Yup, the NHC forecast another good year for them, a bit above average. It's getting so bad it's starting to resemble the mid 20th century. After 2006 turned out to be such a bummer. If we actually get hit with a category 1 over in VA during 2007, it'll be the worst hurricane ever and the worst hurricane season every.
From a practical consideration, the difference between a good hurricane season and a bad hurricane season is whether a category 3+ hurricane came to a neighborhood near you - or not. Unless you live on a barrier island where there really aren't such things as a good hurricane season.
Well, if you make a statement (pick any statement about the existance of something somewhere else that's inaccessible), and you essentially cannot disprove it. I can make the statement that in town there is an aardvark sitting in the park over next to a lark. And, you cannot disprove it.
Primarily, RF safety is concerned with heating effects on the human body. It's exactly the sort of effect you see going on in your microwave oven. As such, it requires a fair amount of RF energy to accomplish the task. In fact, it requires that about the same amount of energy put into lunch as it would for the lunch to have been put in a regular oven. The difference in how much total energy was used is all about the conventional oven itself getting rather hot with the wasted energy and the longer time due to the fact that the RF energy went throughout the lunch heating all simultaneously while the heat in the conventional oven started from the outside and slowly traveled inward.
There are some (just like there are those who believe in ufo abductions and ET created crop circles) who think that the magnetic fields changing can have some molecular effects that might damage dna or whatever. Of course there's a magnetic field on earth and it's going to 'change' every time you turn around or move. There are also cosmic rays and natural radiation which will cause the sort of damage and it is occurring at a rate of 100s of times per second, day in and day out. And the people living in denver get a double whammy out of it being around all that granite rock and being over 5000 ft above sea level. I've never seen a warning sign on their city limit signs or tourist brochures telling people to limit their stays or keep out due to any serious danger.
It's quite doubtful that there is any serious effects from low level RF that would rise to the equivalence of either of these radiation sources and if there were, it'd be masked by the effects. Also, since the magnetic field decreases linearly with the distance from the antenna (and the power with the square of the distance) some separation between person and transmitting device would reduce the risk. That means even if a cell phone was actually dangerous to use more than a limited amount of time - with it stuck right in your ear, the same sort of device would have much less effect were it further away - and a cellphone tends to put out much more power than the usual little wireless connect which is intended for a couple of hundred feet versus many thousands of feet needed to reach the nearest cell tower.
However, if you want to be on the nightly newscast, you need to say or do something fairly outrageous or by some circumstance, be an authority that they might come to in order to 'balance' the story about some kook who is claiming something outrageous.
Of course it's a sell job. They stripped the subjects (note the term is not citizen) of their rights to own the means to defend themselves so the gov. there must show they're doing something to prevent the law of the jungle from taking over totally. So now, they're on their way to a new bureaucracy of voyeurs sitting around watching TV even more boring than the day soaps in the hopes of getting to watch a bit of violence. Next, they'll have to ban spray paint cans to try to prevent the criminals from covering the lens before making their attacks - or have they done that already too.
Banning stuff is a faulty logic which fails to solve problems because it doesn't address the roots of the problem.
talking about suing patent protection into oblivion, sounds like this shyster found a new way.
Patents are a two way street. They reveal to the world the secrets or details involved in a device for the priviledge of a limited time minimal monopoly. That minimal monopoly means the owner has theright to sue for redress in court for the infringement. The benefit to society is the information is not lost and becomes available after a few years. The purpose is to eliminate the loss to civilization of information that might otherwise be protected by trade secrets - like the antikythera clockwork mechanism rediscovered in the last century to have contained 'technology' that was lost to the world for over a thousand years prior to its 'rediscovery' over the last few centuries.
Prior art invalidates a patent. Even a signed and dated lab notebook can be used to invalidate someone else's patent. This is not something that would be available to anyone else seeking a patent. When prior art research is used in a patent submission, it's normally to establish what is the new and novel Claims being made concerning this application that warrants receiving a patent.
It's up to the patent office to determine if there are any that would preclude issue. However, it's up to others who can simply ignore the patent and let the patent owner sue them - and then present the prior art as a defense for not violating a valid patent. If the patent owner fails to sue, the value of the patent is worth nothing anyway.
actually it doesn't say that. Translation comes out to 7 warm periods of time often used to indicate days. There are also gaps in the geneology. Net result - doofuses can believe it says something it doesn't and obsess all they want to about things not germane to the purpose for the book - like the snake handlers who go to extremes on something they think they are told they can do but fail to notice the specific admonish to not do what they do.
Terrorists have been known to use shaped charges in small bombs to assasinate individuals. They've also been known to pack delivery trucks full of explosives much more potent than tim mcveigh's efforts - not that he wasn't a terrorist.
The disclosure is interesting in that it's yet another tip-off from the media to the terrorists - the same sort of thing that cause us to lose track of bin laden when he stopped using his sat. phone.
>>That's a nice weaselly statement. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the current models are so errnoneous that they are incapable of performing attribution at all, disagreeing with the vast majority of validation studies in print, it's just empty rhetoric.
You'll find 2 camps on models in general. I fit into one of those camps. Hint, that's the camp that doesn't think models produce anything beyond what is put into them. They beat doing calculations by slide rule, but then so does using a pocket calculator.
>> Magnetic field strength is not the same thing as solar intensity. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the climate is significantly influenced by the Sun's magnetic field (as opposed to solar intensity), this is a red herring.
Different? Ya think? Gee maybe that's why I specifically mentioned it rather than leaving it lumped in with radiance. Ever hear of the wilson cloud chamber experiments? It was early research attempting to determine factors associated with cloud formation. It's best known for the discovery of cosmic rays. It seems that while creating the basic conditions for cloud formation, wilson noticed all these freaky little streaks of condensation occurring in his experimental apparatus. Suffice to say the field is being referred to as cosmoclimatology.
>> Actually, the total radiative forcing of methane since pre-industrial times is estimated to be only 30% that of CO2 (IPCC SPM again).
Curious, isn't it. Well, I guess if you want to consider that whole total amount of methane is the equivalent effect of a little over 30% of the total effect of co2, then it's probably right. That's starting with the 1.7 or 1.9ppm of methane concentration and multiplying by how effective it is compared to co2 - about 63 times as I recall the number over about a dozen years (which is not that relevent as it's the current amount and not how much is entering the atmosphere). For shorter times that number should be a bit more. If one multiplies 1.9 by 63 to get the equivalent of co2 ppm, that comes out a bit higher than 30% of the total amount of co2. So yes, the little 'reasonableness check' I just did jives with the IPCC number.
