3 feet in 50 years?!?

"Graham" considered Sun, 25 Dec
2016 18:38:50 -0000 the perfect time to write:


"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...

[snip]

I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.

[imported from another reply]

If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.

In a word, ignorance.

If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!

I know my own IQ from independently administered tests, both as a
child and adult, and I'm unlikely to meet many people in my lifetime
with a higher one.

"(PeteCresswell)" writes:

Per :
Exactly HOW many people do you believe are going to change to bicycles or public transit?

You realize that my little story is in support of your position, right?

Tom is the sort of guy that just won't take yes for an answer.

--

considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016 10:46:54 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, Graham wrote:
"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...

[snip]

I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.

[imported from another reply]

If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.

In a word, ignorance.

If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!

I've enough Irish in me that Phil would only say that once around me. When he returned from hospital he would be a great deal more careful with his words.

Which rather underlines the point I made, doesn't it!
"If you won't agree with me I'll beat you up" is hardly the rationale
of someone with an IQ above room temperature - in fact, it's somewhat
Neanderthal.

considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016 03:48:24 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:33:46 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2016 8:23 PM, Phil Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write:

On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:

Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start.
For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far
more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most
others I know of - because they know that every vote counts.


Hilarious!
If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

NLexit? Did I miss something?

Lou

The Northern Ireland peace agreement is dependent on the UK remaining
in the EU.
If we do leave the EU, we will lose Northern Ireland, which will
either become independent or be re-absorbed into Eire.

As that is the case, there is an argument that a vote for Brexit was a
criminal act - namely to overthrow the monarchy in NI, known legally
as treason.

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:


But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live
deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad
fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business,
trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for
peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base
load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge
offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net
increase in total CO2 emmissions.

Very doubtful, at least in the U.S.

If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to
reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric
generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its
neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about.

The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon
neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations,

That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable
scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or
left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled
vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the
ethanol subsidies in the US.

I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber -
all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for
traditional uses.
That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep
the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed.

Perhaps you should look into it a bit more.

solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the
carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity
of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to
find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very
environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are
the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in
time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy
governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch
rags)

Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean
is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If
they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean
currents will cause.

The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean
currents.
As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing
that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different.
The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most
efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power.
To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and
build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current
is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and
that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than
fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel
stove to a nuclear power plant!

I think you underestimate the difficulty of running a power plant under
the ocean, through any kind of weather, year in and year out. It sounds
at least as hard to me as running an offshore oil rig, and that paid
back very handsomeley in energy indeed. I wish the tidal power guys the
best of luck.

The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A
few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the
attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be
brought down when people stop buying their products, not before.

Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in
them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices
tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in
the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment
potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may
yet be able to let them survive.

Please give us the name of *one* person who is boycotting fossil fuels.
Just one.

First, the steel used for wind
turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the
steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric
furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes
from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal
production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric
furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas.

Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't
change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms
of other pollutants.
At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as
easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a
bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator,
so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network
and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which
would mostly be farm waste).

Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to
China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the
*global* effect is what's alleged to be important.

Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources
faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce
the stuff cheaper!
The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper
energy, once you get the infrastructure built.

That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational
pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected
demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not
falling short some of the time.

Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable.
That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I
don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that
respect.

It's much more likely that there is no good renewable baseload source
with foreseeable technology. In which case we would have to adapt to
unreliable power, a very expensive option.

I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable
infrastructure built with it.

Already happening.

Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed
using electric vehicles?

Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for
maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed
(although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal
combustion engines.

as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes,
I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my
alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable
antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming
"hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless
public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and
environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who
are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax.

To get way back to the original question, who determines who the
"qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any
approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough
understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is
not.

the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be
incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are
not. Most will not even try.

I guess that's an argument against democracy, then?

Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both
the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the
appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic
principles.

Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as
that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized
much any more.

Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well
as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful
chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses.

I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the
late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just
BURNED it?"

There isn't anything in crude oil that could not be synthesized from
other sources, *given cheap energy*.


I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of
ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and
we'll be the ones viewed as savages.

