A "smart gird" (or really just a coherent modern infrastructure) would be beneficial whether it was done in anticipation of renewable energy methods, or not.
To question it is like saying the GW joke "what if we end pollution and make the world a better place, all for nothing?"
the biggest hurdle to improving aircraft efficiency is energy. Or specifically the ability to convert stored energy into sufficient kinetic energy to enable flight.
Combusting jet fuel and utilizing the resulting rapid expansion of gases turns out to be a really good way to get a lot of energy out of a (relatively) small amount of volume and hurtle a tin can through the atmosphere from A to B. Achieving similar performance with other, greener, technologies is going to be very diffilcult. that is, we could easily still fly from NY to LA, but the trip might take longer, or the plane carry fewer passengers. still, its interesting some of the concepts proposed.
Watts is hardly unbiased, objective, or even scientifically valid.
The scientists may not have all the answers, nor do they claim to, but they have a lot more than you and other deniers do, and unlike you they actually know what they are talking about.
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. He’s worked in the top markets: Chicago and New York, including a 7-year stint on Good Morning America when it launched. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
[..]
On CNN, he said this consensus is manufactured by the Democratic party’s funding of research with preordained results. “If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve got to support their position,” Coleman said. “Therefore, 97 percent of the reports published support global warming.”
Nevermind that multiple, independent scientific assessments (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – which just released a new report Sunday, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Academy of Sciences), from institutions and scientists around the world, have reached this conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence. Coleman’s attack seems more political and (per his claims of a global conspiracy) delusional than based on substance.
(Further, a small point, the Democrats alone do not control funding of climate science.)
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. He’s worked in the top markets: Chicago and New York, including a 7-year stint on Good Morning America when it launched. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
[..]
On CNN, he said this consensus is manufactured by the Democratic party’s funding of research with preordained results. “If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve got to support their position,” Coleman said. “Therefore, 97 percent of
i love it when people tell me what i think for me and ignore what i actually say.
By the way...you are aware there are significant drawbacks to nukes yes? And that nukes aren't the only choice? Or that the conflation between "admitting global warming is a thing" and "wanting to impose socialism on everything" doesnt actually exist?
Google that, and you'll get hundreds of results all using one single line to say "Jesus was a capitalist and you should ignore all that other stuff he did".
Its really quite funny the mental twists they do to justify it all.
And really its not even just global warmings. Not many folks dispute much of science for religious reasons other than religious folks in the US; those who do are justly looked at as lunatics, rather the opposite of how they get treated in the US.
a) luck is a factor b) nutrtition doesnt save you from plague c) so your logic is that "because some people maybe too old, the whole concept is invalid" ? nonsense
Yes, sanitition is a big factor these days. As is knowing about the disease vectors, and when plague is found in a population, such as in rodents and otehr wildlife in areas of Northern California, warning people about it. Just the fact we know about it nowadays does a lot to make treatment easier.
But sanitation wasnt the factor in the later waves of the plague in medieval europe. Nor was general knowledge of the disease.
The reduction in severity was very likely genetics. It's been proven that it did alter the genetic stock of Europe. The "Black Death" didnt venture far outside of Europe, and the genetic markers are still prevalent in Europeans, and Europeans in general show some different reactions to certain related diseases than people of other genetic background. There is even some crossover resistance to HIV that is well documented, which roughly 10% of Europeans carry an addiitional resistance to.
Bottom line is, you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Again.
oh please. it's hilarious that you consider yourself a "thinking American". the GP is probably you, and you are whining about nothing. and whole the Clerk at the DMV doesnt make rules, the DMV as a whole does, which is the proper level of comparison.
even Congress recognizes the need to do some things, to get them done, without them turning into poltical footballs. thats why they created these agencies and delegated the necessary powers to them.
It takes an entire agency with inspectors at every big food factory in the nation to oversee the food supply and keep toxis chemicals or diseased meat out of the food chain. Do you want Congress voting every time its needful to update or change a regulation?
How about the Parks, the Forests, and all other government lands? I suppose Congress should hold a vote everytime they want to raise fees, build a information center, or close a park to prevent tourist damage?
Maybe they should hold a vote everytime a company dumps chemicals into a river as to whether or not to fine that company?