However, the 30% of co2 appears to refer to total contributions, not to the delta contributions since the industrial revolution. It would seem that the methane contribution for the increased temperature since the industrial revolution would be equivalent to at least an equivalent of 63 ppm of co2. Note again that since the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere is about a dozen years which is about the same length of time used to compare the methane vs co2 effects are that are used to create the 63x ratio, you can expect that it is somewhat higher. Again, since we're dealing with levels rather than releases, we need the instantaneous ratio not one that permits methane to substantially decay. This 63ppm co2 equivalent increase in methane corresponds to something like the 87ppm of actual co2 increase over the same period. That's about 42% of the total of those two combined and so the methane should contribute at least 42% of increases in GHG warming contributions caused by both of these increasing molecules. As such, any increase in temperature we've experienced from ghg increases should have 42 % being the methane contribution.
Now, how much warmer has it gotten since the beginning of the industrial revolution and 1998, the point where those concentrations and increases were determined and how much did IPCC attribute in increase in temperature to the increase in methane?
>>>I'm still trying to imagine what your point is. Yes, CO2 is in its logarithmic forcing regime. This is well known. Doubling CO2 from current concentrations would add about 1 C extra warming by the end of this century, which will likely be amplified by a further 1-3 degrees due to positive feedbacks (the climate sensitivity). Your "attribution" calculations ap
>>Of course that is a ridiculous strawman position. CO2 is not in any way assumed to be the total cause of the warming. This is easy to see right in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where they show model predictions with natural, anthropogenic, and natural+anthropogenic forcings. Both manmade CO2 and natural effects are needed to explain the observed climate trends.
Did the summary include the decade long massive peat/coal fire in indonesia outputting about as much co2 as mankind?
Models that don't include factors properly or fully are just another form of video games. Without perfect understanding, they cannot be made or verified. Were there perfect understanding, a modeling program might provide some assistance in analysis but not so much in understanding. There, one would only have to worry about truncations and roundoff errors cropping into the calculations or approximations losing their validities. In other words, at best, models are a limited value tool.
>>Yes, it has an effect, but it has been dominated by CO2 since the latter half of the 20th century, and considering our still-accelerating emissions rates, will continue to do so barring some really unusual solar behavior.
The long term magnetic field strength is up starting in the latter half of the 20th century by about 40%. This is the value or baseline that the 11 (22) yr sunspot cycle 'sits' on. Note too that there are other cycles of solar activity which are even longer and are known (and named). It is thought to have cratered significantly back in the maunder minimum at the last mini ice age or cooling period just before the industrial age - when no sunspots were recorded for about 50 yrs (in a time when daily records of sunspots were being recorded).
>>There has not actually been a huge natural release of CO2 from the oceans. For the ocean to source CO2 would require much, much larger warming over much, much longer time periods. What warming does is simply decrease the rate at which the oceans sink CO2, and even that occurs on much longer time scales (multicentury) than what are relevant to the current warming. Eventually we will see the a big ocean response if the current warming proceeds unabated, but not any time soon.
>>>>Duh. They are also known to not produce long-scale climate trends. A) it indicates cycles of ocean temperature. B) warmer oceans release some co2 even in fairly short times even if it takes much longer time frames to release large amounts of it C) nothing was said about it producing or being caused by climate trends.
>>That makes no sense whatsoever. CO2 has not in any way "run its course", and the amount of CO2 increase over pre-industrial levels is easily capable of producing the observed warming trend, according to the aforementioned logarithmic relation. Furthermore, the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, relative to other GHGs, is irrelevant when considering the amount of warming: what matters to the change in temperature is the change in GHGs, and the change in CO2 has overwhelmed the change in any other greenhouse gas as far as global warming potential is concerned, including methane.
Methane is attributed to 20% of ghg effects with under 2ppm and is estimated to have increased by 150% since the 1700s (wikipedia article on methane). Since methane is far more potent than Co2, this effect has been greater than the equivalent of about 63ppm of co2 which would be above and beyond the actual co2 increases. Thats 2/3 again as much as the estimated Co2 increase since the 1700s. Co2 has 383ppm and is estimated to have increases under 38% since the 1700s. Due to overlaps in IR bands with methane and h2o vapor, contributions of co2 amounts to about 10%-12% of the 33 deg C or so of actual ghg contribution to earth's estimated temperature. Of course with no water vapor or methane in the atmosphere, it would contribute more, but then there is water vapor and methane in the atmosphere so it doesn't contribute mor
>If you're implying that the GW models have fudge factors in them to accomodate more warming than CO2 can provide, that's false.
What I'm implying is that co2 is being assumed to be the total cause of the warming when it is not, creating a built in fudge factor right off the bat. Considering that co2 is well into its logrithmic range and that it's total contribution amounts to only 3-4 deg C out of the 30-35 deg C total contributions of all GHGs, it's pretty well run it's course because it really doesn't matter that much whether most of the radiated energy within the absorption bands is absorbed in 30 feet or 15 feet. On the other hand, methane levels have increased by 150% rather than the almost 50% of co2 and it is a vastly far more potent GHG when talking levels and is still substantially more potent over the lifespan of the co2 in the atmosphere despite despite the much shorter time spent there (but that doesn't matter when talking of current concentrations). Also, the few tenths of a percent of solar luminance variability has an effect and so does the variability of the magnetic field as it indirectly affects cloud cover which is far more potent than co2 and methane combined. And, we haven't even gotten to the part about atmospheric mixing (which is the reason why you don't see the atmospheric temperatures rising as predicted) nor the precipitation which is also quite a serious factor.
If you haven't noticed, el nino and la nina are large scale regional ocean temperature variations first discovered several hundred years ago and hence, are known to be natural occurances - predating the industrial age. This is a variation of ocean temperature, one of which is a warmer ocean over a rather large region, implying a huge natural release of co2. However, the direct variation of co2 concentrations in ocean water are dependent both on temperature and on co2 concentrations in the atmosphere above the water (as well as pH).
>>That's because the temperature increase decreases the ocean's ability to sink CO2 on long time scales. On long time scales, we will see an increase of natural CO2 as well due to our current warming, for the same reason. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 we are emitting is causing the current warming.
As I provided information above indicating other potential causes, it turns out that anthropogenic co2 warming being the cause is not something that is proven and there are other factors contributing which are not being properly considered. Consequently, it's not a proven fact, it is an assumption, substantially based upon a supposed lack of other alternatives. Since all are contributing factors to some extent or another, to lump them all into the co2 category means that co2 has been skewed and is being attributed to having more influence than it actually does. There are questions as to whether it even has a significantly measureable effect, much less a dominant effect on the temperature rise seen so far.
>>If you're implying that scientists have claimed that there is an increase in tropical storms merely by adding subtropical storms into the list, that's also false.
It's also not what I said. Scientists do research. They don't do the newscasts and they don't make decisions concerning naming storms. That was a decision made by politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of any prior training they might have had.
Amazing synopsis. No public examples of failures to get a wire tap.... Does that mean the investigations are still ongoing but stalled and releasing the information would generate a tip off to the terrorist? Or, does it mean that all the excess paperwork required by field agents and bureaucratic lawyers has backlogged them and delayed them in getting around to submitting additional requests that might be less likely to get through the approval process?
