is a good overview of the problem here.

Baloney.

First of all, if the analogy holds any water at all (excuse the pun), then locally, contrails are equally as significant as a really cloudy day.

The destructive nature of greenhouse gases has been piped loud and clear regarding the CFC-Ozone reactions that allegedly occur in emitted fossil fuels in the high atmosphere. Here [ucsusa.org] is a decent description of the process.

Take a look at the link you yourself provided.

• 2. What have humans done to the ozone layer?
  Humans have damaged the ozone layer by adding molecules containing chlorine or bromine that lead to ozone destruction. ..."
  Nothing there about fossil fuels or jets. Read a little more and you'll learn those "molecules" are gases which are released on the ground.
• "5. Is ozone depletion related to global warming?
  No. Ozone depletion and global warming are separate problems, though some agents contribute to both."
• "CFCs are responsible for less than 10 percent of total atmospheric warming, far less than the 63 percent contribution of carbon dioxide."
  Total atmospheric warming? I think water vapor contributed a bit more than carbon dioxide to the total greenhouse effect.

There have been many loud things said about greenhouse gases, but apparently not clearly enough.

Baloney.

First of all, if the analogy holds any water at all (excuse the pun), then locally, contrails are equally as significant as a really cloudy day.

The destructive nature of greenhouse gases has been piped loud and clear regarding the CFC-Ozone reactions that allegedly occur in emitted fossil fuels in the high atmosphere. Here [ucsusa.org] is a decent description of the process.

Take a look at the link you yourself provided.

• 2. What have humans done to the ozone layer?
  Humans have damaged the ozone layer by adding molecules containing chlorine or bromine that lead to ozone destruction. ..."
  Nothing there about fossil fuels or jets. Read a little more and you'll learn those "molecules" are gases which are released on the ground.
• "5. Is ozone depletion related to global warming?
  No. Ozone depletion and global warming are separate problems, though some agents contribute to both."
• "CFCs are responsible for less than 10 percent of total atmospheric warming, far less than the 63 percent contribution of carbon dioxide."
  Total atmospheric warming? I think water vapor contributed a bit more than carbon dioxide to the total greenhouse effect.

There have been many loud things said about greenhouse gases, but apparently not clearly enough.

The researchers suggest that in regions with crowded skies, contrails work just like artificial cirrus clouds...

Okay, I can see that.

...locally, contrails are equally as significant as greenhouse gases

Baloney.

First of all, if the analogy holds any water at all (excuse the pun), then locally, contrails are equally as significant as a really cloudy day.

The destructive nature of greenhouse gases has been piped loud and clear regarding the CFC-Ozone reactions that allegedly occur in emitted fossil fuels in the high atmosphere. Here is a decent description of the process.

Also, I noticed something about NPR in the blurb. Not to just spit raspberries, but I often hear things on NPR that are downright absurd. Just this morning, I caught the end of an interview on Morning Edition about a medical doctor's findings regarding the "Eight 8-oz Glasses A Day" theory. I personally don't care one way or the other, but I thought it was incredulous to hear a doctor say that a sedentary person shouldn't drink water when thirsty.

After pondering for a few moments, I decided that maybe it's better to go for a beer the next time I feel the urge to raid the water cooler.

Cloning versus sexual reproduction initially favors the clones, then are eventually no longer suited to the environment, preditors, or disease. It's a given and any planing, economic, or otherwise must take this into consideration or lose big time. You even see it in several animals like some species of fish and snails, perhaps others. But with the animals, especially, disease usually wipes out most of the clones.

Corporations may lose out, but the rise of interest among the general population in "heirloom" produce is an indication that geneticly diverse crops are not gone yet. Unfortunately, a by product of genetically modified crops is often a very inbred gene pool because not enough generations have gone by to ensure wide genetic diversity.

With the corn, if it's made a priority, it's quite possible to maintain high yields and a varied gene pool. However, it's still corn. I'm sure other crops can be used for plastic using similar proceses. There's probably quite a few tons of cellulose in the stalks and chaff left over from a nation's yearly wheat, oat, rice or barley harvest.

... or at least the best science has come up with so far, are downloadable from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I'd start with the Summaries for Policy Makers, as a way of becoming very well infomrmed in just ~20pp.