How about for oversight of the Stock Market?
Or maybe you think they should vote as to the rules and oversight of elections themselves?
I could go on but the point is this: Independent regulatory agencies exist because Congress 1) Cannot do all these tasks themselves in any reasonable way, 2) we often dont want Congress to do these tasks because they are needful regardless of the political situation and you dont want them turning into political footballs (any more than theyalready are), and 3) it may be hard to believe, but the Congress is often not the subject matter expert, whereas the IA's can hire those experts.
if you seriously expect Congress to do all these things, then you need to increase its size by about 100,000 individuals.
Wiki sums it up nicely:
Regulatory agencies deal in the area of administrative law—regulation or rulemaking (codifying and enforcing rules and regulations and imposing supervision or oversight for the benefit of the public at large). The existence of independent regulatory agencies is justified by the complexity of certain regulatory and supervisory tasks that require expertise, the need for rapid implementation of public authority in certain sectors, and the drawbacks of political interference. Some independent regulatory agencies perform investigations or audits, and some are authorized to fine the relevant parties and order certain measures.
Regulatory agencies are usually a part of the executive branch of the government, or they have statutory authority to perform their functions with oversight from the legislative branch. Their actions are generally open to legal review.
As to the Constituional authority to do so, i believe it falls under Section 8, if not by the commerce clause ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"), sinc eso many of the agencies are basically about regulating commercial enterprises, then by the catchall clause at the end: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
IE, anything they need to do to carry out their job, they can do. Including delegation to an independent agency.
Congress already voted, when they created the FCC as an independent agency with a specific mandate and mission and empowered it with the necessary authority in order to carry out that mandate. That's how independent agencies work, and why they exist: to remove the need for Congress to do -everything-, particularly those things which would be undermined by political fighting.
Note that this still doesnt prevent Congress from passing laws changing that mandate or otherwise directing the agency to do something in particular. it smply makes one question why they delegated powers to an independent agency if they're going to micromanage them anyway.
Yes but you actually have regulations in Europe. We de-regulated, which only benefits the companies. Benefits to the consumer are secondary, if they occur at all. The idea that anything that benefits companies also benefits consumers is a popularly held (yet foolish) dogma in this country.
We make it as hard as possible for people to travel at will, and even to leave the country. Like a crazy ex who gets defensive if you dont spend all your time and energy with him. "Where you going? Why you want to go? Dont you like it here? You commie."
Lets test that. Lets test the strength of TOS in regards to publicly available information.
If I plaster a bunch of information all over my website, information my customers need to use my services, do I really get to tell them how they can and cant use that information? Information that is also all over the internet, be it Orbitz, or Expedia, or Google, so its freely publicly available.
I say no. It's akin to putting pictures on the side of my building, but demanding that no one write about what pictures are hung up in public view.
I'd wager that the only reason it ever stands up in court is because it never really gets tested, because they have more lawyers and money to throw at it than the person they go after.
this. the idea of "competition" in air travel is an illusion, in much the same way that competition in telcos is. comcast can claim thee is comeptition because there's DirectTV and satellite in an area, but really that market is owned by Comcast. Or Time Warner, or whomever it is in that area.
In the same way every large airport is dominated by a single company who uses it as a "hub".
A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time.
Slashdot Mirror
A "smart gird" (or really just a coherent modern infrastructure) would be beneficial whether it was done in anticipation of renewable energy methods, or not.
To question it is like saying the GW joke "what if we end pollution and make the world a better place, all for nothing?"
so its safe to say your actual experience of military operations is approximately nil.
the biggest hurdle to improving aircraft efficiency is energy.
Or specifically the ability to convert stored energy into sufficient kinetic energy to enable flight.
Combusting jet fuel and utilizing the resulting rapid expansion of gases turns out to be a really good way to get a lot of energy out of a (relatively) small amount of volume and hurtle a tin can through the atmosphere from A to B. Achieving similar performance with other, greener, technologies is going to be very diffilcult. that is, we could easily still fly from NY to LA, but the trip might take longer, or the plane carry fewer passengers. still, its interesting some of the concepts proposed.
Watts is hardly unbiased, objective, or even scientifically valid.