I think it might be #2. We must have a shortage of lawyers in the land.
Coral reefs only occur in cold climates so they'll obviously be a lower benefit (or a negative one).
Of course the GW theories and models are highly skewed to the upper end so if warming occurs in excess of what co2 is capable of providing, it's an instant out for the doom and gloom crowd. And, if there is an increase going, there is reason to think it's not being generated by the increase in co2 as that tends to follow climate changes on the historical record.
However, the pop. press seem to have exagerated this excess by a yet more of an extreme amount. That it is a political agenda should not be in doubt by anyone paying attention. The most recent example of this is the use of the subtropical storm occuring several weeks before hurricane season.
It seems that subtropical storms are caused by cold air over normal temperature ocean, not warm air or unusually warm ocean - which would, if anything, be an argument for a coming ice age and global cooling. However, being one of 17 named storms over the previous 50 yrs doesn't exactly put it as being a first or even being unusual in the realm of weather. But, the real kicker is that the rules of the game were changed within the last 5 years because that is when they started naming subtropical storms. Hence, there were never any named subtropical storms prior to that.
Political parties are groups of people who band together to promote a common political agenda. Note the vast majority of these are fairly normal people with more time to spend helping get someone elected than having money to contribute. Most are doing so to perform what they consider is their civic duty to the country. Some are involved for their own future political careers while others are involved for their own self interests.
There are quite a few factors that have changed over the years that have reduced the influence of political parties, which is to say - reduced the influence of large numbers of voters attempting to select and support the best candidates as they see it.
The more political parties as democratic organizations lose their power as a group over who gets nominated, the more the party bosses and politicians and big donors gain control. Open primaries is one example, just stuff the ballot boxes with votes from whoever one can get in to go vote, for money or other reasons, the less control the parties have and the more control the party bosses have.
Parties create platforms, but candidates could just as well hold opposite views to everything in that platform and refuse to abide by any of them. In many cases now, it no longer matters what the party members desire, they're stuck with the candidates dictated by the popular media an party bosses.
What's more, over the last few years, one party faction has been consolidating and throwing out others, at least at the politician level. It seems now, that elected officials are being required to go in front of the cameras and flat out lie about circumstances locally in order to keep the national party happy. Example in point - the KS tornado that killed about 10 people last week. The gov. of KS was virtually forced (heavily coerced by party bosses) to promote that party's nationally oriented political agenda and had to flat out lie to do so. This was in regards to not getting help from the federal government - something that must be specifically requested by law - and something that doesn't happen until local resources are tapped as specified by law. Also, stated was that the national guard and their equipment in the state was all in iraq - a blatant lie with the vast majority not deployed anywhere with far more available than could possibly be deployed to a town of only a few thousand. If there was a shortage of emergency workers, it was because they kept out too many volunteers as they attempted to keep gawkers, looters and criminals out.
As for the FL thing, it's stalinism on the march. Who cares what the FL primary (in this case democrat) voters think or want, the party bosses have decided they're going to decide who represents FL in the convention. It sort of sounds like the clintons are worried that obama is making too much headway down there - or whatever the relations between party bosses and politicos are at present.
Next, they'll be deciding who's going to be president without the waste of time and effort of having a vote to see if any desires their candidate or not. Either that, or there'll be votes with 99% turnout and majorities of 100% and those who don't vote for the right candidate, starve to death.
Twenty years ago, the notion of a 1 meter resolution private satellite sent the intellegence community into a tizzy. Once upon a time people often had to die to get that sort of intel.
Actually, at 39c/kwh for peak costs, they're starting to sound better. That's 3x what we pay for a kwh, anytime of the day or night. With tax rebates paying lots of the costs, it's no wonder some are considering and even doing such a thing.
Adding the batteries would make efficiencies much lower and increase initial and maintenance costs substantially.
Perhaps with a factor of 10 reduction in photovoltaics costs, they'll be quite resonable to implement.
1938 was an interesting year. AIP has an online index and reprints. It seems that Bethe and Alfven published serious work along with Feynman (not collaborative), including the CNO cycle of 2ndary solar fusion - a scant 8 yrs after the discovery of the neutron and the fission of U238/235.
As for this, it looks like there is now a reproduceable way for verifying nuclear reactions going on, something that pons and fleichman had serious trouble with but considering that D and Pd are being used, pehaps indicates they were on some sort of track not too far from success (of verifying a reaction). Another navy supported fusion project is that one with the vacuum tube and funny name - that evidently in some incarnation reached the point of being a commercial neutron generator.
I'm not sure either of these have been thought to have produced measureable energy, nevermind the notion of starting towards break- even. Whether they are 5 months or 5 centuries away (if ever) from useful products, perhaps the releasing of the information is intended to try to reduce that time by a de facto 'contest' like the x-prize - without the commitment to providing money.
Actually, that seems to be the beginnings of being done for particular projects. Offer a contest prize not worth the cost of hiring something done, then give the "prestigeous" award to the winner and claim the work product done along with that of the runners up. Heck, the odds are all of the efforts are better than one would have with a hired hand as well as cheaper.
As for NASA and the bureaucrats, outdoing them usually isn't that big a deal. Fortunately for the space pen (pump up ball point) it made for a nice $20 (?) souvenir at the JSC in Clear Lake TX. Flight crews decided the Bic (???) Flair - felt tip pen worked better in 0 g and was even easier to read than ball point pen due to its bolder ink lines. At the time, I think it was something like 29 cents or 79 cents each - a bit more than the 19 cent bic ballpoint.
I don't think they're quite that kooky. It seems their arguments are that EM dominates the forces in the universe rather than gravity, not some nitwitt notion that fusion doesn't occur because nikolai tesla proved the sun is a van de graaf generator or other such nonsense.
Halton Arp may have what seems like a kooky idea, but Halton Arp is not a kook. Hans Alfven might have had an erroneous idea, but then so did Einstein with his cosmological constant. In Einstein's case, the question now is whether the error was introducing the cosmological constant in the first place or getting rid of the cosmological constant as a bunch of hooey afterwards.
40 pages is well beyond the 1 to 3 pages of claptrap I tended to encounter as a grad student back when the internet was called the ARPA net and was rather small and brand new and before the advent of the personal or home computer. Seems the the electromagnet baseball invention was all the rage back then. I guess with the advent of the pc and the internet, it's easier for kooks to assemble longer diatribes.
As for the people pushing the electric universe stuff at the top level, they're not the usual kookburger types. Perhaps they are exploiting it for money or have drawn a following in that realm or perhaps not.
It's not presently considered mainstream by any stretch of the imagination, but then the steady state theory of the universe was considered to be at one time and later replaced by the big bang - which seems to be around it's 7th life (out of the usual 9 lives one attributes to cats) and I'm not sure if it's really a bang anymore. Maybe it's a "whoops there it tis" sort of a 10^-40 second proposition of spacial expansion.