Here's better background.

• http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/ide x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
• http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
• http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.html , Honda Insight, currently available
• http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
• http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
• http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this

• http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/0mapveh.html, http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/, The EPA's Clean Vehicle Guide
• http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4018922.asp, http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&a ct=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst . mpl, 2002 overall fuel economy results
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml, Vehicle fuel economy by class
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml, Tips to improve your gas mileage
• http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/CAFE.html, Information about the CAFE standards
• http://www.greenercars.org/, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

• http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/ide x.html, Toyota Prius, currently available
• http://civichybrid.honda.com/, Honda Civic Hybrid, due out RSN, starting to be available for test drives
• http://www.hondacars.com/models/insight/index.html , Honda Insight, currently available
• http://rav4ev.toyota.com/, Toyota RAV4 EV (it's not a hybrid, sorry), only available in CA currently
• http://uktoyotaestimasite.tripod.com/, Toyota Estima, hybrid minivan. Not currently scheduled for release in the US
• http://hybridford.com/, Ford Escape, SUV, planned to be available in 2003. Ford licensed the Toyota HEV system for this

• http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/0mapveh.html, http://www.epa.gov/autoemissions/, The EPA's Clean Vehicle Guide
• http://carpoint.msn.com/browse/win_4018922.asp, http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&a ct=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst . mpl, 2002 overall fuel economy results
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml, Vehicle fuel economy by class
• http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml, Tips to improve your gas mileage
• http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/CAFE.html, Information about the CAFE standards
• http://www.greenercars.org/, The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)

Which scientists? The IPCC? That was mostly signed by environmentalists and politicians. There was a whopping 1 climate scientist that signed it. On the other hand, this petition [oism.org], signed by over 15,000 scientists suggests otherwise.

Perhaps your unaware of the state of environmental science, but the Bush adminstration asked the National Academy of Sciences to evalute the IPCC (which is very different to your FUD) claims, and they found in favour of the global warming. (Link)

Meanwhile the global warming petition is just a PR exercise. Science is done by a bunch of non-specialists (I'm not a climate scientist, yet my qualifications would put allow me to add my name to the petition) voting on it. Especially, when parts of the petition's supporting information are boarderline fraud.

However, unless this power generation technique is competitive with burning petroleum at about US$33 per barrel, it won't be practical in the long run.

There are other ways of calculating the cost of energy. If you treat energy as a public works project like the Hoover Dam, the capital cost is paid off over many decades at a nominal rate of interest. Essentially, the cost of producing energy is the operating cost and maintenance of the plant.

Also, because a domestic source of energy is less likely to be interrupted by war in the Middle East, it would be worthwhile to have these plants for strategic reasons even if the cost is much higher than oil.

According to the April, 2002, issue of Harper's, the U.S. currently spends $50 billion a year protecting crude oil imports in the Middle East that are only worth $19 billion. These military costs are not included in the cost-per-barrel of oil. If the U.S. could replace Middle East oil by investing that $50 billion annually in R&D, the cost of the resulting energy might be offset by the lower cost of protecting it.

Oil industry subsidies and environmental costs distort the true cost of a oil as well. In the end, politics determines the cost of energy.

According to The Union of Concerned Scientists The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change refuses to disclose their funding sources, however, they have very close links to Greening Earth Society which is in turn funded by Western Fuels Association.

... only for certain values of "demolish" and "most". Be sure to look at these opposing views as well as the book itself:

• UCS examines The Skeptical Environmentalist
• Nine things journalists should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist

-Miko

Your post is typical of the 'skepticism by convience' found so often in this debate..

Here are some resources:

BBC Report

EPA website on global warming

Union of concerned scientists.

btw, you forgot to post your evidence.. (typical skeptic evidence: We don't know for 10000000000% sure, so this must be environmentalist propoganda"

-D

p.s. Ok, I'll say It. You, are a mo-ron.

Well, do we really need 31 flavors of Linux?

As a non-fan of Mr. Lomborg, I'd like to offer up a few links:

Anti-Lomborg - Responses to Bjorn's environmental writing

Debunking Pseudo-Scholarship: Things a journalist should know about The Skeptical Environmentalist

Union of Concerned Scientists examine The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg

All of what jayed_99 says is true.

