The hydrogen "fraud" continues...

Thomas <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Distributed Energy Systems Commissions 1st Hydrogen Vehicle Fueling
: System in NYC Area
: Tuesday November 13, 8:00 am ET
: Advanced Electrolysis Technology Helps to Demonstrate Hydrogen Vehicle
: Fueling Infrastructure At Filling Station in Suburban Westchester

It's great if you live in NYC or specifically White Plains. Before these
type vehicles take off, there has to be an infrastructure to support
refueling and a more economical way of making h2 than using natural gas as
a feedstock. For now h2 vehicles only make sense in a fleet
environment.BTW what is the price of h2 for refueling? I like the idea of
propane or natural gas powered vehicles better.

Thomas

2007-11-13 19:51:37 UTC

The first gas station had to be built somewhere too.

Post by k***@hiwaay.net
Before these
type vehicles take off, there has to be an infrastructure to support
refueling and a more economical way of making h2 than using natural gas as
a feedstock.

Didi you read the story?

"Known as the FuelGen(r) hydrogen fueling system, it is based on
proton exchange membrane electrolysis technology, which

...converts electrical energy and water into hydrogen fuel, ...

enabling it to be safely stored on-site for use in clean and efficient
hydrogen-fueled automobiles. Combustion in the car's engine combines
the hydrogen with oxygen to produce power, and the exhaust is
non-polluting water vapor."

As an aside, did you know that water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas?

Post by k***@hiwaay.net
For now h2 vehicles only make sense in a fleet
environment.BTW what is the price of h2 for refueling? I like the idea of
propane or natural gas powered vehicles better.

k***@hiwaay.net

2007-11-13 20:14:35 UTC

Thomas <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:35:58 -0000, ***@hiwaay.net wrote:

:>Thomas <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: Distributed Energy Systems Commissions 1st Hydrogen Vehicle Fueling
:>: System in NYC Area
:>: Tuesday November 13, 8:00 am ET
:>: Advanced Electrolysis Technology Helps to Demonstrate Hydrogen Vehicle
:>: Fueling Infrastructure At Filling Station in Suburban Westchester
:>
:>It's great if you live in NYC or specifically White Plains.

: The first gas station had to be built somewhere too.

:>Before these
:>type vehicles take off, there has to be an infrastructure to support
:>refueling and a more economical way of making h2 than using natural gas as
:>a feedstock.

: Didi you read the story?

: "Known as the FuelGen(r) hydrogen fueling system, it is based on
: proton exchange membrane electrolysis technology, which

: ...converts electrical energy and water into hydrogen fuel, ...

Yes, but is it cheaper than the natural gas feedstock conversion? Sounds
good to be able to convert on site, but would this hold up in a true
commercial operation. Again from a cost standpoint it would seem a large
operation making h2 would be more cost efficient than individual
operations. Also if this was cost effective method of h2 production, then
every h2 car owner should get one of these membrane electrolysis devices
with a car purchase.

: enabling it to be safely stored on-site for use in clean and efficient
: hydrogen-fueled automobiles. Combustion in the car's engine combines
: the hydrogen with oxygen to produce power, and the exhaust is
: non-polluting water vapor."

: As an aside, did you know that water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas?

New one on me.

:> For now h2 vehicles only make sense in a fleet
:>environment.BTW what is the price of h2 for refueling? I like the idea of
:>propane or natural gas powered vehicles better.

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-13 23:10:13 UTC

Post by Thomas
As an aside, did you know that water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas?

Shhh! The scientists are trying to suppress that fact, right? Uh, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor

"Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by
human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2."

Think wikipedia is infiltrated by ecofreaks? No problem. Here's:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/climate-scientists-hide-water-vapor.html

FTFA:"CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand,
has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will
significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to
have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system."

Think there aren't enough GOP-approved faith-based scientists on that
there lefty blog? Gotcha covered. Here's your own damn government:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

FTFA: "However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a
result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere
rather than a direct result of industrialization."

Upon further review, the dittohead talkng point fails miserably. Look, I
know the Decider doesn't do nuance, but it matters in the reality-based
world.

What else ya got, flapjack?

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Chuck Taylor

2007-11-14 00:21:19 UTC

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:13 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Thomas
As an aside, did you know that water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas?

<snip>

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
Upon further review, the dittohead talkng point fails miserably. Look, I
know the Decider doesn't do nuance, but it matters in the reality-based
world.
What else ya got, flapjack?

Probably a couple of these: <sarcasm></sarcasm>

--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

Thomas

2007-11-14 06:02:53 UTC

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:21:19 -0600, Chuck Taylor

Post by Chuck Taylor
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:13 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Thomas
As an aside, did you know that water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas?

<snip>

Probably a couple of these: <sarcasm></sarcasm>

Yeah...subtlety doesn't play well on Usenet.

Thomas

2007-11-14 05:58:12 UTC

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:13 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
What else ya got, flapjack?

From your own source.

"Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for
the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%
[13]. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human
activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at
local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

"Current state-of-the-art climate models"

[hmmm...are these the same models leading scientists/climatologists
used to predict the coming ice age in the 70's?]

include fully interactive clouds[14]. They show that an increase in
atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to
anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water
vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative
humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in
the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the
increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric
water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is
reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing
provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[15]"

Which part of that do you have a problem with?

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-14 07:09:19 UTC

Post by Chuck Taylor
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:13 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
What else ya got, flapjack?

I don't even know how to answer such a question. It's so loaded, we may
have to call in a bomb-disposal robot to handle it.

Post by Chuck Taylor
include fully interactive clouds[14]. They show that an increase in
atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to
anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water
vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative
humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in
the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the
increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric
water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is
reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing
provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[15]"
Which part of that do you have a problem with?

Nothing. But it doesn't support your implication that because water
vapor is HUGE compared to carbon dioxide, we should discount the actual
effect of carbon dioxide. Read it again.

Look, I'm not a specialist in the field. I'm not even 100% on board with
the most strident global warming predictions. A few years ago I had a
chance to talk with our own beloved/notorious Dr. Christy, who flat-out
told me that water resource issues would become a major social problem
in the world long before global warming. He seems to be right on the
money so far.

But I do know that rejecting global warming (AGW) because one doesn't
like Al Gore's or Leonardo DiCaprio's politics is transcendentally stupid.

I also know that you have got to stop letting WVNN's midday lineup do
your thinking for you. It's embarrassing.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Thomas

2007-11-14 08:37:09 UTC

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:09:19 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Chuck Taylor
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:10:13 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
What else ya got, flapjack?

I don't even know how to answer such a question. It's so loaded, we may
have to call in a bomb-disposal robot to handle it.

