Desalination, It can be done for $10/month per person, which is quite affordable. Texas (and California) have massive coastlines with an essentially infinite supply of water - just an excess of salt.
Texas, like California, does NOT have a lack of water problem. It has an overabundance of water - which is contaminated with a high level of salt. A nuclear reactor next to a massive RO plant would provide Texas (and California) with all the fresh water it could ever want, at extremely competitive costs (a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics">around $10/month per person).
Well, the Green River Formation shale oil alone is around 3 trillion barrels, meaning we could feed the petroleum needs of the entire US off the Green River shale oil alone, and export the other 8-9 million barrels a day we produce, for the next 270+ years.
It took the better part of a decade to get the EPA to decide the pipeline is acceptable; I'd hate to see how long it took to approve construction of a new refinery.
The bigger issue is that the pipeline is being built by a private corporation (TransCanada) which will be using it to confiscate U.S. land (part of immenent domain) at the expense of the U.S. in economic development, and if something were to fail in the pipeline or be targeted, it would hurt the U.S. and the onus would be on us to repair the environmental damage.
TransCanada will NOT confiscate US land, and has ZERO ability to implement eminent domain. The localities/States that work together to implement the utility of the pipeline do have the power of eminent domain, and can use it to clear the way for the pipeline (a utility). And that does not leave TransCanada off the hook for any environmental damage from the pipeline. Ask any pipeline owner about eminent domain and their legal obligations to maintaining the pipeline and the land it uses.
My grandmother first bought it in 1948. Then my mom had it, and I inherited it 12 years ago. Still works great, nothing broken on it, original parts. Yes, the dials are faded and it's got lots of scratches, but still turns out great dough and batter. 66 years and counting!
Thank you. Now what is the confidence interval for that measurement? And what does that mean for the measurement in terms of divining a trend over the last 17 years? Essentially - as Dr. Santer states - it's in the noise. You cannot make a statement about increasing temperatures because the "trend" is buried in the noise, and we cannot find a positive signal. The actual signal could be negative to positive. Error and confidence must ALWAYS be included. Failing to do so is quite deceiving.
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists." - we're at 17 years, and we're not seeing the human caused signal. What part of that is difficult for you to comprehend? I guess the first sentence of the press release you link is too difficult to follow...
The sensible thing, of course, would be to run Linux, so in the event of another amazing display of incompetence like that (which is probably already in the pipeline), they could support an older version in-house for a tiny, tiny fraction of that cost.
This is the Federal Government we're talking about. Not only is "sensible" a negative thing, but the costs of internal maintenance of any IT project would most likely be multiples of just paying someone else for a proprietary solution. Consider the IRS is "only" paying $12 million for a year's support for its computers; doing that in-house would undoubtedly cost 4-5 times that amount and result in slower service as all requests need to be filed in triplicate with 3 different agencies, and cross-referenced with non-sequential numbers...
Why 500 years? Why not 1000? Of course, 1000 would put us back in the Medieval Warm Period, and we'd see zero warming since that time... A cooling period, but we've just swung back up to that time 1000 years ago. Maybe that's the reason 500 years was chosen?
Well, when Dr. Benjamin Santer, winner of the McArthur award because of his findings related to AGW, sets 17 years as what is needed to determine the trend, don't be surprised when we reach that timeline with no warming and then take the good Doctor at his word - there is a pause in global warming, and we only need 17 years to make that determination.
Lies. Learn the truth. The House passed a budget (under Nancy Pelosi, speaker) that President Bush promised to veto. Harry Reid - the other half of Congress - held it until President Obama was inaugurated - and then President Obama signed the budget. FY2009, by any rational mind, is laid at the footstep of President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Harry Reid.
You got FY2009 wrong - as most of the anti-Bush/pro-Obama crowd do. FY2009 was signed into law by President Obama, not President Bush. Changes your calculus somewhat, don't you think?
What was the deficit of the last fiscal year budget that President Bush signed? What was the deficit of the first fiscal year budget under President Obama?
It's a UTILITY PATENT, not a design patent. The look of the element on the screen is irrelevant, it is the function of the element that matters. And that is clearly predated by the Microsoft video. And whilst I am not a patent attorney, I do hold 25 utility - and 30 design - patents, I've been through it enough to understand the difference and what is relevant in each case. Design patent = look; utility patent = function.
California is not going broke because of businesses not paying; the State brings in about $5000 per man, woman and child (in the top 10 across the nation, per capita). Localities add even more to the revenue stream. It's not a lack of revenue, it's decades of continued excessive spending that has California in continual budget crises.
Actually it was more akin to you taking your car to the mechanic for a squeal coming from the rear passenger side tire, and being told that your driver side front blinker isn't working right.
My "denialist microquibble" was about why a politician who was asking perfectly legitimate questions about things that are in fact questionable, is being labeled stupid for doing so. Calling people stupid for asking questions is not the way science works.
That's because AGW isn't science, it's a religion. Now that we have data conflicting with the theories and models (data that exceeds the limits set by the promoters of the theories and models), the attacks will heighten - and choosing to believe empirical data over the models and theories will be dismissed as ignorant and unenlightened.
Science thrives on questioning and testing - both of which are currently eschewed by the pro-AGW acolytes. It's a religion, not science.
Slashdot Mirror
Desalination, It can be done for $10/month per person, which is quite affordable. Texas (and California) have massive coastlines with an essentially infinite supply of water - just an excess of salt.
Texas, like California, does NOT have a lack of water problem. It has an overabundance of water - which is contaminated with a high level of salt. A nuclear reactor next to a massive RO plant would provide Texas (and California) with all the fresh water it could ever want, at extremely competitive costs (a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics">around $10/month per person).