Evidently, the IEEE has embraced the notion and it seems to be coming from some laboratory plasma engineering types. And, I don't seem them talking about how it was first discovered in atlantis or causing the bermuda triangle.
When I was a grad student in astronomy and space physics, ball lightning was right up there with space aliens. Sprites and jets (named later) were right up there with flying saucers and those pilots who saw them generally kept their mouths shut because reporting such phenomenon was not considered much different than reporting that ET waved through the portal as the ufo flew by.
Moral of the story. One should be sketical about the electric universe. One should also be almost as sketical about the mainstream ideas you are currently studying as one should be about the electric universe. While it's best not to bet on things, I'd place the odds on that neither are totally correct and that neither are totally wrong. After all, it's not like this electric universe stuff is as kooky as inventing exotic dark matter and energy to add more bandaids to a problem - which is essentially modern mainstream, hanging by a handful of tenuous threads based upon assumptions of the nature of a handful of type Ia supernovae.
That doesn't imply I plan on going out and buying one of those electric universe books to read, at least anytime this year. However, if Arp provides some unrefuted evidence on his musings, there's always next year....
You're right about the gov. being mostly to blame, but not totally as presented.
The gov. overregulated. It cost shifted, including expenses from illegal aliens as well as from medicare patients. It then permitted the out of control trial lawyer brigade to do a full rape and pillage of the industry. Now, every doc does defensive medicine. Every doc has to work overtime to pay malpractice insurance in case a patient gets their head caught in the entrance doorway. Every component of every technological device has to have extra costs associated with defense from the legal onslaught of junk lawsuits.
Insurance, in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's a sharing of risk pool. It's not about getting steak and getting burgers, it's about minimizing personal risk as a trade off of extra cost. No one wants to utilize insurance for a serious illness - Hey I wanna heart lung bypass to maximize my bennie - and btw, since my heart and lungs are in perfect shape you can donate them to charity --- lot's o luck finding some dolt with that mentality. Insurance combined with politicians becomes a problem . insurance paid for by other than the recipient - that becomes a problem. The more costs - the more insurers can charge customers and the less efficient med facilities like hospitals can become - making it more important for everyone to have insurance. It's a bad situation now.
Pick a card, any card, every cards a winner. welcome to the darwin awards casino.
Bigger actions cause bigger consequences and that includes serious unintended consequences. We're still way too tiny and insignificant to have a serious intentionaly effect but it's happened before that we are able to negatively influence things - not through our power or control but through actions creating situations beyond our control. - like introducing foreign species into an environment with no natural predators.
inside of a microwave oven is about 1000 watts of rf power tuned to a rotational mode of liquid water. There's nothing magic about it. If you put a thousand watts of power into a fly or into a baked potato, they're going to cook rather fast. The difference between a toaster oven and a microwave is that this energy permeates the potato and doesn't heat up the rest of the oven in a microwave and goes to heating the outside of the potato and the inside of the oven in a toaster oven.
The cellphone not only isn't at the right frequency to be absorbed by liquid water, it's miniscule compared to the power of an oven or even a lightbulb.
They're still here, all over the place, lurking in wait for the unwary lawn mower or the foolish rover trying to fetch a stick. There are a few people every year severely injured or killed by them.
It's just that killer bees like the population bomb and ddt and global cooling and and all the rest of other products of the alarmist industry fear mongers were just overblown to levels beyond what hollywood was handle well.
It's a plot by halliburton and the other big pharemeceutical industry empires to generate more sales of headache remedies and snake oil sales. Stressing out bees may or may not make them more susceptable to fungus, but stressing out adults and children will increase their susceptibility to disease.
Sorry you never figured out the politics of personal destruction was a patented modus operandai of the clintons, now taken on by the democrat party in large measure. It's the sorta stuff that makes nixon look like a really nice guy.
Gee whiz there. Didn't you know that this isolist nation sent its virtually its whole airforce to iran at the time of gulf war one? Despite having been in a costly war with them? Didn't you know that sadam was a bathist - like the syrian gov.? These are islamics - they may fight to kill each other day after day, but when it comes to an outsider, they'll ban together to kill them first.
Bush was known not to be a conservative before running for governor. He was just way ahead of anything the dems had to offer and unfortunately anything the repubs had to either. Ever hear that little weasal term - compassionate conservative? It's something invented by someone who doesn't even understand what conservatism is - ie by someone who is probably a compassion fascist.
So since these 'mythical' weapons that they killed all those kurds with were miraculously destroyed by sadam later despite his refusal to allow UN inspectors in to verify. And, with 5% of the captured iraquis paperwork translated, it's pronounced that world wide intellegence sources including the cia were all 100% wrong and there were never any. Please note too that while the dems harped on wmds before the invasion and more and more afterward, it was only one of several reasons promoted by bush in his statements while another was throwing out the inspectors. As for transport, he had 18 months and the resources of a country to move stuff around.
Concerning yellow cake uranium, he had some. I remember watching a somewhat upset reporter concerned over the looters in the background who were stealing barrels - barrels that were holding yellowcake that the looters were dumping out on the sand in order to steal the barrels. It's a scene I never saw repeated on the media later.
You seem to be confusing vidiot games with reality there. When there's only two or three companies capable of the job and only one in the US, is that really that necessary to ask for bids from the french.
First things first. T. Jefferson should be impeached posthumouslyfor going after the barbary pirates.
I'm truly amazed at the orwellian society we now live in - or was that the huxely society of brave new world where 17,000 repetitions make one truth.
the clinton policy of personal destruction has been presented by the dems and amplified by the media ever since bush won the election. Bush was naive enough to think that dems in DC were like dems in TX and could be reasoned with and worked with in cooperation to better the situations of the country. Not being a true conservative with rightwing principles, this was easy for bush to try to do. However, the response of the powerhungry, greedy and corrupt dems bent on getting their power back by any means and at any cost to the country and to the world was even more an unexpected shock than the sadam strategy of not putting up a fight to drag the US into an extended war which has proven to be a losing proposition for the US because of a vocal minority in the US.
The snails pace rush to war permitted evacuation of wmds and sequestering of weapons over the ensuing year. It's hard to say whether sadam would have ever guessed that the bird mimic of 'polly wanna cracker' would ever be duplicated in humans with the 'there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in iraq' or whether it was part of his propaganda plan. I doubt we'll ever know.
As for now, the dems are back trying to duplicate the magic of watergate where the atty general was taken out, the vp was taken out and then the president was gone after, having little support in his own party from a bunch of squish nothing political hacks infesting the senate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, the NHC forecast another good year for them, a bit above average. It's getting so bad it's starting to resemble the mid 20th century. After 2006 turned out to be such a bummer. If we actually get hit with a category 1 over in VA during 2007, it'll be the worst hurricane ever and the worst hurricane season every.
