You apparently think that for this to work you have to remove ALL the water from the atmosphere. Clearly that is not the case. You just have to stop more from going in due to human activity, and remove a bit more to account for other human activities. Reflux condensers+a few extra condensers would certainly cover that. Even just a FEW reflux condensers on major plants would certainly help.
Seems to me this points toward something other than CO2 causing the warming. Something like, I don't know, water vapor, of which there is little in the Asian highlands, but plenty around the much lower areas where the glaciers are melting.
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air. For some reason they can't process the fact that water is being continuously pumped into the air, and that even though it falls back out in a few days, it is CONTINUOUSLY pumped up. Install reflux condensers (which are super cheap) on factories and automobiles and you reduce the humidity by as much as a few percent, which should easily negate the last century of warming. The best part is that it is effective instantly--no need to wait for three hundred years for the CO2 to come out on its own.
Why the fuck are you bickering over who is less free? Why don't you focus on becoming more free rather than turning on each other like two hobos fighting over a wedge of cheese for the amusement of those with power?
Stem cells and gays in the military are niche issues. Bush also wanted and got more money for health care in the form of the prescription drug benefit.
His response to the "recession" (its a depression) is exactly the same as Bush's. More money printing, more spending, more bailouts, more power for the executive. Funny that you claim that ANYTHING of Obama's pays for itself given the radical increase in debt that has occurred under his leadership.
The real point here is that politicians don't make policy anymore. They just spend whatever scraps the Fed flings to them (after giving zero interest loans to their banker buddies with zero oversight). Both parties support the Fed, therefore both parties are at fault. Get rid of both of them.
Yes, and it would have been ludicrous to think that you could create a worldwide system for travel and shipping using the Wright Bros design, yet here we are.
Even if this proves to be unworkable, it advances our knowledge. If grass clippings aren't good enough, perhaps we genetically engineer some bug to make the right mix of materials for us to give us a 5% efficient cell that costs ten cents a watt. Combine that with other advances, and maybe we get a 50% efficient cell for 1 cent a watt. Who's to say? The point is that this is a first step in a new direction. Probably not the last.
So? The first electric light bulb wasn't bright enough to light the entire world, yet here we are, lit up like the 4th of July all year long.
It is only a matter of improving efficiency. If this material is so cheap, it can be used as a paint to reduce electricity requirements by 5%. Maybe with further tweaks that can turn into 10 or 15%. No-one said this has to be the only method in use. It's just a cheap one that uses abundant materials. A proof of principle, if nothing else.
Eh? I'm pretty sure that is a reference to all these "ten commandments" statues and displays being yanked out from the front of courthouses, not the establishment of fucking state religion. All he is saying is that the Federal Government has LIMITED POWERS, and that that is NOT among them. It doesn't matter what side of the argument you fall on, it is not one to be debated in Washington, but in your state capitals. PERIOD. Same with abortion. Same with drugs, same with most everything else.
This isn't rocket science.
But hey, feel free to vote for John Jackson or Jack Johnson. Don't come crying to me when you get indefinitely detained for no reason and are tortured to death in some dark cell somewhere, which is now legal, apparently.
lol, and where EXACTLY do you think we are headed NOW?
You are trying to treat the symptoms with corporate "regulations". You need to get to the source. End the Fed, and the gravy train stops rolling, and the corporations (especially banks) must stand or fall on their own.
It's that or collapse, chaos, military rule, or any number of other nasty things that happen when governments grow too large and take on too much debt.
And if you want to know why we left the gold standard, it's simple. We spent more dollars than we had gold to back it up, so we suspended redeemability, first to our own citizens, then to foreign nations. All this overly complicated nonsense about money supply "flexibility" is just that, nonsense. Gold is money, but the government didn't want to live within its means, so they chose the path to destruction, which almost killed the country in 1980. We were saved by Volker's steel balls, raising rates to 20+% in the face of massive unemployment, bringing on the recession that was needed to clear out the excesses of the government. Killed Carter's career, and Reagan got the credit for the boom that followed, even though he took on TERRIBLE policy which has continued to this day, where we once again stand on the precipice, but this time as the world's largest debtor rather then the world's largest creditor. If we raise rates to 20+%, the nation will collapse instantly. Hell, we'd probably collapse with rates at 4%.
No, I don't think you would. I don't think you would like to see what would happen should they so much as stop extending us credit.
Look around your workstation and try to find something not made in China. Now imagine that everything that was made in China was suddenly gone. Go to the store, and all the made in China stuff is gone from there too. Think about what will happen to the prices of the remaining goods.
You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? He could think that all women should be forced to have abortions. It wouldn't matter, because he explicitly states that it ISN'T HIS CALL.
From his comments on the floor regarding that vote: "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade."
If you want privacy rights, and you think Ron Paul doesn't believe in the the right to privacy, then you'd better not vote for anyone else either, because none of them do, as we have seen, with the party in power ALWAYS moving to strip away any and all individual rights that it can get away with, and with each passing administration realizing they can get away with more and more.