Well, the Green River Formation shale oil alone is around 3 trillion barrels, meaning we could feed the petroleum needs of the entire US off the Green River shale oil alone, and export the other 8-9 million barrels a day we produce, for the next 270+ years.
It took the better part of a decade to get the EPA to decide the pipeline is acceptable; I'd hate to see how long it took to approve construction of a new refinery.
The bigger issue is that the pipeline is being built by a private corporation (TransCanada) which will be using it to confiscate U.S. land (part of immenent domain) at the expense of the U.S. in economic development, and if something were to fail in the pipeline or be targeted, it would hurt the U.S. and the onus would be on us to repair the environmental damage.
TransCanada will NOT confiscate US land, and has ZERO ability to implement eminent domain. The localities/States that work together to implement the utility of the pipeline do have the power of eminent domain, and can use it to clear the way for the pipeline (a utility). And that does not leave TransCanada off the hook for any environmental damage from the pipeline. Ask any pipeline owner about eminent domain and their legal obligations to maintaining the pipeline and the land it uses.
My grandmother first bought it in 1948. Then my mom had it, and I inherited it 12 years ago. Still works great, nothing broken on it, original parts. Yes, the dials are faded and it's got lots of scratches, but still turns out great dough and batter. 66 years and counting!
Thank you. Now what is the confidence interval for that measurement? And what does that mean for the measurement in terms of divining a trend over the last 17 years? Essentially - as Dr. Santer states - it's in the noise. You cannot make a statement about increasing temperatures because the "trend" is buried in the noise, and we cannot find a positive signal. The actual signal could be negative to positive. Error and confidence must ALWAYS be included. Failing to do so is quite deceiving.
Can you show the record for the last 17 years, that shows an upward trend?
"In order to separate human-caused global warming from the "noise" of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists." - we're at 17 years, and we're not seeing the human caused signal. What part of that is difficult for you to comprehend? I guess the first sentence of the press release you link is too difficult to follow...
Thank you sir, for your incredibly lucid and applicable argument.
The sensible thing, of course, would be to run Linux, so in the event of another amazing display of incompetence like that (which is probably already in the pipeline), they could support an older version in-house for a tiny, tiny fraction of that cost.
This is the Federal Government we're talking about. Not only is "sensible" a negative thing, but the costs of internal maintenance of any IT project would most likely be multiples of just paying someone else for a proprietary solution. Consider the IRS is "only" paying $12 million for a year's support for its computers; doing that in-house would undoubtedly cost 4-5 times that amount and result in slower service as all requests need to be filed in triplicate with 3 different agencies, and cross-referenced with non-sequential numbers...
Why 500 years? Why not 1000? Of course, 1000 would put us back in the Medieval Warm Period, and we'd see zero warming since that time... A cooling period, but we've just swung back up to that time 1000 years ago. Maybe that's the reason 500 years was chosen?
Well, when Dr. Benjamin Santer, winner of the McArthur award because of his findings related to AGW, sets 17 years as what is needed to determine the trend, don't be surprised when we reach that timeline with no warming and then take the good Doctor at his word - there is a pause in global warming, and we only need 17 years to make that determination.
Lies. Learn the truth. The House passed a budget (under Nancy Pelosi, speaker) that President Bush promised to veto. Harry Reid - the other half of Congress - held it until President Obama was inaugurated - and then President Obama signed the budget. FY2009, by any rational mind, is laid at the footstep of President Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Harry Reid.
FY2009 was signed into law by President Obama, not President Bush. FY 2009's record-breaking $1.4 TRILLION deficit was approved by President Obama. The last Bush deficit was $453 billion, about 65% of the current FY deficit.
You got FY2009 wrong - as most of the anti-Bush/pro-Obama crowd do. FY2009 was signed into law by President Obama, not President Bush. Changes your calculus somewhat, don't you think?
What was the deficit of the last fiscal year budget that President Bush signed? What was the deficit of the first fiscal year budget under President Obama?
Those claims you make only hold up if you assign the 2009 budget to Bush. Who signed the FY 2009 budget?
It's a UTILITY PATENT, not a design patent. The look of the element on the screen is irrelevant, it is the function of the element that matters. And that is clearly predated by the Microsoft video. And whilst I am not a patent attorney, I do hold 25 utility - and 30 design - patents, I've been through it enough to understand the difference and what is relevant in each case. Design patent = look; utility patent = function.
California is not going broke because of businesses not paying; the State brings in about $5000 per man, woman and child (in the top 10 across the nation, per capita). Localities add even more to the revenue stream. It's not a lack of revenue, it's decades of continued excessive spending that has California in continual budget crises.
Wouldn't militant lesbian imply anti-shaving, thus the furry tag is redundant?
James Hansen, noted pro-AGW, ex-NASA researcher disagrees with you. The pause is real. The data we have verifies it. The models do not. Which do we believe - the models or the data?
Actually it was more akin to you taking your car to the mechanic for a squeal coming from the rear passenger side tire, and being told that your driver side front blinker isn't working right.
Here's at least one link about the models not matching reality. When data and models collide, which one should win?
My "denialist microquibble" was about why a politician who was asking perfectly legitimate questions about things that are in fact questionable, is being labeled stupid for doing so. Calling people stupid for asking questions is not the way science works.
That's because AGW isn't science, it's a religion. Now that we have data conflicting with the theories and models (data that exceeds the limits set by the promoters of the theories and models), the attacks will heighten - and choosing to believe empirical data over the models and theories will be dismissed as ignorant and unenlightened.
Science thrives on questioning and testing - both of which are currently eschewed by the pro-AGW acolytes. It's a religion, not science.