--

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016
16:58:26 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Phil Lee writes:

Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016
10:54:08 -0500 the perfect time to write:

Well, it helps if people are educated in critical thinking, and in
general, more people these days are - and the internet is a great tool
for allowing them to join together in significant voting blocks.

Critical thinking is required, but actual research into any specific
topic must also be done. That is time consuming and can be difficult.

But a lot of the research has already been done - the critical
thinking is needed to discern the difference between evidence based
policy making and the reverse.

How on Earth do you do that without knowing anything about the subject
matter? Research has been done, how do you know whether to trust it or
not?

I'm not saying what is or is not a hoax -- whether it be global
warming or the effects of DDT. I am just tired of a bunch of YouTube
******s and conspiracy lunatics claiming to be experts. I think the
next four years are going to be a mayfly hatch of conspiracy lunatics.

I thought it was a bit rich to have guys like Rajendra Pachauri suddenly
claim to be experts in climate change. Lunatics with governments behind
them scare me a lot more than free-range independent lunatics.

The free range ones that aren't funded to support a preconceived idea
are almost always the most reliable.

Exactly, and AGW is subsidized as no other scientific idea ever has
been, the free range thinkers are skeptical.

I'd like to see your figures on that - the fossil fuel industry has
been funding whole governments to back them against the independent
scientists, who have fought for every penny.

I don't have figures to hand, but almost all AGW research is government
supported, and the writing has been on the wall concerning what the
right answers are for quite a while.

--

Jeff Liebermann considered Sun, 25 Dec 2016
22:53:23 -0800 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 10:29:03 -0800 (PST), wrote:

OK Phil, since you believe the world around you to be stupid
beyond belief and yourself to be very smart why don't you tell
us your local tides and the size of the installation that
would deliver the 25 mw that the largest windmills presently do.

I presume you mean 25MW megawatt, not milliwatt.
The largest single wind turbine so far is the Vestas V164 at 8MW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas_V164
http://nozebra.ipapercms.dk/Vestas/Communication/Productbrochure/V16480MW/V16480MW/
I don't know of any that are planned at 25MW.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide your sources when
you throw numbers around.

Incidentally, the largest tidal plant is the Sihwa Lake Tidal Power
Station at 254MW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sihwa_Lake_Tidal_Power_Station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations
The largest in UK seems to be 1.2MW:
http://www.seageneration.co.uk/

Plus, of course, the theoretical capacity of wind turbines is only
rarely reached, as it relies on wind of exactly the right speed - fast
enough to provide enough power, but not so fast as to need the blades
to be feathered for their own protection. And steady, of course, not
gusty.

"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...
"Graham" considered Sun, 25 Dec
2016 18:38:50 -0000 the perfect time to write:


"Phil Lee" wrote in message ...

[snip]

I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did.

[imported from another reply]

If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc.

In a word, ignorance.

If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!

I know my own IQ from independently administered tests, both as a
child and adult, and I'm unlikely to meet many people in my lifetime
with a higher one.

Are you serious? I have never heard such arrogance or is it delusion. If we are indeed in the presence of omnipotence why did you not prevent Brexit or Trump or bring about world peace or relieve global poverty. As I said it is people like you that spawned Brexit and Trump. Some of us mere mortals would have preferred to have avoided the need for both had we not thought that humanity would have a better chance if we stood up to people like you. Carry on with your delusion and those who you deride might well resurect the guillotine!

Graham.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 2:03:15 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
"Graham" considered Sun, 25 Dec

If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ.

Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!!

I know my own IQ from independently administered tests, both as a
child and adult, and I'm unlikely to meet many people in my lifetime
with a higher one.

Phil, is that what gives you a superiority complex in which you feel the need to discard well over half of the people in your kingdom as dolts and you as their intellectual and moral superior? After all - this IS what you've said of all us "deplorables". And you've see the reaction to your ideals.

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 2:13:30 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
There isn't anything in crude oil that could not be synthesized from
other sources, *given cheap energy*.

But that is hardly "renewable" is it?

The only renewable source of power that has high enough return on investment to make it actually able to be called "renewable" is hydro-electric power. And this is quite destructive of habitat.

There are places in the world where you could gain a huge return via tidal powers but they are very few and far between. And it would require real planning - something that governments are remarkably bad at. And commercial organizations attempt to avoid.