Somewhere I read a quote regarding choas theory and models. I
paraphrase, but it went something like this, "results from any
sufficiently complex iterative model are no better than a wild ass
guess". I wish I could find it again. My point is this; part of my
career was spent building computer models/simulations and despite the
belief of "everyday man", "scientists" have a very poor understanding
of how the world actually works. Go read a book on heat and mass
transfer or fluid dynamics if you need an illustration.

Nothing. But it doesn't support your implication that because water
vapor is HUGE compared to carbon dioxide, we should discount the actual
effect of carbon dioxide. Read it again.

I made no such implication. I merely stated a fact. Somewhat tongue
and cheek I might add. It apparently hit your reflex point.

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
Look, I'm not a specialist in the field. I'm not even 100% on board with
the most strident global warming predictions. A few years ago I had a
chance to talk with our own beloved/notorious Dr. Christy, who flat-out
told me that water resource issues would become a major social problem
in the world long before global warming. He seems to be right on the
money so far.
But I do know that rejecting global warming (AGW) because one doesn't
like Al Gore's or Leonardo DiCaprio's politics is transcendentally stupid.

Global warming (or cooling) is supportable by empirical data. Causes
and cures for such (possibly normal?) changes should be subject to
rigorous debate. Especially when entire economies can be wrecked by
kneejerk feelgood policies. Since you've brought up politics however,
it is rather funny (not haha funny) how "global warming as impending
doom" has been embraced by the left. I will quote Mr Limbaugh on this
point, "scientific proof doesn't require consensus."

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
I also know that you have got to stop letting WVNN's midday lineup do
your thinking for you. It's embarrassing.

God that line is tired. Get somebody else to write you some new
material.

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-17 05:48:46 UTC

Post by Thomas
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:09:19 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
I also know that you have got to stop letting WVNN's midday lineup do
your thinking for you. It's embarrassing.

God that line is tired. Get somebody else to write you some new
material.

"The truth hurts. Maybe not as much as jumping on a bicycle with a seat
missing, but it hurts." - Frank Drebin

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-17 05:55:13 UTC

Post by Thomas
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:09:19 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

(quoting)

Post by Thomas
include fully interactive clouds[14]. They show that an increase in
atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to
anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water
vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative
humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in
the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the
increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric
water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is
reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing
provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[15]"
Which part of that do you have a problem with?

Nothing. But it doesn't support your implication that because water
vapor is HUGE compared to carbon dioxide, we should discount the actual
effect of carbon dioxide. Read it again.

I made no such implication. I merely stated a fact. Somewhat tongue
and cheek I might add. It apparently hit your reflex point.

I don't believe you.

And I'll thank you for not concerning yourself over my reflex point.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Thomas

2007-11-14 09:27:28 UTC

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:09:19 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
What else ya got, flapjack?

I don't even know how to answer such a question. It's so loaded, we may
have to call in a bomb-disposal robot to handle it.

"The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global
warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds
is challenged this month in new research from The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. Instead of creating more clouds, individual
tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw
a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr.
Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth
System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. 'All
leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there
should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds...'"

"'as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude
cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade
greenhouse gases,' he said. 'That amplification is a positive
feedback.

[good illustration of what "positive feedback" means BTW]

What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate
system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere
warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to
escape from the atmosphere to outer space,'"

"'To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if
it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of
future warming by over 75 percent,' Spencer said. 'Until we understand
how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can
know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that
knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of
certainty.' Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to
be controversial."

"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are
interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global
warming. But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in
the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right
before we rely on their long term projections."

And other data from Dr Spencer:

http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php

Conflicting climate data

A common feature of climate model forecasts is that as carbon dioxide
increases, the global surface temperature should rise along with an
even more rapid warming in the troposphere the atmosphere up to
about 30,000 feet. This additional atmospheric warming would further
promote warming at the surface if models are correct.

Surface temperature records indicate a long-term atmospheric warming
trend of about 3° Fahrenheit per century.

Other research, however, finds the signs of major global warming more
difficult to identify.

Long-term studies of El Niño Pacific Ocean warming events show that
they are no more frequent now than in the past millennia. (1)(2)

Recent studies show sea conditions in the Arctic today are similar to
conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while average
Arctic temperatures are rising almost to their levels of the 1930s.
(3)(4)(5)

Climate studies in the Antarctic report long-term cooling trends on
scales ranging from 30 to more than 1,000 years, and that the ice cap
there is growing.(6)(7)(8)

Studies of severe weather events in North America found no evidence
that extreme weather events, including tornadoes, are more common or
more violent now than they were in the late 1800s. (9)(10)

An analysis of hurricane and tropical cyclone data found those storms
are not becoming either more frequent or more violent. (11)(12)

A study of mean global sea level found the approximately 3 mm/y rise
of the past 150 years has not accelerated during the 20th century.
(13)

And a Harvard-Smithsonian study (14) of more than 240 paleoclimate
research papers published in the past four decades concluded that the
20th century was neither the warmest century nor the century with the
most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years for specific regions.

[...]

I expect data of this sort in no way to alter the "beliefs" of those
who are "certain" global warming is man made and doom is impending
however. If I were a betting man, i'd bet there motivations were
largely political anyway.

Thomas

2007-11-14 09:29:57 UTC

Post by Thomas
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 01:09:19 -0600, Unclaimed Mysteries

Post by Unclaimed Mysteries
What else ya got, flapjack?

I don't even know how to answer such a question. It's so loaded, we may
have to call in a bomb-disposal robot to handle it.

oops...didn't include the cite:

http://www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=875

Post by Thomas
"The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global
warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds
is challenged this month in new research from The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. Instead of creating more clouds, individual
tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw
a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr.
Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth
System Science Center. That was not what he expected to find. 'All
leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there
should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds...'"
"'as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude
cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade
greenhouse gases,' he said. 'That amplification is a positive
feedback.
[good illustration of what "positive feedback" means BTW]
What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate
system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere
warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to
escape from the atmosphere to outer space,'"
"'To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if
it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of
future warming by over 75 percent,' Spencer said. 'Until we understand
how precipitation systems change with warming, I don't believe we can
know how much of our current warming is manmade. Without that
knowledge, we can't predict future climate change with any degree of
certainty.' Spencer and his colleagues expect these new findings to
be controversial."
"I know some climate modelers will say that these results are
interesting but that they probably don't apply to long-term global
warming. But this represents a fundamental natural cooling process in
the atmosphere. Let's see if climate models can get this part right
before we rely on their long term projections."
http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
Conflicting climate data
A common feature of climate model forecasts is that as carbon dioxide
increases, the global surface temperature should rise along with an
even more rapid warming in the troposphere the atmosphere up to
about 30,000 feet. This additional atmospheric warming would further
promote warming at the surface if models are correct.
Surface temperature records indicate a long-term atmospheric warming
trend of about 3° Fahrenheit per century.
Other research, however, finds the signs of major global warming more
difficult to identify.
Long-term studies of El Niño Pacific Ocean warming events show that
they are no more frequent now than in the past millennia. (1)(2)
Recent studies show sea conditions in the Arctic today are similar to
conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while average
Arctic temperatures are rising almost to their levels of the 1930s.
(3)(4)(5)
Climate studies in the Antarctic report long-term cooling trends on
scales ranging from 30 to more than 1,000 years, and that the ice cap
there is growing.(6)(7)(8)
Studies of severe weather events in North America found no evidence
that extreme weather events, including tornadoes, are more common or
more violent now than they were in the late 1800s. (9)(10)
An analysis of hurricane and tropical cyclone data found those storms
are not becoming either more frequent or more violent. (11)(12)
A study of mean global sea level found the approximately 3 mm/y rise
of the past 150 years has not accelerated during the 20th century.
(13)
And a Harvard-Smithsonian study (14) of more than 240 paleoclimate
research papers published in the past four decades concluded that the
20th century was neither the warmest century nor the century with the
most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years for specific regions.
[...]
I expect data of this sort in no way to alter the "beliefs" of those
who are "certain" global warming is man made and doom is impending
however. If I were a betting man, i'd bet there motivations were
largely political anyway.