The scientists may not have all the answers, nor do they claim to, but they have a lot more than you and other deniers do, and unlike you they actually know what they are talking about.
those words you used...
almost all of them...
they dont mean what you think they do.
Or as John Wayne said in McClintock "You learned alotta words back East Becky. I wish to God they'd a taught you some meanings."
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. He’s worked in the top markets: Chicago and New York, including a 7-year stint on Good Morning America when it launched. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
[..]
On CNN, he said this consensus is manufactured by the Democratic party’s funding of research with preordained results. “If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve got to support their position,” Coleman said. “Therefore, 97 percent of the reports published support global warming.”
Nevermind that multiple, independent scientific assessments (e.g. the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – which just released a new report Sunday, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the National Academy of Sciences), from institutions and scientists around the world, have reached this conclusion based on multiple lines of evidence. Coleman’s attack seems more political and (per his claims of a global conspiracy) delusional than based on substance.
(Further, a small point, the Democrats alone do not control funding of climate science.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
It goes on.
Point is:
a) he is not ignored by media
b) he is as ignorant of the topic as you are
Coleman is simply an awful choice to discuss this issue. He lacks credentials, many of his statements about climate change completely lack substance or mislead, and I’m not even sure he knows what he actually believes.
To begin, Coleman hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed paper pertaining to climate change science. His career, a successful and distinguished one, was in TV weather for over half a century, prior to his retirement in San Diego last April. He’s worked in the top markets: Chicago and New York, including a 7-year stint on Good Morning America when it launched. If you watch Coleman on-camera, his skill is obvious. He speaks with authority, injects an irreverent sense of humor and knows how to connect with his viewer.
But a climate scientist, he is not.
[..]
On CNN, he said this consensus is manufactured by the Democratic party’s funding of research with preordained results. “If you’re gonna get the money, you’ve got to support their position,” Coleman said. “Therefore, 97 percent of
Tip of the day: Everything on Wattsupwiththat is unscientific BS.
i love it when people tell me what i think for me and ignore what i actually say.
By the way...you are aware there are significant drawbacks to nukes yes? And that nukes aren't the only choice?
Or that the conflation between "admitting global warming is a thing" and "wanting to impose socialism on everything" doesnt actually exist?
Obviously you havent met Capitalist Jesus.
Google that, and you'll get hundreds of results all using one single line to say "Jesus was a capitalist and you should ignore all that other stuff he did".
Its really quite funny the mental twists they do to justify it all.
And really its not even just global warmings.
Not many folks dispute much of science for religious reasons other than religious folks in the US; those who do are justly looked at as lunatics, rather the opposite of how they get treated in the US.
or you just innoculate bats against the disease.
similar programs have been very successful in the past.
a) luck is a factor
b) nutrtition doesnt save you from plague
c) so your logic is that "because some people maybe too old, the whole concept is invalid" ? nonsense
Yes, sanitition is a big factor these days. As is knowing about the disease vectors, and when plague is found in a population, such as in rodents and otehr wildlife in areas of Northern California, warning people about it. Just the fact we know about it nowadays does a lot to make treatment easier.
But sanitation wasnt the factor in the later waves of the plague in medieval europe. Nor was general knowledge of the disease.
The reduction in severity was very likely genetics. It's been proven that it did alter the genetic stock of Europe. The "Black Death" didnt venture far outside of Europe, and the genetic markers are still prevalent in Europeans, and Europeans in general show some different reactions to certain related diseases than people of other genetic background. There is even some crossover resistance to HIV that is well documented, which roughly 10% of Europeans carry an addiitional resistance to.
Bottom line is, you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
Again.
There's also The Ale Party
Wow the Anti-NN astroturfing accounts are out in force today.
And using their sock puppets to mod up each other's idiocy as well.
oh please. it's hilarious that you consider yourself a "thinking American".
the GP is probably you, and you are whining about nothing.
and whole the Clerk at the DMV doesnt make rules, the DMV as a whole does, which is the proper level of comparison.
even Congress recognizes the need to do some things, to get them done, without them turning into poltical footballs.
thats why they created these agencies and delegated the necessary powers to them.
It takes an entire agency with inspectors at every big food factory in the nation to oversee the food supply and keep toxis chemicals or diseased meat out of the food chain.