I see, so Libya doesn't count, eh? Nor does Yeman, or Pakistan, or God knows how many other places we have gone into to enforce "democracy"? Fuck, nevermind the war drums they are beating for Iran.
Nice job forgetting about the prescription drug benefit. Both love buying votes with our money.
Nice job forgetting about continuing and expanding on the Bush tradition of bailing out the banks.
"Try" doesn't count. Neither does "fair". He's trying to raise taxes, and lied about who it would effect.
The two are the SAME. Both TORTURE. Both trample our civil liberties. Both start wars. Both increase spending. Both expand the powers of the executive.
If you can't see it, then you deserve what is coming.
Uhhh, yes, that would be nice, and be part of being president.
If presidents would work to get rid of the terrible policy of their predecessors rather than just piling on their own terrible policy, maybe the world would be a better place than the Orwellian bordering on Lovecraftian world we find ourselves in.
And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives. It is clear from the Church and State comment IN CONTEXT that he is talking about reducing the size of the state, allowing local institutions to take on a greater role in our lives VOLUNTARILY. He does not think that the Federal government should have any say over abortion, as that is purely a state issue. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?
He's not talking about Reagan. Reagan betrayed his values when he got into power, setting the precedent for all future Republican presidents--campain on small government, increase the size of government when you get in.
PRIOR to Reagan, however, they WERE like that. I don't know if you recall or not, but Nixon ENDED the Vietnam War. And he was a fucking crook.
But who cares? That shit is far in the past. Let's make some actual reasonable policy decisions. To do that, we are going to have to get most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans. Basically, leave Kucinich and the Pauls, and kick everyone else to the curb. Then we can start to have a reasonable conversation about the future of this country.
You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Typical.
You apparently think that for this to work you have to remove ALL the water from the atmosphere. Clearly that is not the case. You just have to stop more from going in due to human activity, and remove a bit more to account for other human activities. Reflux condensers+a few extra condensers would certainly cover that. Even just a FEW reflux condensers on major plants would certainly help.
He's saying that you should believe him automatically, or you aren't a scientolog...er, a scientist.
Seems to me this points toward something other than CO2 causing the warming. Something like, I don't know, water vapor, of which there is little in the Asian highlands, but plenty around the much lower areas where the glaciers are melting.
Even AGW people admit that water is the REAL problem, and that CO2 is just a trigger for increases in that heat-storing gas. But for some reason they seem to chafe at the idea of using condensers and other methods to remove the water from the air. For some reason they can't process the fact that water is being continuously pumped into the air, and that even though it falls back out in a few days, it is CONTINUOUSLY pumped up. Install reflux condensers (which are super cheap) on factories and automobiles and you reduce the humidity by as much as a few percent, which should easily negate the last century of warming. The best part is that it is effective instantly--no need to wait for three hundred years for the CO2 to come out on its own.
Why the fuck are you bickering over who is less free? Why don't you focus on becoming more free rather than turning on each other like two hobos fighting over a wedge of cheese for the amusement of those with power?
You're right, we don't have a right to listen to police radio. This is a police state, after all.
In a police state, police convenience and safety trump ALL other concerns.
Stem cells and gays in the military are niche issues. Bush also wanted and got more money for health care in the form of the prescription drug benefit.
His response to the "recession" (its a depression) is exactly the same as Bush's. More money printing, more spending, more bailouts, more power for the executive. Funny that you claim that ANYTHING of Obama's pays for itself given the radical increase in debt that has occurred under his leadership.
The real point here is that politicians don't make policy anymore. They just spend whatever scraps the Fed flings to them (after giving zero interest loans to their banker buddies with zero oversight). Both parties support the Fed, therefore both parties are at fault. Get rid of both of them.
Yes, and it would have been ludicrous to think that you could create a worldwide system for travel and shipping using the Wright Bros design, yet here we are.
Even if this proves to be unworkable, it advances our knowledge. If grass clippings aren't good enough, perhaps we genetically engineer some bug to make the right mix of materials for us to give us a 5% efficient cell that costs ten cents a watt. Combine that with other advances, and maybe we get a 50% efficient cell for 1 cent a watt. Who's to say? The point is that this is a first step in a new direction. Probably not the last.
Yes, and we would have needed an airport every 50 meters if the plane built by the Wright Bros was really the best that could ever be built.
The first step is rarely the last one.
So? The first electric light bulb wasn't bright enough to light the entire world, yet here we are, lit up like the 4th of July all year long.
It is only a matter of improving efficiency. If this material is so cheap, it can be used as a paint to reduce electricity requirements by 5%. Maybe with further tweaks that can turn into 10 or 15%. No-one said this has to be the only method in use. It's just a cheap one that uses abundant materials. A proof of principle, if nothing else.
Awesome, so you want to bring the standard of living down to somewhere around Central American levels, where people can only afford what they "need".
You should join the Mitt Romney campaign.