Ron Hammon

2007-11-14 17:37:53 UTC

Thomas wrote:
snip

Post by Thomas
I expect data of this sort in no way to alter the "beliefs" of those
who are "certain" global warming is man made and doom is impending
however. If I were a betting man, i'd bet there motivations were
largely political anyway.

I believe that it is even deeper than politics, more like a world view.
You don't hear the term "New Ager" much anymore, but I feel that it is
fitting. While all Democrats aren't New Agers, I doubt that ANY
Republicans are. I take "New Ager" to mean sort of an evolution of
Sixties Hippies who still embrace alternative healing, astrology,
pyramid power, Eastern stuff like "chakras" and "karma", and, in
particular, the belief that "hard" science and enterprise are
undesirable or even evil.

Along with the "New Ager" mindset is the belief that "technology" is
oppressive and evil. (I find it amusing when musicians use a digitally
mastered recording, recorded with electronic instruments, delivered by
compact disk or interent, to condemn technology.)

Unfortunately, there are subtle echoes of this mindset throughout our
society (led, somewhat by TV and movies made in California, the SEAT of
New Agers). For example, for many, vitaman C is no good unless derived
from rose hips or some other natural source. The thought of chemists
whipping up vitaman C in a lab for comsumption is abhorent to many.

Herbal "cures" can be all the rage, even in suburbia. Vinegar can cure
what ails you. Chiropractor can pull poisons through the soles of youre
feet. Magnet inner shoe soles can cure aching feet. The list goes on.
In every case, the "establishment" and "science" is the enemy. The REAL
truth comes from astral projection or some such nonsense.

This New Age mindset embraces anything at all, no matter how silly, as
long as it challenges the American values of the Fifties, be it
homosexuality, socialism, non-Christian religions, free love,
recreational drugs, pacificism (see, I told you it was the legacy of
Sixties hippes), and ALL things metaphysical. Anything whatsoever which
vindicates the "good" of hard work, making money, real science, or
attacking others in an extreme context, is evil and must be rejected.
The focus must be on oil-soaked birds, beached whales, drowning polar
bears, spotted owls, and so on, the "evils" of our culture.

For this crowd, which exists ONLY on the far left side, "Global Warming"
can ONLY be negative IF it is man-made. If it is just Mother Earth
going through one of her cycles, then all is well. Or, worse, if the
earth isn't warming up after all. All is NOT well. There is some good
technology bashing to do and the biggest game in town is to blame the
modern American for killing the ENTIRE WORLD. What could be more
refreshing?!

Gaia is great. Man is evil. Technology is evil. Science is evil. See
there? Man's evil technology is killing us all! Don't tell us that it
isn't really happening, or that it is a natural process. Why, this is
the best technology bashing we've had since the ozone hole thing.

But, don't worry. As soon as the fad of Global Warming winds down, there
will be some fresh excuse to bash technology and materialism. You can
bet on it.

Ron Hammon

Thomas

2007-11-14 17:46:24 UTC

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:37:53 -0600, Ron Hammon

It is a riot.

Post by Ron Hammon
Unfortunately, there are subtle echoes of this mindset throughout our
society (led, somewhat by TV and movies made in California, the SEAT of
New Agers). For example, for many, vitaman C is no good unless derived
from rose hips or some other natural source. The thought of chemists
whipping up vitaman C in a lab for comsumption is abhorent to many.
Herbal "cures" can be all the rage, even in suburbia. Vinegar can cure
what ails you. Chiropractor can pull poisons through the soles of youre
feet. Magnet inner shoe soles can cure aching feet. The list goes on.
In every case, the "establishment" and "science" is the enemy. The REAL
truth comes from astral projection or some such nonsense.
This New Age mindset embraces anything at all, no matter how silly, as
long as it challenges the American values of the Fifties, be it
homosexuality, socialism, non-Christian religions, free love,
recreational drugs, pacificism (see, I told you it was the legacy of
Sixties hippes), and ALL things metaphysical. Anything whatsoever which
vindicates the "good" of hard work, making money, real science, or
attacking others in an extreme context, is evil and must be rejected.
The focus must be on oil-soaked birds, beached whales, drowning polar
bears, spotted owls, and so on, the "evils" of our culture.
For this crowd, which exists ONLY on the far left side, "Global Warming"
can ONLY be negative IF it is man-made. If it is just Mother Earth
going through one of her cycles, then all is well. Or, worse, if the
earth isn't warming up after all. All is NOT well. There is some good
technology bashing to do and the biggest game in town is to blame the
modern American for killing the ENTIRE WORLD. What could be more
refreshing?!
Gaia is great. Man is evil. Technology is evil. Science is evil. See
there? Man's evil technology is killing us all! Don't tell us that it
isn't really happening, or that it is a natural process. Why, this is
the best technology bashing we've had since the ozone hole thing.
But, don't worry. As soon as the fad of Global Warming winds down, there
will be some fresh excuse to bash technology and materialism. You can
bet on it.

I never really thought about it on that level before Ron but I believe
there's quite a bit of truth in what you just wrote.

nik Simpson

2007-11-14 20:04:08 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
Gaia is great. Man is evil. Technology is evil. Science is evil. See
there? Man's evil technology is killing us all! Don't tell us that it
isn't really happening, or that it is a natural process. Why, this is
the best technology bashing we've had since the ozone hole thing.

Ron, what a wonderful stereotype you picture Ron. But it's so far from a
reality as to be useless, you could hardly find somebody more tech
friendly than me, you should see my house ;- But that doesn't mean I
dismiss global warming. So while I'm sure that a subset of people who
are concerned about global warming fit your stereotype, they are just
that, a subset. If you continue to make this assumption, you're doomed
to lose the argument because you are arguing with the wrong folks.