From a practical consideration, the difference between a good hurricane season and a bad hurricane season is whether a category 3+ hurricane came to a neighborhood near you - or not. Unless you live on a barrier island where there really aren't such things as a good hurricane season.
Well, if you make a statement (pick any statement about the existance of something somewhere else that's inaccessible), and you essentially cannot disprove it. I can make the statement that in town there is an aardvark sitting in the park over next to a lark. And, you cannot disprove it.
Primarily, RF safety is concerned with heating effects on the human body. It's exactly the sort of effect you see going on in your microwave oven. As such, it requires a fair amount of RF energy to accomplish the task. In fact, it requires that about the same amount of energy put into lunch as it would for the lunch to have been put in a regular oven. The difference in how much total energy was used is all about the conventional oven itself getting rather hot with the wasted energy and the longer time due to the fact that the RF energy went throughout the lunch heating all simultaneously while the
heat in the conventional oven started from the outside and slowly traveled inward.
There are some (just like there are those who believe in ufo abductions and ET created crop circles) who think that the magnetic fields changing can have some molecular effects that might damage dna or whatever. Of course there's a magnetic field on earth and it's going to 'change' every time you turn around or move. There are also cosmic rays and natural radiation which will cause the sort of damage and it is occurring at a rate of 100s of times per second, day in and day out. And the people living in denver get a double whammy out of it being around all that granite rock and being over 5000 ft above sea level. I've never seen a warning sign on their city limit signs or tourist brochures telling people to limit their stays or keep out due to any serious danger.
It's quite doubtful that there is any serious effects from low level RF that would rise to the equivalence of either of these radiation sources and if there were, it'd be masked by the effects. Also, since the magnetic field decreases linearly with the distance from the antenna (and the power with the square of the distance) some separation between person and transmitting device would reduce the risk. That means even if a cell phone was actually dangerous to use more than a limited amount of time - with it stuck right in your ear, the same sort of device would have much less effect were it further away - and a cellphone tends to put out much more power than the usual little wireless connect which is intended for a couple of hundred feet versus many thousands of feet needed to reach the nearest cell tower.
However, if you want to be on the nightly newscast, you need to say or do something fairly outrageous or by some circumstance, be an authority that they might come to in order to 'balance' the story about some kook who is claiming something outrageous.
Of course it's a sell job. They stripped the subjects (note the term is not citizen) of their rights to own the means to defend themselves so the gov. there must show they're doing something to prevent the law of the jungle from taking over totally. So now, they're on their way to a new bureaucracy of voyeurs sitting around watching TV even more boring than the day soaps in the hopes of getting to watch a bit of violence. Next, they'll have to ban spray paint cans to try to prevent the criminals from covering the lens before making their attacks - or have they done that already too.
Banning stuff is a faulty logic which fails to solve problems because it doesn't address the roots of the problem.
talking about suing patent protection into oblivion, sounds like this shyster found a new way.
Patents are a two way street. They reveal to the world the secrets or details involved in a device for the priviledge of a limited time minimal monopoly. That minimal monopoly means the owner has theright to sue for redress in court for the infringement. The benefit to society is the information is not lost and becomes available after a few years. The purpose is to eliminate the loss to civilization of information that might otherwise be protected by trade secrets - like the antikythera clockwork mechanism rediscovered in the last century to have contained 'technology' that was lost to the world for over a thousand years prior to its 'rediscovery' over the last few centuries.
Prior art invalidates a patent. Even a signed and dated lab notebook can be used to invalidate someone else's patent. This is not something that would be available to anyone else seeking a patent. When prior art research is used in a patent submission, it's normally to establish what is the new and novel Claims being made concerning this application that warrants receiving a patent.
It's up to the patent office to determine if there are any that would preclude issue. However, it's up to others who can simply ignore the patent and let the patent owner sue them - and then present the prior art as a defense for not violating a valid patent. If the patent owner fails to sue, the value of the patent is worth nothing anyway.
actually it doesn't say that. Translation comes out to 7 warm periods of time often used to indicate days. There are also gaps in the geneology. Net result - doofuses can believe it says something it doesn't and obsess all they want to about things not germane to the purpose for the book - like the snake handlers who go to extremes on something they think they are told they can do but fail to notice the specific admonish to not do what they do.
Terrorists have been known to use shaped charges in small bombs to assasinate individuals. They've also been known to pack delivery trucks full of explosives much more potent than tim mcveigh's efforts - not that he wasn't a terrorist.
The disclosure is interesting in that it's yet another tip-off from the media to the terrorists - the same sort of thing that cause us to lose track of bin laden when he stopped using his sat. phone.
>>That's a nice weaselly statement. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the current models are so errnoneous that they are incapable of performing attribution at all, disagreeing with the vast majority of validation studies in print, it's just empty rhetoric.
You'll find 2 camps on models in general. I fit into one of those camps. Hint, that's the camp that doesn't think models produce anything beyond what is put into them. They beat doing calculations by slide rule, but then so does using a pocket calculator.
>> Magnetic field strength is not the same thing as solar intensity. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the climate is significantly influenced by the Sun's magnetic field (as opposed to solar intensity), this is a red herring.
Different? Ya think? Gee maybe that's why I specifically mentioned it rather than leaving it lumped in with radiance. Ever hear of the wilson cloud chamber experiments? It was early research attempting to determine factors associated with cloud formation. It's best known for the discovery of cosmic rays. It seems that while creating the basic conditions for cloud formation, wilson noticed all these freaky little streaks of condensation occurring in his experimental apparatus. Suffice to say the field is being referred to as cosmoclimatology.
>> Actually, the total radiative forcing of methane since pre-industrial times is estimated to be only 30% that of CO2 (IPCC SPM again).
Curious, isn't it. Well, I guess if you want to consider that whole total amount of methane is the equivalent effect of a little over 30% of the total effect of co2, then it's probably right. That's starting with the 1.7 or 1.9ppm of methane concentration and multiplying by how effective it is compared to co2 - about 63 times as I recall the number over about a dozen years (which is not that relevent as it's the current amount and not how much is entering the atmosphere). For shorter times that number should be a bit more. If one multiplies 1.9 by 63 to get the equivalent of co2 ppm, that comes out a bit higher than 30% of the total amount of co2. So yes, the little 'reasonableness check' I just did jives with the IPCC number.
However, the 30% of co2 appears to refer to total contributions, not to the delta contributions since the industrial revolution. It would seem that the methane contribution for the increased temperature since the industrial revolution would be equivalent to at least an equivalent of 63 ppm of co2. Note again that since the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere is about a dozen years which is about the same length of time used to compare the methane vs co2 effects are that are used to create the 63x ratio, you can expect that it is somewhat higher. Again, since we're dealing with levels rather than releases, we need the instantaneous ratio not one that permits methane to substantially decay. This 63ppm co2 equivalent increase in methane corresponds to something like the 87ppm of actual co2 increase over the same period. That's about 42% of the total of those two combined and so the methane should contribute at least 42% of increases in GHG warming contributions caused by both of these increasing molecules. As such, any increase in temperature we've experienced from ghg increases should have 42 % being the methane contribution.