Eh? I'm pretty sure that is a reference to all these "ten commandments" statues and displays being yanked out from the front of courthouses, not the establishment of fucking state religion. All he is saying is that the Federal Government has LIMITED POWERS, and that that is NOT among them. It doesn't matter what side of the argument you fall on, it is not one to be debated in Washington, but in your state capitals. PERIOD. Same with abortion. Same with drugs, same with most everything else.
This isn't rocket science.
But hey, feel free to vote for John Jackson or Jack Johnson. Don't come crying to me when you get indefinitely detained for no reason and are tortured to death in some dark cell somewhere, which is now legal, apparently.
Wow, you really must hate poor people, having fantasies of raising prices on the things they need.
lol, and where EXACTLY do you think we are headed NOW?
You are trying to treat the symptoms with corporate "regulations". You need to get to the source. End the Fed, and the gravy train stops rolling, and the corporations (especially banks) must stand or fall on their own.
It's that or collapse, chaos, military rule, or any number of other nasty things that happen when governments grow too large and take on too much debt.
And if you want to know why we left the gold standard, it's simple. We spent more dollars than we had gold to back it up, so we suspended redeemability, first to our own citizens, then to foreign nations. All this overly complicated nonsense about money supply "flexibility" is just that, nonsense. Gold is money, but the government didn't want to live within its means, so they chose the path to destruction, which almost killed the country in 1980. We were saved by Volker's steel balls, raising rates to 20+% in the face of massive unemployment, bringing on the recession that was needed to clear out the excesses of the government. Killed Carter's career, and Reagan got the credit for the boom that followed, even though he took on TERRIBLE policy which has continued to this day, where we once again stand on the precipice, but this time as the world's largest debtor rather then the world's largest creditor. If we raise rates to 20+%, the nation will collapse instantly. Hell, we'd probably collapse with rates at 4%.
Ok, enjoy your indefinite detention without a trial then.
That sounds like a neat experiment. I have no idea how sound would propagate through graphene in any direction.
No, I don't think you would. I don't think you would like to see what would happen should they so much as stop extending us credit.
Look around your workstation and try to find something not made in China. Now imagine that everything that was made in China was suddenly gone. Go to the store, and all the made in China stuff is gone from there too. Think about what will happen to the prices of the remaining goods.
You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? He could think that all women should be forced to have abortions. It wouldn't matter, because he explicitly states that it ISN'T HIS CALL.
From his comments on the floor regarding that vote: "The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade."
If you want privacy rights, and you think Ron Paul doesn't believe in the the right to privacy, then you'd better not vote for anyone else either, because none of them do, as we have seen, with the party in power ALWAYS moving to strip away any and all individual rights that it can get away with, and with each passing administration realizing they can get away with more and more.
Why not? Obama invaded Libya and is trying his best to justify invading Iran. Clinton invaded plenty of nations to further his own goals.
You need to stop lying to yourself.
I see, so Libya doesn't count, eh? Nor does Yeman, or Pakistan, or God knows how many other places we have gone into to enforce "democracy"? Fuck, nevermind the war drums they are beating for Iran.
Nice job forgetting about the prescription drug benefit. Both love buying votes with our money.
Nice job forgetting about continuing and expanding on the Bush tradition of bailing out the banks.
"Try" doesn't count. Neither does "fair". He's trying to raise taxes, and lied about who it would effect.
The two are the SAME. Both TORTURE. Both trample our civil liberties. Both start wars. Both increase spending. Both expand the powers of the executive.
If you can't see it, then you deserve what is coming.
Name three significant policy differences between Bush and Obama.
Keep in mind that Bush expanded health care under the prescription drug benefit.
You are part of the problem.
Uhhh, yes, that would be nice, and be part of being president.
If presidents would work to get rid of the terrible policy of their predecessors rather than just piling on their own terrible policy, maybe the world would be a better place than the Orwellian bordering on Lovecraftian world we find ourselves in.
And yet he thinks that his personal religious views should have no impact on anyone else's lives. It is clear from the Church and State comment IN CONTEXT that he is talking about reducing the size of the state, allowing local institutions to take on a greater role in our lives VOLUNTARILY. He does not think that the Federal government should have any say over abortion, as that is purely a state issue. You have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
Which would you rather have as president, someone who doesn't believe in evolution, or someone who doesn't believe in habeus corpus?
He's not talking about Reagan. Reagan betrayed his values when he got into power, setting the precedent for all future Republican presidents--campain on small government, increase the size of government when you get in.
PRIOR to Reagan, however, they WERE like that. I don't know if you recall or not, but Nixon ENDED the Vietnam War. And he was a fucking crook.
But who cares? That shit is far in the past. Let's make some actual reasonable policy decisions. To do that, we are going to have to get most of the Democrats and most of the Republicans. Basically, leave Kucinich and the Pauls, and kick everyone else to the curb. Then we can start to have a reasonable conversation about the future of this country.
You assume that Gore would have been different from Bush. That is unlikely, especially given the degree to which Obama has been no different from Bush.