--
Nik Simpson

Ron Hammon

2007-11-14 21:02:32 UTC

You have COMPLETELY misunderstood me. New Age types readily embrace the
idea of man-made global warming for thier anti-technology agenda. But,
that doesn't restrict belief in global warming, man-made or otherwise,
to just New Agers. I never once stated that New Agers are the sole
devotees and proponents of the current global warming fad.

Another trait to watch for is the feeling of self-importance, that we
live in a particularly special time. For the devoutly religious, now is
the "End Time", the special time. For the pseudo-scientific among us,
now is the special time when even the earth itself shudders at our
power. Neither is plausible. We are merely fleas on a big dog.

Ron Hammon

nik Simpson

2007-11-14 21:48:42 UTC

It wasn't clear that you were being less "general" in your stereotyping.

Post by Ron Hammon
Another trait to watch for is the feeling of self-importance, that we
live in a particularly special time. For the devoutly religious, now is
the "End Time", the special time. For the pseudo-scientific among us,
now is the special time when even the earth itself shudders at our
power. Neither is plausible. We are merely fleas on a big dog.

Here's a wild thought Ron, maybe there are people out there who don't
fit your nice stereotypes, and that maybe there is something to the
whole global warming thing. Based on our current reaction in terms of
the measures being taken to prevent it, I sure hope you are right,
'cause if you aren't right, we really are screwed ;-)

Note, I don't find the arguments against global warming any less "psuedo
scientific" both sides in the argument tend to pick the statistics that
are most favorable to their point of view. Just maybe, name calling and
stereotyping isn't the best way to reach a consensus!
--
Nik Simpson

Thomas

2007-11-14 22:25:07 UTC

It wasn't clear that you were being less "general" in your stereotyping.

Here's a wild thought Ron, maybe there are people out there who don't
fit your nice stereotypes, and that maybe there is something to the
whole global warming thing. Based on our current reaction in terms of
the measures being taken to prevent it, I sure hope you are right,
'cause if you aren't right, we really are screwed ;-)
Note, I don't find the arguments against global warming any less "psuedo
scientific" both sides in the argument tend to pick the statistics that
are most favorable to their point of view. Just maybe, name calling and
stereotyping isn't the best way to reach a consensus!

Ahhh...there's that magic word again...consensus.

nik Simpson

2007-11-14 23:32:23 UTC

Post by Thomas
Ahhh...there's that magic word again...consensus.

So I take it there's no room for any doubt in your position and that we
should completely ignore the whole issue and continue with business as
usual? Myself, I wouldn't call that position "psuedo scientific",
perhaps "dogmatic, head stuck in the ground" would be an appropriate
stereotype.

--
Nik Simpson

Thomas

2007-11-14 23:54:36 UTC

Post by Thomas
Ahhh...there's that magic word again...consensus.

Read what i've already posted and you wouldn't have to ask that
question.

Ron Hammon

2007-11-15 01:20:40 UTC

Post by Thomas
Ahhh...there's that magic word again...consensus.

Prudent scepticism of an extraordinary claim is warranted. Until
extraordinary evidence is presented, yes, "ignore the whole issue and
continue with business as usual". Otherwise, an idiotic claim that
tarot cards foretold an asteroid strike requires urgent action. After
all, we couldn't just "continue with business as usual" with such a dire
threat upon us. Could we?

I guess that you would have jumped on the bandwagon to cropdust the
polar ice caps with coal dust in the Seventies to avert the coming ice
age. But, instead, we continued with business as usual.

Ron Hammon

nik Simpson

2007-11-15 01:48:00 UTC

Post by Thomas
Ahhh...there's that magic word again...consensus.

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the evidence
that the earth is getting warmer. You can argue about the cause of
warming, whether it's us, increased solar activity, or some natural
cycle that we haven't been around long enough to observe, but to argue
that it isn't happening is just plain silly. Now I'm guessing that
you'll claim that your example doesn't claim that, and every time you
get called on a stupid analogy you'll back away from it, or try to say
that's not what you meant.

I find many of the arguments made against global warming theory to be
depressingly similar to those made against evolution. The same dogmatic
refusal to accept *anything* that goes against an initial assumption. I
get the impression that the naysayers on global warming will continue to
refuse to even accept the possibility as long as they can find one
scientist who agrees with them. Come on Ron, you're a rational guy,
what evidence would have to come to light before you accepted a theory
of global warming as possible?

Post by Ron Hammon
After all, we couldn't just "continue with business as usual" with

such a dire

Post by Ron Hammon
threat upon us. Could we?

I'm not going to respond to a question that comes from such a
transparently straw man argument.

Post by Ron Hammon
I guess that you would have jumped on the bandwagon to cropdust the
polar ice caps with coal dust in the Seventies to avert the coming ice
age. But, instead, we continued with business as usual.

IIRC the next Ice age theory wasn't talking about something that would
happen in the next hundred years, making urgent action unnecessary.

--
Nik Simpson

Thomas

2007-11-15 02:36:13 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
Prudent scepticism of an extraordinary claim is warranted. Until
extraordinary evidence is presented, yes, "ignore the whole issue and
continue with business as usual". Otherwise, an idiotic claim that
tarot cards foretold an asteroid strike requires urgent action.

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the evidence
that the earth is getting warmer.

That's a pretty bold claim there buddy. Warmer than what? Than it was
yesterday? Show me the "evidence" that anything abnormal is occurring
and proof of what the long term consequences will be from that
occurrence. Show me the proof that those consequences will be net
negative BEFORE you go wrecking the entire western economy. China and
India aren't going to play along so the idea is moot anyway.

Here's why I believe the whole thing is political agenda driven. Any
proposed "remedy" I've heard about is going to greatly increase the
cost of doing business. Who gets hurt when the cost of doing business
rises? Those living on the economic fringes. Those people will be
pushed into poverty and then will have to rely on the state for
sustenance. That will require higher taxes which in turn will
increase the cost of doing business which will push even more people
into poverty. Before you know it, you have a full blown socialist (or
worse, fascist) state. And who seems to be pushing the "global
warming as impending doom" theory the most? The fear mongering
socialists!

nik Simpson

2007-11-15 12:51:08 UTC

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the evidence
that the earth is getting warmer.

Problem is Thomas, I don't believe there is any evidence, no matter how
compelling that would you persuade you that global warming is real. The
reason is simple, you've taken a political decision that global warming
is a myth, as your subsequent rant about socialists and fascists clearly
reveals. This is not about science for you it's about politics, which
completely changes the way that information gets judged.

--
Nik Simpson

Bo Williams

2007-11-15 13:26:26 UTC

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the
evidence that the earth is getting warmer.

Problem is Thomas, I don't believe there is any evidence, no matter how
compelling that would you persuade you that global warming is real.

I don't read that in his posts. I don't think he questions that data
show the earth is warming. The questions are do WE really have anything
to do with it? And whether we do or not, what's the best course of
mitigation (if any)?

Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that any weather phenomenon of any
kind is now routinely (and often, unquestioningly) blamed on global
warming. Katrina? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. Too hot?
Global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Fires in California?
Global warming. Tsunami? Global warming.

I find that every bit as absurd as saying the earth isn't warming.

You mentioned people arguing against global warming reminding you of
fundamentalists arguing against evolution. There's plenty of that same
groundless zeal on the other side too.

Post by nik Simpson
The
reason is simple, you've taken a political decision that global warming
is a myth, as your subsequent rant about socialists and fascists clearly
reveals. This is not about science for you it's about politics, which
completely changes the way that information gets judged.

Unfortunately, the politics are inevitable when you discuss the
potential economic impacts. You mentioned in an earlier post that it
was arguable whether humanity has anything to do with it, and I agree
that it is. Oh man, and how.

Anytime we start trying to change the behavior of the human race on a
large scale, we need to consider short- to medium-term liability that's
practically guaranteed vs. long-term benefit that's hazy indeed (and
again, Thomas's points about China and India not playing are good ones).
Ron said some other stuff I'm not sure about and am still digesting,
but he did point out that slapping constraints on big business slots
nicely into a substantial leftist contingent that wants to beat them
about the head and shoulders no matter what, and global warming just
happens to be the latest club. I think that's largely a valid
observation. Conversely, it also slots into a substantial contingent on
the right that really is beholden to the dollar above all else, at least
as far as public policy is concerned, and anything interfering with that
pursuit is to be destroyed. I think that's a valid observation too.

I think we need a big economic clue or two on the left, and I think we
need a big ecological clue or two on the right, and I'm not holding my
breath for either one of them. I fear the wagon tracks are too well
worn on both sides. I'm certainly not anticipating a reasoned
discussion on the issue anytime soon. We're locked up, and we'll stay
that way.

Consequently I imagine what will ultimately happen is that we'll deal
with effects as they occur--IF they occur--and that no sustained efforts
at amelioration, if there ever are any, will work. Whether they ever
could have worked anyway will become pointless to ponder.

I don't know that I think that's bad. I think it just is.

--
Bo Williams - ***@hiwaay.net
http://wmwmsblog.com/

nik Simpson

2007-11-15 15:00:05 UTC

Post by Bo Williams

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the
evidence that the earth is getting warmer.

Problem is Thomas, I don't believe there is any evidence, no matter
how compelling that would you persuade you that global warming is real.

I don't read that in his posts. I don't think he questions that data
show the earth is warming.

You have more faith in him than I do, perhaps I'm just doubting Thomas ;-)

Post by Bo Williams
The questions are do WE really have anything
to do with it? And whether we do or not, what's the best course of
mitigation (if any)?

Yes I wouldn't argue with that, but Thomas's great socialist conspiracy
theory is so far from rational that it's not worth arguing about.

Post by Bo Williams
Surely it hasn't escaped your notice that any weather phenomenon of any
kind is now routinely (and often, unquestioningly) blamed on global
warming. Katrina? Global warming. Drought? Global warming. Too hot?
Global warming. Too cold? Global warming. Fires in California?
Global warming. Tsunami? Global warming.

o, it hasn't escaped my notice, in fact I had a long arguement with my
brother about Katrina and the link with global warming, he had just made
a knee jerk connection between the two.

Post by Bo Williams
You mentioned people arguing against global warming reminding you of
fundamentalists arguing against evolution. There's plenty of that same
groundless zeal on the other side too.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Most of the detractors of global warming
will pick on the slightest inconsistency and place huge wieght on it,
while ignoring everything that contradicts their view. That's very
similar to the Intelligent Design position on evolution. BTW did anybody
see the Nova program on the Dover Intelligent Design trial, fascinating.

Post by Bo Williams

Post by nik Simpson
The reason is simple, you've taken a political decision that global
warming is a myth, as your subsequent rant about socialists and
fascists clearly reveals. This is not about science for you it's about
politics, which completely changes the way that information gets judged.

Unfortunately, the politics are inevitable when you discuss the
potential economic impacts.

But it should be possible to have a debate without having to spend time
on Thomas's paranoid delusion of the great socialist conspiracy.

--
Nik Simpson

J. Porter Clark

2007-11-15 18:37:43 UTC

Post by nik Simpson
But it should be possible to have a debate without having to spend time
on Thomas's paranoid delusion of the great socialist conspiracy.

I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

In the future, global warming skeptics will be sunbathing on the
beach of what was once central Greenland and saying that it's
all part of nature's cycle and the cold snap is due any day now.

People are just stupid. It is a problem of democracy.

--
J. Porter Clark <***@porterclark.com>

Thomas

2007-11-15 21:25:11 UTC

Post by J. Porter Clark
skeptics will be sunbathing on the
beach of what was once central Greenland

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Ron Hammon

2007-11-16 18:33:32 UTC

Post by nik Simpson
But it should be possible to have a debate without having to spend time
on Thomas's paranoid delusion of the great socialist conspiracy.

I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

No, some, like me, just require extraordinary evidence to back up
extraordinary claims, especially when extraordinary claims appear to
have ulterior motives behind them. But, some people are more gullible
and like to jump on the latest bandwagon.

Revisit this issue in 10 or 20 years. Prepare to be embarrassed.

Post by J. Porter Clark
In the future, global warming skeptics will be sunbathing on the
beach of what was once central Greenland and saying that it's
all part of nature's cycle and the cold snap is due any day now.

Why would there be an expected cold snap, to return things to "normal"?
Odd. I assumed that you were for the Big Bang theory (read: against
Steady State).

Post by J. Porter Clark
People are just stupid. It is a problem of democracy.

"You done tore your ass now." - Richad Pryor. It's a real shame that
you superior, ivory tower geeks can't run the world for us poor,
ignorant, unwashed masses. What a shame it must be to suffer under a
form of government where even the biggest fool has the exact same
political clout as you intelligentsia. What a fantasy it must be to
envision a Supreme Soviet (council) of intelligentsia to oversee our
affairs... for our own good.

"I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the
people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not
to take power from them, but to inform them by education." - Thomas
Jefferson

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
Government except all those others that have been tried." - Winston
Churchill

"Democracy: The substitution of election by the incompetent many for
appointment by the corrupt few." - George Bernard Shaw

"A democrat need not believe that the majority will always reach a wise
decision. He should however believe in the necessity of accepting the
decision of the majority, be it wise or unwise, until such a time that
the majority reaches another decision." - Bertrand Russell

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that
there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -
Galbraith's Law

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the
masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth
does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the
people." - Giordano Bruno

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Marx

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken

Ron Hammon

J. Porter Clark

2007-11-16 22:11:19 UTC

Post by J. Porter Clark
I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

You have proved my point.

Post by Ron Hammon
Revisit this issue in 10 or 20 years. Prepare to be embarrassed.