Do you want Congress voting every time its needful to update or change a regulation?
How about the Parks, the Forests, and all other government lands?
I suppose Congress should hold a vote everytime they want to raise fees, build a information center, or close a park to prevent tourist damage?
Maybe they should hold a vote everytime a company dumps chemicals into a river as to whether or not to fine that company?
How about for oversight of the Stock Market?
Or maybe you think they should vote as to the rules and oversight of elections themselves?
I could go on but the point is this: Independent regulatory agencies exist because Congress 1) Cannot do all these tasks themselves in any reasonable way, 2) we often dont want Congress to do these tasks because they are needful regardless of the political situation and you dont want them turning into political footballs (any more than theyalready are), and 3) it may be hard to believe, but the Congress is often not the subject matter expert, whereas the IA's can hire those experts.
if you seriously expect Congress to do all these things, then you need to increase its size by about 100,000 individuals.
Wiki sums it up nicely:
Regulatory agencies deal in the area of administrative law—regulation or rulemaking (codifying and enforcing rules and regulations and imposing supervision or oversight for the benefit of the public at large). The existence of independent regulatory agencies is justified by the complexity of certain regulatory and supervisory tasks that require expertise, the need for rapid implementation of public authority in certain sectors, and the drawbacks of political interference. Some independent regulatory agencies perform investigations or audits, and some are authorized to fine the relevant parties and order certain measures.
Regulatory agencies are usually a part of the executive branch of the government, or they have statutory authority to perform their functions with oversight from the legislative branch. Their actions are generally open to legal review.
As to the Constituional authority to do so, i believe it falls under Section 8, if not by the commerce clause ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"), sinc eso many of the agencies are basically about regulating commercial enterprises, then by the catchall clause at the end: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
IE, anything they need to do to carry out their job, they can do.
Including delegation to an independent agency.
Congress already voted, when they created the FCC as an independent agency with a specific mandate and mission and empowered it with the necessary authority in order to carry out that mandate. That's how independent agencies work, and why they exist: to remove the need for Congress to do -everything-, particularly those things which would be undermined by political fighting.
Note that this still doesnt prevent Congress from passing laws changing that mandate or otherwise directing the agency to do something in particular. it smply makes one question why they delegated powers to an independent agency if they're going to micromanage them anyway.
Yes but you actually have regulations in Europe.
We de-regulated, which only benefits the companies. Benefits to the consumer are secondary, if they occur at all.
The idea that anything that benefits companies also benefits consumers is a popularly held (yet foolish) dogma in this country.
We make it as hard as possible for people to travel at will, and even to leave the country.
Like a crazy ex who gets defensive if you dont spend all your time and energy with him.
"Where you going? Why you want to go? Dont you like it here? You commie."
Lets test that.
Lets test the strength of TOS in regards to publicly available information.
If I plaster a bunch of information all over my website, information my customers need to use my services, do I really get to tell them how they can and cant use that information? Information that is also all over the internet, be it Orbitz, or Expedia, or Google, so its freely publicly available.
I say no.
It's akin to putting pictures on the side of my building, but demanding that no one write about what pictures are hung up in public view.
I'd wager that the only reason it ever stands up in court is because it never really gets tested, because they have more lawyers and money to throw at it than the person they go after.
this.
the idea of "competition" in air travel is an illusion, in much the same way that competition in telcos is.
comcast can claim thee is comeptition because there's DirectTV and satellite in an area, but really that market is owned by Comcast.
Or Time Warner, or whomever it is in that area.
In the same way every large airport is dominated by a single company who uses it as a "hub".
the margins arent as razor thing as you believe.
and bankruptcy means soemthing totally different for big companies than it does you and me.
There's no proof he doesnt either, and Pascal's Wager sets out that it's perfectly rational to believe.
So what you're saying is that all galaxies are precisely as far away as the Andromeda galaxy? Yeah no.
Please learn something about what you're talking about before you make a fool of yourself. Again.
Take thine own advice ignorant knave: http://www.space.com/18502-far... :
A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time.
There are no contradictions between any of the gospels
And once again you prove you have no clue what you are talking about.
its called humor, and in humor "misdirection" is one of the oldest forms of joke.