Searching \ for '[OT]:: Oh no, not again <- Re: ADMIN: Question abo' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=not+again+admin
Search entire site for: ': Oh no, not again <- Re: ADMIN: Question abo'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]:: Oh no, not again <- Re: ADMIN: Question abo'
2008\06\05@105954 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> The OT and EE stuff however is generally interesting
> enough in a geeky
> sort of way to keep subscribed to the list (perhaps
> excepting global
> warming debates ;-P, debate how to fix it sure, but not if
> it exists.
> (Lets assume it does and hope it doesn't))

I am not a GW denier, but I would be so labelled by all the
GWicionados.

I am a GW don't knower.
AND I want to know
BECAUSE I think it's important that we know

The problem is, IF it does exist (ie anthropogenic effects
are a major factor and are pushing us towards imminent
disaster = AGW) then we need to be dealing with the subject
really well and really seriously. And, we're not. What we
are doing instead is giving the green-crazies an excuse to
promote their green-craziness. And the
your-money-is-mine-(or-will-be-any-time-now)-crazies yet
another excuse to ... . There are many greens who are far
from crazy, and some who are acceptably crazy (I may
resemble that in fact) and there are many people making an
honest capitalist buck. BUT the great AGW bandwagon is more
about either carbon trading your way to riches or saving the
planet through any excuse you can find, than about really
knowing what is happening. And much of what is being done is
all paper pushing and rubbish equivalencies and ... . When
eg China could, should it wish, sell the US enough carbon
credits to make the US carbon neutral, then, if you've seen
the Chinese skies any time lately, something is rotten in
the states of Denmark, Shenzen, Washington and more.

By "assuming it exists" and bowing to the great carbon
credits trading scheme we are possibly destroying the world
we should be trying to save. By all means take urgent
action, but it should be the right urgent action. And what
the right urgent action is isn't yet known. And we should be
finding out as about THE major international task. Instead
of pretending that what we are doing instead is the most
effective thing we can do. While we find out we should be
doing the best we can in the interim. And it's not what we
are doing now. It matters not a whit to Gaia whether China
is a developing nation and so therefore exempt from certain
carbon restrictions - the smog that spreads in a near
continuous sheet from Hong Kong to Urumqi* is mute evidence
of the paucity of that position.

Meanwhile, we may quite possibly be Meaundering towards
another mini ice-age, or maybe even the now 2000 years
overdue next full 8000 year odd iceage. If the latter does
in fact prove to be on its way you'll be seeing people
nuking Methane Clathrates in the ocean deeps and spreading
soot over the arctic tundra, possibly before the century is
out. And carbon in any form will again be valuable - but as
a product with net worth.

Here we see the red lines earnestly urging the sun to kick
into gear and get sunspot cycle 24 going.

   http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html

The last black dot was added a few days ago (monthly update)
and the red prediction lines did not budge an iota. If it
does, finally, start tracking up the red lines then all may
be "well" - enough. If it keeps on going in the direction it
seems to be at present then skating on the Thames may again
be possible, as it was at the Maunder minimum in the "little
ice age".

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The mechanisms are less than wholly transparent but there's
reasonable evidence that they are there. It's not just solar
insolation per se, which can be measured and therefore
"accounted for" and dismissed, but the magnetic field which
correlates with sunspot activity. Less field, more incoming
cosmic rays. More cosmic rays some say / some don't - more
clouds. More clouds ... .

AGW may be a welcome alternative :-)


       Russell




* Furthest city on earth from the sea. And in winter very
very VERY cold. And you still get your clothes dirty from
the air!








2008\06\06@003210 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
Why, why, WHY, why did you went to engineering when you was so good
for politics,
poetry, philosophy. Definitely your spare time is infinite.
:)
BTW, there is no "honest capitalist buck", or is the same honest as
"wild ex-comunist buck"

Vasile

On 6/5/08, Apptech <spam_OUTapptechTakeThisOuTspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\06\06@010203 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> Why, why, WHY, why did you went to engineering when you
> was so good
> for politics,
> poetry, philosophy. Definitely your spare time is
> infinite.
> :)

What I wrote is ALL engineering.
Engineers MUST redeem GW from the PC brigade if we are to
save the world :-).
I have a carbon sequestration idea that would almost
certainly work on a large scale and probably win Branson's?
challenge BUT I wouldn't dream of really doing it. Far too
nasty on the overall system :-).

Politics I have no time for at all.
I don't care very much who is in 'power' here as long as
they TRY to do well by a largish majority of the people.
BOTH our major parties hate the poor - but with quite
different perspectives, and I've given up voting for either.
(Our "Labour" party are notionally left wing greenish
socialistish - aka democrats ish BUT they bind the poor in a
morass of state aid and being unable to help themselves out
of the mess. Nanny state as it were. Our right wing National
are more traditionally Republican in their poor hating.
Neither works.

> BTW, there is no "honest capitalist buck", or is the same
> honest as
> "wild ex-comunist buck"

Just trying to make the point that I was not trying to slang
any very broadly centrist aspirations. All have good and bad
points. Half of US voters get an indiot for a President
every time and the other half get a shining hero. Towards
the end ot erm 2 more have an idiot than  ahero but next
election it's back to 50/50. ie lest it be unclear, most
can't see the merit in the other sides candidate - if he/she
wins they are anathema. I find all have some good points but
have given up voting for any mainstream party.


       Russell

2008\06\06@094234 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Carbon trading isn't worth the carbon spent in sending this email. The
goal is to reduce the amount of carbon emitted, *and* to suck up as much
as you can. Saying if you suck it up you don't need to cut back is just
silly, you need to do both.
Basically I feel that putting time and energy into using renewable
resources and efficiency pays off in the longer term because a) you will
run out of oil/coal so your best off investing in whats going to work
the longest and b) using less stuff has to be better for the planet.

Generally industries that "go green" tend to save money in the longer
term because they use less "stuff", or the stuff they do use is stuff
that other people no longer want. The difficult part is convincing
people to invest money now to pay off in the future.

Personally I think governments around the world should be spending big
on fusion power, its the only answer that gives you the same
dependability and infrastructure as traditional power systems.

Give anybody who has a modest chance of achieving it a grant of a
hundred grand, (phase 2 funding)
So what you blow 100 million in grants, a billion even.
You only need one nutball idea that has actual working equipment to
succeed and you solve a whole bunch of the worlds problems as fast as
you can build power plants. (which given how china is going probably
means if your motivated enough you could nerf pretty much all carbon
emmiting power plants in 10 years or so (of not 5))  Then for bonus
points build absofriggnloutly huge fusion plants, suck Co2 out of the
air, Add hydrogen (water) and assloads of energy, stir and get nice long
chain hydrocarbons and oxygen as your end products.

Renewable gasoline, still has that same lovley smog flavour but its
greener than it would otherwise be.


Apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2008\06\06@112004 by Apptech
face
flavicon
face
> Personally I think governments around the world should be
> spending big
> on fusion power, its the only answer that gives you the
> same
> dependability and infrastructure as traditional power
> systems.

Hallelujah!

> So what you blow 100 million in grants, a billion even.

A 100 billion on fusion that worked within 10 years would be
an utter bargain.
Even a trillion dollars on real genuine fusuoon would be
cheap.

{Quote hidden}

etc etc

Once you have fusion you can drive any reaction you want
backwards energetically wise.
And there is lots of fuel lying on the surface of the Moon
waiting for us to come and get it :-)


       Russell

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...