Is it 10 or 20?

Why would there be an expected cold snap, to return things to "normal"?
Odd. I assumed that you were for the Big Bang theory (read: against
Steady State).

Which are you saying?

1. There is no cycle, and everything is changing, right on
schedule

2. There is a cycle, because it will return to "how we are
now" normal within 10 (or 20) years.

Post by J. Porter Clark
People are just stupid. It is a problem of democracy.

"You done tore your ass now." - Richad Pryor. It's a real shame that
you superior, ivory tower geeks can't run the world for us poor,

Oh, spare us all. I know enough of history to know that tyranny
exists in democracy--and in all alternatives.

Hey, I've given up. I am not going to even try to convince
anyone about global warming. We're all gonna die. Next
question?

--
J. Porter Clark <***@porterclark.com>

Ron Hammon

2007-11-17 00:03:25 UTC

Post by J. Porter Clark
I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

You have proved my point.

I "have [proven]" what point? I said that I require extraordinary
evidence, not that I "now and forever" reject the theory of (current)
global warming. I have no problem, whatsoever, in accepting climate
change as fact WHEN IT BECOMES A FACT.

Also, I find it staggeringly coincindental if Earth is in dire straits
at the very moment of my existence upon it. If we are hit by a massive
meteor, I anticipate change. If the magnetic poles reverse, I
anticipate change. If the sun has a big Solar-fart, I anticipate
change. But, I am very resistant to the idea that we little piss-ants
can drag around the whole globe with our puny side-effects. I'm not
sure that we could change the world climate if we made an all-consuming
effort to do so. I think that man is just a tiny fraction as important
as he thinks he is.

Post by Ron Hammon
Revisit this issue in 10 or 20 years. Prepare to be embarrassed.

Is it 10 or 20?

Why would there be an expected cold snap, to return things to "normal"?
Odd. I assumed that you were for the Big Bang theory (read: against
Steady State).

Which are you saying?
1. There is no cycle, and everything is changing, right on
schedule
2. There is a cycle, because it will return to "how we are
now" normal within 10 (or 20) years.

Lol! You're so deep into "Inconvenient Truth" that you don't even
recognize that both choices you list require (current) Global Warming to
be a fact.

Try hard to comprehend this. If there is no change, there is no "cycle"
and no "will return" to "normal".

3. Perhaps, there is currently no change at all.

3a. Most likely, IF there is a real, worldwide climate change, man
is not primarily responsible nor can man neccessarily "fix" it.

Post by J. Porter Clark
People are just stupid. It is a problem of democracy.

"You done tore your ass now." - Richad Pryor. It's a real shame that
you superior, ivory tower geeks can't run the world for us poor,

Oh, spare us all. I know enough of history to know that tyranny
exists in democracy--and in all alternatives.
Hey, I've given up. I am not going to even try to convince
anyone about global warming. We're all gonna die. Next
question?

Seriously, check back in 10 or 20 years, with hat in hand.

Ron Hammon

nik Simpson

2007-11-17 00:31:45 UTC

Post by J. Porter Clark
I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

You have proved my point.

I "have [proven]" what point? I said that I require extraordinary
evidence,

So Ron, what would you regard as sufficiently "extraordinary"?

--
Nik Simpson

Ron Hammon

2007-11-17 01:52:57 UTC

Post by J. Porter Clark
I think that you're wasting your time, because everyone has
already decided what their opinions are now and forever shall be
on global warming.

You have proved my point.

I "have [proven]" what point? I said that I require extraordinary
evidence,

So Ron, what would you regard as sufficiently "extraordinary"?

Excellent question!

For one thing, I should be able to spot something in this spreadsheet
that I built, myself, from NOAA data concerning Chicago Winters for the
last 136 years, real observations for one and one third centuries.

If fearmongers revealed only the last 30 years of the graph, the adult
life of most devotees, it would appear alarming. I suspect that such
dishonest "cherry picking" is driving this whole warming fad.

However, the warmest string of Chicago Winters isn't now. It was well
OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS ago, way before the causes were even in use that
are now quoted to be endangering our world.

Study the graph and point out what supports your claim. The Quattro Pro
chart is set to analyze by a 4 period moving average. I played around
with it and could find no supportive prediction at all. I don't know if
the chart translated to Excel.

I spent a few hours searching for warming and found none. Can you say
that YOU have explored other side of the argument?

Original data from NOAA:
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=CHI_winter_temps

Quattro Pro file:
http://proudshopper.com/personal/chicagotemps.qpw

Excel file:
http://proudshopper.com/personal/chicagotemps.xls

Ron Hammon

Thomas

2007-11-15 16:04:48 UTC

To equate the work on global warming with a "claim that tarot cards
foretold an asteroid strike" shows a stunning ignorance of the evidence
that the earth is getting warmer.

What a cop out. You're Chicken Little in this case. The burden of
proof is on you.

T.J. Higgins

2007-11-15 01:20:04 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
But, don't worry. As soon as the fad of Global Warming winds down, there
will be some fresh excuse to bash technology and materialism. You can
bet on it.

Materialism deserves to be bashed.

--
TJH

tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

Ron Hammon

2007-11-15 02:30:08 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
But, don't worry. As soon as the fad of Global Warming winds down, there
will be some fresh excuse to bash technology and materialism. You can
bet on it.

Materialism deserves to be bashed.

" Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist.
Paranormal, supernatural or occult phenomena are either delusions or
reducible to physical forces."

http://skepdic.com/materialism.html

Ron Hammon

Greg Bacon

2007-11-15 14:16:30 UTC

In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
T.J. Higgins <***@vernal.equinox.edu> wrote:

: Materialism deserves to be bashed.

Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can
do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen
to you badmouth the United States of America!

Gentlemen!

Greg

--
Chef: Haven't you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?
General: I don't listen to hip-hop.

Bob & Holly Wilson

2007-11-15 14:20:06 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
I take "New Ager" to mean sort of an evolution of
Sixties Hippies who still embrace alternative healing, astrology,
pyramid power, Eastern stuff like "chakras" and "karma", and, in
particular, the belief that "hard" science and enterprise are
undesirable or even evil.

- Nancy Reagan - astrology
- George Bush - stem cell research
- George Romney - Mormon underwear
- Bush, Georgia and Alabama- 'faith based' initatives and rain prayers
- Bush Administration - "hard'" science and Iraq reconstruction

Bob Wilson

T.J. Higgins

2007-11-18 14:27:21 UTC

Post by Bob & Holly Wilson

- Dennis Kucinich - UFOs

--
TJH

tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

Carol

2007-11-18 15:38:11 UTC

Post by Bob & Holly Wilson
- Nancy Reagan - astrology
- George Bush - stem cell research
- George Romney - Mormon underwear
- Bush, Georgia and Alabama- 'faith based' initatives and rain prayers
- Bush Administration - "hard'" science and Iraq reconstruction

- Dennis Kucinich - UFOs
--
TJH

You don't believe in UFO's?