Now, how much warmer has it gotten since the beginning of the industrial revolution and 1998, the point where those concentrations and increases were determined and how much did IPCC attribute in increase in temperature to the increase in methane?
>>>I'm still trying to imagine what your point is. Yes, CO2 is in its logarithmic forcing regime. This is well known. Doubling CO2 from current concentrations would add about 1 C extra warming by the end of this century, which will likely be amplified by a further 1-3 degrees due to positive feedbacks (the climate sensitivity). Your "attribution" calculations ap
>>Of course that is a ridiculous strawman position. CO2 is not in any way assumed to be the total cause of the warming. This is easy to see right in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where they show model predictions with natural, anthropogenic, and natural+anthropogenic forcings. Both manmade CO2 and natural effects are needed to explain the observed climate trends.
Did the summary include the decade long massive peat/coal fire in indonesia outputting about as much co2 as mankind?
Models that don't include factors properly or fully are just another form of video games. Without perfect understanding, they cannot be made or verified. Were there perfect understanding, a modeling program might provide some assistance in analysis but not so much in understanding. There, one would only have to worry about truncations and roundoff errors cropping into the calculations or approximations losing their validities. In other words, at best, models are a limited value tool.
>>Yes, it has an effect, but it has been dominated by CO2 since the latter half of the 20th century, and considering our still-accelerating emissions rates, will continue to do so barring some really unusual solar behavior.
The long term magnetic field strength is up starting in the latter half of the 20th century by about 40%. This is the value or baseline that the 11 (22) yr sunspot cycle 'sits' on. Note too that there are other cycles of solar activity which are even longer and are known (and named). It is thought to have cratered significantly back in the maunder minimum at the last mini ice age or cooling period just before the industrial age - when no sunspots were recorded for about 50 yrs (in a time when daily records of sunspots were being recorded).
>>There has not actually been a huge natural release of CO2 from the oceans. For the ocean to source CO2 would require much, much larger warming over much, much longer time periods. What warming does is simply decrease the rate at which the oceans sink CO2, and even that occurs on much longer time scales (multicentury) than what are relevant to the current warming. Eventually we will see the a big ocean response if the current warming proceeds unabated, but not any time soon.
>>>>Duh. They are also known to not produce long-scale climate trends.
A) it indicates cycles of ocean temperature.
B) warmer oceans release some co2 even in fairly short times even if it takes much longer time frames to release large amounts of it
C) nothing was said about it producing or being caused by climate trends.
>>That makes no sense whatsoever. CO2 has not in any way "run its course", and the amount of CO2 increase over pre-industrial levels is easily capable of producing the observed warming trend, according to the aforementioned logarithmic relation. Furthermore, the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, relative to other GHGs, is irrelevant when considering the amount of warming: what matters to the change in temperature is the change in GHGs, and the change in CO2 has overwhelmed the change in any other greenhouse gas as far as global warming potential is concerned, including methane.
Methane is attributed to 20% of ghg effects with under 2ppm and is estimated to have increased by 150% since the 1700s (wikipedia article on methane). Since methane is far more potent than Co2, this effect has been greater than the equivalent of about 63ppm of co2 which would be above and beyond the actual co2 increases. Thats 2/3 again as much as the estimated Co2 increase since the 1700s. Co2 has 383ppm and is estimated to have increases under 38% since the 1700s. Due to overlaps in IR bands with methane and h2o vapor, contributions of co2 amounts to about 10%-12% of the 33 deg C or so of actual ghg contribution to earth's estimated temperature. Of course with no water vapor or methane in the atmosphere, it would contribute more, but then there is water vapor and methane in the atmosphere so it doesn't contribute mor
In general, there's nothing like shortwave uV to dispose of unwanted fungii and bacteria. Unless maybe, it's the andromeda strain.
>If you're implying that the GW models have fudge factors in them to accomodate more warming than CO2 can provide, that's false.
What I'm implying is that co2 is being assumed to be the total cause of the warming when it is not, creating a built in fudge factor right off the bat. Considering that co2 is well into its logrithmic range and that it's total contribution amounts to only 3-4 deg C out of the 30-35 deg C total contributions of all GHGs, it's pretty well run it's course because it really doesn't matter that much whether most of the radiated energy within the absorption bands is absorbed in 30 feet or 15 feet. On the other hand, methane levels have increased by 150% rather than the almost 50% of co2 and it is a vastly far more potent GHG when talking levels and is still substantially more potent over the lifespan of the co2 in the atmosphere despite despite the much shorter time spent there (but that doesn't matter when talking of current concentrations). Also, the few tenths of a percent of solar luminance variability has an effect and so does the variability of the magnetic field as it indirectly affects cloud cover which is far more potent than co2 and methane combined. And, we haven't even gotten to the part about atmospheric mixing (which is the reason why you don't see the atmospheric temperatures rising as predicted) nor the precipitation which is also quite a serious factor.
If you haven't noticed, el nino and la nina are large scale regional ocean temperature variations first discovered several hundred years ago and hence, are known to be natural occurances - predating the industrial age. This is a variation of ocean temperature, one of which is a warmer ocean over a rather large region, implying a huge natural release of co2. However, the direct variation of co2 concentrations in ocean water are dependent both on temperature and on co2 concentrations in the atmosphere above the water (as well as pH).
>>That's because the temperature increase decreases the ocean's ability to sink CO2 on long time scales. On long time scales, we will see an increase of natural CO2 as well due to our current warming, for the same reason. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 we are emitting is causing the current warming.
As I provided information above indicating other potential causes, it turns out that anthropogenic co2 warming being the cause is not something that is proven and there are other factors contributing which are not being properly considered. Consequently, it's not a proven fact, it is an assumption, substantially based upon a supposed lack of other alternatives. Since all are contributing factors to some extent or another, to lump them all into the co2 category means that co2 has been skewed and is being attributed to having more influence than it actually does. There are questions as to whether it even has a significantly measureable effect, much less a dominant effect on the temperature rise seen so far.
>>If you're implying that scientists have claimed that there is an increase in tropical storms merely by adding subtropical storms into the list, that's also false.
It's also not what I said. Scientists do research. They don't do the newscasts and they don't make decisions concerning naming storms. That was a decision made by politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of any prior training they might have had.
Amazing synopsis. No public examples of failures to get a wire tap.... Does that mean the investigations are still ongoing but stalled and releasing the information would generate a tip off to the terrorist? Or, does it mean that all the excess paperwork required by field agents and bureaucratic lawyers has backlogged them and delayed them in getting around to submitting additional requests that might be less likely to get through the approval process?