However, the original idea with terminator seeds was that they would (I'm not sure how well it works - I gather it doesn't but Monsanto policy seems to be that objective truth is foreign to their religion) produce non-fertilising pollen. So, the seeds that monsanto sells are a hybrid of line A (fertile) and line B (fertile) which produces line C, which they sell, and which doesn't produce fertile pollen OR fertile seeds. In addition to meaning that you can't grow up line C yourself, or make your own lines that include whatever favorable genes where transgenically introduced into line C, this means that line C's pollen can't contaminate non engineered crops nearby, which is a huge problem with other GM foods (pause, looks askance at my Dorito.)

Now, terminator seeds are basically a dead issue because folks like jayed_99 simply refused to buy them.

This means that people are growing up (or being forced to grow up, by cross polination) the GM crops that Monsanto sells without paying for new seeds each time.

So, the next part of Monsanto's evil plan is to make their money selling chemicals (which they also make) instead of the GM crops themselves. Enter roundup ready Corn. You want evil, there's your classic Monsanto evil. The idea is that they can go ahead and give away the GM crops (although they'll continue to charge while they can), because the only thing the GM crops are good for is buying mroe roundup.... from Monsanto.

So, the trend in agro genetic engineering is to do stuff like that. Genetically engineering crops that resist perishability better, or which inherently resist pests, or are more nutritious, may be a losing proposition because the product is a living thing that is not easily controlled. However, genetically engineering pesticide resistance lets you sell more of your pesticide, which is where the big money is, anyway.

Of course, as a medical geneticist, I may have an unfair bias against evil (which seems to be Monsanto's position vis a vis the union of concerned scientists)

It's a cool project, technology-wise, but it's a really, really bad idea in the Real World(TM). Let's not rekindle the arms race, just walk away from this one.

your time frame is way too long. start reading yourself. i guess there are more indicators than just the temperature that indicate that global warming is happening, and already having an impact.

granted, these are concerned scientists. however, has it ocurred to you that they might be concerned for a reason?

... a nice selection of sites from a variety of perspectives, including this, from the "Union of Concerned Scientists".

How about taking a look for yourself on the web for some of the information that is out there. I just hacked in 'Global Warming' into Google and had a nice selection of sites from a variety of perspectives, including this, from the "Union of Concerned Scientists".

It's a fact. Wake up America.

A major goal of the Earth Liberation Front is "to speed up the collapse of industry, to scare the rich".

Even more moderate groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists betray socialist views. In a PBS Frontline story on Genetically Modified foods, Jane Rissler denounced claims that GM foods would help feed the hungry in poor countries by saying: "The biggest problem behind hungry people is lack of money" which, if believed, lays a nice foundation for redistributing wealth. Of course, most people believe that hungry people need food, not money.

The Anarchist Golfing Association (Anarchist being another name for Libertarian Socialists) is nothing more than an attack on what is viewed as the capitalist's favorite pasttime.

Some of the "anti-capitalist" views by environmentalists are likely attributed to the fact that industry does pollute, but some of these groups go beyond reasonable concern.

-bk

A major goal of the Earth Liberation Front is "to speed up the collapse of industry, to scare the rich".

Even more moderate groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists betray socialist views. In a PBS Frontline story on Genetically Modified foods, Jane Rissler denounced claims that GM foods would help feed the hungry in poor countries by saying: "The biggest problem behind hungry people is lack of money" which, if believed, lays a nice foundation for redistributing wealth. Of course, most people believe that hungry people need food, not money.

The Anarchist Golfing Association (Anarchist being another name for Libertarian Socialists) is nothing more than an attack on what is viewed as the capitalist's favorite pasttime.

Some of the "anti-capitalist" views by environmentalists are likely attributed to the fact that industry does pollute, but some of these groups go beyond reasonable concern.

-bk

Don't forget, this could be used as a weapon. I actually like the idea of being able to attack with _almost_ total impunity.

I think this sort of space-based weapontry is banned under The ABM Treaty.
As this Website demonstrates.

Our missile defense program is also banned by That same Treaty.

Also, I think one day a men will all but destroy the world. It's in our nature.