T.J. Higgins

2007-11-20 01:06:53 UTC

Post by Carol

- Dennis Kucinich - UFOs
--
TJH

You don't believe in UFO's?

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster count? :^)

Seriously though, I'm an agnostic on the subject.

--
TJH

tjhiggin.at.hiwaay.dot.net

Jean Smith

2007-11-20 16:17:17 UTC

Post by Carol

- Dennis Kucinich - UFOs
--
TJH

You don't believe in UFO's?

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster count? :^)
Seriously though, I'm an agnostic on the subject.

Sightings seem to align with population density, except in Europe.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/GeneralSightings.htm
http://www.ufomaps.com/

--
http://www.humorgazette.com/section_sports2_supbowl.htm
Veterans return http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/11/20071112_a_main.asp
More higher http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22765560-2,00.html

Ron Hammon

2007-11-21 00:12:36 UTC

Post by Jean Smith

Post by Carol

- Dennis Kucinich - UFOs
--
TJH

You don't believe in UFO's?

Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster count? :^)
Seriously though, I'm an agnostic on the subject.

Sightings seem to align with population density, except in Europe.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/GeneralSightings.htm
http://www.ufomaps.com/

This debunks the common view, and jokes, that UFO sightings are made by
drunken, ignorant rednecks; Falkville and Fyfe not withstanding.

Ron Hammon

misc_poster

2007-11-22 16:17:58 UTC

Post by Bob & Holly Wilson

If we're listing folks and their mythological beliefs:

Clintons, Liberal Dems, Communists - A functional, nanny state, large,
central government

mp

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-23 08:25:25 UTC

Post by misc_poster

Post by Bob & Holly Wilson

Clintons, Liberal Dems, Communists - A functional, nanny state, large,
central government

Bush Crime Family, Republicans, Neo-cons - a DYS-functional nanny state,
large central government.

If only you know who was pulling their strings. It's not who you think.
It's not who you think I think. You could possibly handle it if they
were anything like us. If only they were human. IF ONLY THEY WERE BIPEDS!

Thank goodness there is a simple answer, Dear Friends:

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

misc_poster

2007-11-23 18:59:08 UTC

"Unclaimed Mysteries"

Post by misc_poster
Clintons, Liberal Dems, Communists - A functional, nanny state, large,
central government

Bush Crime Family, Republicans, Neo-cons - a DYS-functional nanny state,
large central government.
If only you know who was pulling their strings. It's not who you think.
It's not who you think I think. You could possibly handle it if they were
anything like us. If only they were human. IF ONLY THEY WERE BIPEDS!
http://youtu.be/Qt9MP70ODNw
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Ah, but a "DYS-functional nanny state, large central government" isn't a
myth - we have one now

Let's just say:
(more or less)
All the Incumbents ('bents for short) - large government that's good for us
peons (from PEed upOn oNeS)

mp

Who do you think I think you think? ...I thought so!

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-17 06:07:16 UTC

Post by Ron Hammon
snip

I believe that it is even deeper than politics, more like a world view.
You don't hear the term "New Ager" much anymore, but I feel that it is
fitting. While all Democrats aren't New Agers, I doubt that ANY
Republicans are. I take "New Ager" to mean sort of an evolution of
Sixties Hippies who still embrace alternative healing, astrology,
pyramid power, Eastern stuff like "chakras" and "karma", and, in
particular, the belief that "hard" science and enterprise are
undesirable or even evil.
Along with the "New Ager" mindset is the belief that "technology" is
oppressive and evil. (I find it amusing when musicians use a digitally
mastered recording, recorded with electronic instruments, delivered by
compact disk or interent, to condemn technology.)
Unfortunately, there are subtle echoes of this mindset throughout our
society (led, somewhat by TV and movies made in California, the SEAT of
New Agers). For example, for many, vitaman C is no good unless derived
from rose hips or some other natural source. The thought of chemists
whipping up vitaman C in a lab for comsumption is abhorent to many.
Herbal "cures" can be all the rage, even in suburbia. Vinegar can cure
what ails you. Chiropractor can pull poisons through the soles of youre
feet. Magnet inner shoe soles can cure aching feet. The list goes on.
In every case, the "establishment" and "science" is the enemy. The REAL
truth comes from astral projection or some such nonsense.
This New Age mindset embraces anything at all, no matter how silly, as
long as it challenges the American values of the Fifties, be it
homosexuality, socialism, non-Christian religions, free love,
recreational drugs, pacificism (see, I told you it was the legacy of
Sixties hippes), and ALL things metaphysical. Anything whatsoever which
vindicates the "good" of hard work, making money, real science, or
attacking others in an extreme context, is evil and must be rejected.
The focus must be on oil-soaked birds, beached whales, drowning polar
bears, spotted owls, and so on, the "evils" of our culture.
For this crowd, which exists ONLY on the far left side, "Global Warming"
can ONLY be negative IF it is man-made. If it is just Mother Earth
going through one of her cycles, then all is well. Or, worse, if the
earth isn't warming up after all. All is NOT well. There is some good
technology bashing to do and the biggest game in town is to blame the
modern American for killing the ENTIRE WORLD. What could be more
refreshing?!
Gaia is great. Man is evil. Technology is evil. Science is evil. See
there? Man's evil technology is killing us all! Don't tell us that it
isn't really happening, or that it is a natural process. Why, this is
the best technology bashing we've had since the ozone hole thing.
But, don't worry. As soon as the fad of Global Warming winds down, there
will be some fresh excuse to bash technology and materialism. You can
bet on it.

This from the political movement that brought you Creationism -errr-
Intelligent Design -errr- "GET ME RE-WRITE!"

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-17 06:00:48 UTC

Yet another right-wing slur: that your opponents are not guided by
science and reason, but by feelings and beliefs. You're not arguing,
you're just sliming.

Take your air quotes and shove them up your AGW.

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Chuck Taylor

2007-11-14 00:12:46 UTC

The first gas station had to be built somewhere too.

Nonsense. Any good American history book will tell you that gas
stations dotted the landscape for decades before the gasoline engine
was invented, starting with Philips Petroleum's push to establish a
nationwide network of filling stations and distribution centers by
1866 (the "Philips '66 plan") and Union a decade later.

No one really knew what they were for. During each Presidential
election cycle, there were rumors of the oil companies being in
cahoots with the President (whoever he was at any given time) in
perpetrating some kind of "internal combustion fraud"; and activists
insisted that the answer to America's transportation and environmental
woes lay in innovative, high-protein feeds for horses and oxen, made
from new hybridized grains.

Thank goodness the infrastructure was there to help internal
combustion finally took over, otherwise we'd be listening to Farmer
Wilson tell us how he got his best horses to eat a third less feed by
driving them to town at only a half-trot.