I think it might be #2. We must have a shortage of lawyers in the land.
Coral reefs only occur in cold climates so they'll obviously be a lower benefit (or a negative one).
Of course the GW theories and models are highly skewed to the upper end so if warming occurs in excess of what co2 is capable of providing, it's an instant out for the doom and gloom crowd. And, if there is an increase going, there is reason to think it's not being generated by the increase in co2 as that tends to follow climate changes on the historical record.
However, the pop. press seem to have exagerated this excess by a yet more of an extreme amount. That it is a political agenda should not be in doubt by anyone paying attention. The most recent example of this is the use of the subtropical storm occuring several weeks before hurricane season.
It seems that subtropical storms are caused by cold air over normal temperature ocean, not warm air or unusually warm ocean - which would, if anything, be an argument for a coming ice age and global cooling. However, being one of 17 named storms over the previous 50 yrs doesn't exactly put it as being a first or even being unusual in the realm of weather. But, the real kicker is that the rules of the game were changed within the last 5 years because that is when they started naming subtropical storms. Hence, there were never any named subtropical storms prior to that.
Not Hardly! It's everything but that.
Political parties are groups of people who band together to promote a common political agenda. Note the vast majority of these are fairly normal people with more time to spend helping get someone elected than having money to contribute. Most are doing so to perform what they consider is their civic duty to the country. Some are involved for their own future political careers while others are involved for their own self interests.
There are quite a few factors that have changed over the years that have reduced the influence of political parties, which is to say - reduced the influence of large numbers of voters attempting to select and support the best candidates as they see it.
The more political parties as democratic organizations lose their power as a group over who gets nominated, the more the party bosses and politicians and big donors gain control. Open primaries is one example, just stuff the ballot boxes with votes from whoever one can get in to go vote, for money or other reasons, the less control the parties have and the more control the party bosses have.
Parties create platforms, but candidates could just as well hold opposite views to everything in that platform and refuse to abide by any of them. In many cases now, it no longer matters what the party members desire, they're stuck with the candidates dictated by the popular media an party bosses.
What's more, over the last few years, one party faction has been consolidating and throwing out others, at least at the politician level. It seems now, that elected officials are being required to go in front of the cameras and flat out lie about circumstances locally in order to keep the national party happy. Example in point - the KS tornado that killed about 10 people last week. The gov. of KS was virtually forced (heavily coerced by party bosses) to promote that party's nationally oriented political agenda and had to flat out lie to do so. This was in regards to not getting help from the federal government - something that must be specifically requested by law - and something that doesn't happen until local resources are tapped as specified by law. Also, stated was that the national guard and their equipment in the state was all in iraq - a blatant lie with the vast majority not deployed anywhere with far more available than could possibly be deployed to a town of only a few thousand. If there was a shortage of emergency workers, it was because they kept out too many volunteers as they attempted to keep gawkers, looters and criminals out.
As for the FL thing, it's stalinism on the march. Who cares what the FL primary (in this case democrat) voters think or want, the party bosses have decided they're going to decide who represents FL in the convention. It sort of sounds like the clintons are worried that obama is making too much headway down there - or whatever the relations between party bosses and politicos are at present.
Next, they'll be deciding who's going to be president without the waste of time and effort of having a vote to see if any desires their candidate or not. Either that, or there'll be votes with 99% turnout and majorities of 100% and those who don't vote for the right candidate, starve to death.
Twenty years ago, the notion of a 1 meter resolution private satellite sent the intellegence community into a tizzy. Once upon a time people often had to die to get that sort of intel.
Actually, at 39c/kwh for peak costs, they're starting to sound better. That's 3x what we pay for a kwh, anytime of the day or night. With tax rebates paying lots of the costs, it's no wonder some are considering and even doing such a thing.
Adding the batteries would make efficiencies much lower and increase initial and maintenance costs substantially.
Perhaps with a factor of 10 reduction in photovoltaics costs, they'll be quite resonable to implement.
1938 was an interesting year. AIP has an online index and reprints. It seems that Bethe and Alfven published serious work along with Feynman (not collaborative), including the CNO cycle of 2ndary solar fusion - a scant 8 yrs after the discovery of the neutron and the fission of U238/235.
As for this, it looks like there is now a reproduceable way for verifying nuclear reactions going on, something that pons and fleichman had serious trouble with but considering that D and Pd are being used, pehaps indicates they were on some sort of track not too far from success (of verifying a reaction). Another navy supported fusion project is that one with the vacuum tube and funny name - that evidently in some incarnation reached the point of being a commercial neutron generator.
I'm not sure either of these have been thought to have produced measureable energy, nevermind the notion of starting towards break-
even. Whether they are 5 months or 5 centuries away (if ever) from useful products, perhaps the releasing of the information is intended to try to reduce that time by a de facto 'contest' like the x-prize - without the commitment to providing money.
Actually, that seems to be the beginnings of being done for particular projects. Offer a contest prize not worth the cost of hiring something done, then give the "prestigeous" award to the winner and claim the work product done along with that of the runners up. Heck, the odds are all of the efforts are better than one would have with a hired hand as well as cheaper.
As for NASA and the bureaucrats, outdoing them usually isn't that big a deal. Fortunately for the space pen (pump up ball point) it made for a nice $20 (?) souvenir at the JSC in Clear Lake TX. Flight crews decided the Bic (???) Flair - felt tip pen worked better in 0 g and was even easier to read than ball point pen due to its bolder ink lines. At the time, I think it was something like 29 cents or 79 cents each - a bit more than the 19 cent bic ballpoint.
I don't think they're quite that kooky. It seems their arguments are that EM dominates the forces in the universe rather than gravity, not some nitwitt notion that fusion doesn't occur because nikolai tesla proved the sun is a van de graaf generator or other such nonsense.
Halton Arp may have what seems like a kooky idea, but Halton Arp is not a kook. Hans Alfven might have had an erroneous idea, but then so did Einstein with his cosmological constant. In Einstein's case, the question now is whether the error was introducing the cosmological constant in the first place or getting rid of the cosmological constant as a bunch of hooey afterwards.
40 pages is well beyond the 1 to 3 pages of claptrap I tended to encounter as a grad student back when the internet was called the ARPA net and was rather small and brand new and before the advent of the personal or home computer. Seems the the electromagnet baseball invention was all the rage back then. I guess with the advent of the pc and the internet, it's easier for kooks to assemble longer diatribes.
As for the people pushing the electric universe stuff at the top level, they're not the usual kookburger types. Perhaps they are exploiting it for money or have drawn a following in that realm or perhaps not.
It's not presently considered mainstream by any stretch of the imagination, but then the steady state theory of the universe was considered to be at one time and later replaced by the big bang - which seems to be around it's 7th life (out of the usual 9 lives one attributes to cats) and I'm not sure if it's really a bang anymore. Maybe it's a "whoops there it tis" sort of a 10^-40 second proposition of spacial expansion.
Evidently, the IEEE has embraced the notion and it seems to be coming from some laboratory plasma engineering types. And, I don't seem them talking about how it was first discovered in atlantis or causing the bermuda triangle.
When I was a grad student in astronomy and space physics, ball lightning was right up there with space aliens. Sprites and jets (named later) were right up there with flying saucers and those pilots who saw them generally kept their mouths shut because reporting such phenomenon was not considered much different than reporting that ET waved through the portal as the ufo flew by.
Moral of the story. One should be sketical about the electric universe. One should also be almost as sketical about the mainstream ideas you are currently studying as one should be about the electric universe. While it's best not to bet on things, I'd place the odds on that neither are totally correct and that neither are totally wrong. After all, it's not like this electric universe stuff is as kooky as inventing exotic dark matter and energy to add more bandaids to a problem - which is essentially modern mainstream, hanging by a handful of tenuous threads based upon assumptions of the nature of a handful of type Ia supernovae.
That doesn't imply I plan on going out and buying one of those electric universe books to read, at least anytime this year. However, if Arp provides some unrefuted evidence on his musings, there's always next year....
You're right about the gov. being mostly to blame, but not totally as presented.
The gov. overregulated. It cost shifted, including expenses from illegal aliens as well as from medicare patients. It then permitted the out of control trial lawyer brigade to do a full rape and pillage of the industry. Now, every doc does defensive medicine. Every doc has to work overtime to pay malpractice insurance in case a patient gets their head caught in the entrance doorway. Every component of every technological device has to have extra costs associated with defense from the legal onslaught of junk lawsuits.
Insurance, in and of itself is not a bad thing. It's a sharing of risk pool. It's not about getting steak and getting burgers, it's about minimizing personal risk as a trade off of extra cost. No one wants to utilize insurance for a serious illness - Hey I wanna heart lung bypass to maximize my bennie - and btw, since my heart and lungs are in perfect shape you can donate them to charity --- lot's o luck finding some dolt with that mentality. Insurance combined with politicians becomes a problem . insurance paid for by other than the recipient - that becomes a problem. The more costs - the more insurers can charge customers and the less efficient med facilities like hospitals can become - making it more important for everyone to have insurance. It's a bad situation now.
Pick a card, any card, every cards a winner. welcome to the darwin awards casino.
Bigger actions cause bigger consequences and that includes serious unintended consequences. We're still way too tiny and insignificant to have a serious intentionaly effect but it's happened before that we are able to negatively influence things - not through our power or control but through actions creating situations beyond our control. - like introducing foreign species into an environment with no natural predators.
inside of a microwave oven is about 1000 watts of rf power tuned to a rotational mode of liquid water. There's nothing magic about it. If you put a thousand watts of power into a fly or into a baked potato, they're going to cook rather fast. The difference between a toaster oven and a microwave is that this energy permeates the potato and doesn't heat up the rest of the oven in a microwave and goes to heating the outside of the potato and the inside of the oven in a toaster oven.
The cellphone not only isn't at the right frequency to be absorbed by liquid water, it's miniscule compared to the power of an oven or even a lightbulb.
Naw,
They're still here, all over the place, lurking in wait for the unwary lawn mower or the foolish rover trying to fetch a stick. There are a few people every year severely injured or killed by them.
It's just that killer bees like the population bomb and ddt and global cooling and and all the rest of other products of the alarmist industry fear mongers were just overblown to levels beyond what hollywood was handle well.
It's a plot by halliburton and the other big pharemeceutical industry empires to generate more sales of headache remedies and snake oil sales. Stressing out bees may or may not make them more susceptable to fungus, but stressing out adults and children will increase their susceptibility to disease.
Sorry you never figured out the politics of personal destruction was a patented modus operandai of the clintons, now taken on by the democrat party in large measure. It's the sorta stuff that makes nixon look like a really nice guy.
Gee whiz there. Didn't you know that this isolist nation sent its virtually its whole airforce to iran at the time of gulf war one? Despite having been in a costly war with them? Didn't you know that sadam was a bathist - like the syrian gov.? These are islamics - they may fight to kill each other day after day, but when it comes to an outsider, they'll ban together to kill them first.
Bush was known not to be a conservative before running for governor. He was just way ahead of anything the dems had to offer and unfortunately anything the repubs had to either. Ever hear that little weasal term - compassionate conservative? It's something invented by someone who doesn't even understand what conservatism is - ie by someone who is probably a compassion fascist.
So since these 'mythical' weapons that they killed all those kurds with were miraculously destroyed by sadam later despite his refusal to allow UN inspectors in to verify. And, with 5% of the captured iraquis paperwork translated, it's pronounced that world wide intellegence sources including the cia were all 100% wrong and there were never any. Please note too that while the dems harped on wmds before the invasion and more and more afterward, it was only one of several reasons promoted by bush in his statements while another was throwing out the inspectors. As for transport, he had 18 months and the resources of a country to move stuff around.
Concerning yellow cake uranium, he had some. I remember watching a somewhat upset reporter concerned over the looters in the background who were stealing barrels - barrels that were holding yellowcake that the looters were dumping out on the sand in order to steal the barrels. It's a scene I never saw repeated on the media later.
You seem to be confusing vidiot games with reality there. When there's only two or three companies capable of the job and only one in the US, is that really that necessary to ask for bids from the french.
First things first. T. Jefferson should be impeached posthumouslyfor going after the barbary pirates.
I'm truly amazed at the orwellian society we now live in - or was that the huxely society of brave new world where 17,000 repetitions make one truth.
the clinton policy of personal destruction has been presented by the dems and amplified by the media ever since bush won the election. Bush was naive enough to think that dems in DC were like dems in TX and could be reasoned with and worked with in cooperation to better the situations of the country. Not being a true conservative with rightwing principles, this was easy for bush to try to do. However, the response of the powerhungry, greedy and corrupt dems bent on getting their power back by any means and at any cost to the country and to the world was even more an unexpected shock than the sadam strategy of not putting up a fight to drag the US into an extended war which has proven to be a losing proposition for the US because of a vocal minority in the US.
The snails pace rush to war permitted evacuation of wmds and sequestering of weapons over the ensuing year. It's hard to say whether sadam would have ever guessed that the bird mimic of 'polly wanna cracker' would ever be duplicated in humans with the 'there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in iraq' or whether it was part of his propaganda plan. I doubt we'll ever know.
As for now, the dems are back trying to duplicate the magic of watergate where the atty general was taken out, the vp was taken out and then the president was gone after, having little support in his own party from a bunch of squish nothing political hacks infesting the senate.
Dennis the meanace is the bi-polar opposite of delay and gingrinch.
We don't need the likes of him to turn the whole US into a jonestown tragedy.