--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

Thomas

2007-11-14 06:05:38 UTC

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:12:46 -0600, Chuck Taylor

Post by Chuck Taylor

The first gas station had to be built somewhere too.

Nonsense. Any good American history book will tell you that gas
stations dotted the landscape for decades before the gasoline engine
was invented, starting with Philips Petroleum's push to establish a
nationwide network of filling stations and distribution centers by
1866 (the "Philips '66 plan") and Union a decade later.
No one really knew what they were for. During each Presidential
election cycle, there were rumors of the oil companies being in
cahoots with the President (whoever he was at any given time) in
perpetrating some kind of "internal combustion fraud"; and activists
insisted that the answer to America's transportation and environmental
woes lay in innovative, high-protein feeds for horses and oxen, made
from new hybridized grains.
Thank goodness the infrastructure was there to help internal
combustion finally took over, otherwise we'd be listening to Farmer
Wilson tell us how he got his best horses to eat a third less feed by
driving them to town at only a half-trot.

Ha!

Turns out I missed this paragraph myself when I read the article:

"Distributed Energy Systems will be
able to compare the White Plains installation's performance against
other Distributed Energy Systems installations already in operation in
other regions in the United States and around the world."

k***@hiwaay.net

2007-11-14 14:05:04 UTC

Chuck Taylor <***@spamtrap.org> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:51:37 GMT, Thomas <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

: Nonsense. Any good American history book will tell you that gas
: stations dotted the landscape for decades before the gasoline engine
: was invented, starting with Philips Petroleum's push to establish a
: nationwide network of filling stations and distribution centers by
: 1866 (the "Philips '66 plan") and Union a decade later.

: No one really knew what they were for. During each Presidential
: election cycle, there were rumors of the oil companies being in
: cahoots with the President (whoever he was at any given time) in
: perpetrating some kind of "internal combustion fraud"; and activists
: insisted that the answer to America's transportation and environmental
: woes lay in innovative, high-protein feeds for horses and oxen, made
: from new hybridized grains.

: Thank goodness the infrastructure was there to help internal
: combustion finally took over, otherwise we'd be listening to Farmer
: Wilson tell us how he got his best horses to eat a third less feed by
: driving them to town at only a half-trot.

There was no alternative for the horseless carriage back then and you had
to put up with the inconvenience of your corner gas station. Fast forward
to today, why would someone buy a h2 vehicle if the closest pump is going
to be cross town, another city, etc. As stated in my followup if this new
method of h2 production is so good, then it should be included with the
purchase of the h2 vehicle.

Chuck Taylor

2007-11-14 18:11:28 UTC

Post by k***@hiwaay.net
There was no alternative for the horseless carriage back then and you had
to put up with the inconvenience of your corner gas station. Fast forward
to today, why would someone buy a h2 vehicle if the closest pump is going
to be cross town, another city, etc.

You may have taken my earlier contribution to this thread a little too
seriously, but we'll roll with it for now. Sure there were
alternatives to horseless carriages back in the day: horses and steam.
Those who didn't want to put up with the inconvenience of a gas
station across town, or the cost of new technology, stuck with their
horses.

What made gasoline-powered engines ultimately replace them was that
the benefits, either potential or immediate, outweighed the initial
difficulties in obtaining fuel for them.

Whether the ratio of benefits to difficulties will make H2 replace
petroleum as the fuel for automobiles is an unanswered question. At
least one of the regulars here says the answer is no...at least as
long as he believes it serves his political interests and antagonistic
urges to say so. A couple more of us are guessing the answer is yes,
even in the face of such chicken-and-egg problems as the widespread
availability of fuel.

(If H2 as an automotive fuel ever takes off, you'll see fleets adopt
it before consumers, just as with LP-powered vehicles, for *precisely*
the reason you mentioned--fueling stations won't appear until there's
demand for them.)

Post by k***@hiwaay.net
As stated in my followup if this new
method of h2 production is so good, then it should be included with the
purchase of the h2 vehicle.

One of the things that attracts me to the idea of H2 as a fuel is
that, at least in theory, one could have such a unit in one's
backyard, possibly even solar-powered. Visits to the corner station
for an H2 fill-up could be rare.

Included with a new vechicle purchase? Okay, I suppose. But both the
production H2-powered vehicle and a home-sized generation and fueling
system are a ways off at the moment, and I'll bet the generation rig
won't be cheap.

--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/

Thomas

2007-11-14 18:18:21 UTC

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:11:28 -0600, Chuck Taylor

Post by Chuck Taylor
One of the things that attracts me to the idea of H2 as a fuel is
that, at least in theory, one could have such a unit in one's
backyard, possibly even solar-powered. Visits to the corner station
for an H2 fill-up could be rare.
Included with a new vechicle purchase? Okay, I suppose. But both the
production H2-powered vehicle and a home-sized generation and fueling
system are a ways off at the moment, and I'll bet the generation rig
won't be cheap.

Like most "new" technologies, I imagine costs are astronomical at this
point (I'm just guessing however). I can envision a day where
economically efficient units are as numerous as gas stations are
today, are solar powered, and the cost to fill up is virtually
nothing.

We will have that huge new water vapor problem to deal with though.

Lee K. Seitz

2007-11-14 18:35:39 UTC

Post by Chuck Taylor
(If H2 as an automotive fuel ever takes off, you'll see fleets adopt
it before consumers, just as with LP-powered vehicles, for *precisely*

"LP-powered vehicles"? They make cars that run off old record albums?
Well, I guess it's good someone found *something* to do with them.
The thrift stores can only take so many, after all.

--
lkseitz (Lee K. Seitz) .at. hiwaay @dot@ net
PHB: Every employee will wear a button that says "I'm empowered."
ASOK: I don't want to.
PHB: You have to. -- Scott Adams, Dilbert, 9 Mar 2002

k***@hiwaay.net

2007-11-14 18:53:19 UTC

Lee K. Seitz <***@see.my.sig> wrote:
: In article <***@4ax.com>,
: Chuck Taylor <***@spamtrap.org> wrote:
:>(If H2 as an automotive fuel ever takes off, you'll see fleets adopt
:>it before consumers, just as with LP-powered vehicles, for *precisely*

: "LP-powered vehicles"? They make cars that run off old record albums?
: Well, I guess it's good someone found *something* to do with them.
: The thrift stores can only take so many, after all.

Maybe thats why I prefer charcoal over lp grills? I still have a massive
collection of vinyl and actually play them every so often.

Unclaimed Mysteries

2007-11-17 06:18:00 UTC

Post by Lee K. Seitz

Post by Chuck Taylor
(If H2 as an automotive fuel ever takes off, you'll see fleets adopt
it before consumers, just as with LP-powered vehicles, for *precisely*

"LP-powered vehicles"? They make cars that run off old record albums?
Well, I guess it's good someone found *something* to do with them.
The thrift stores can only take so many, after all.

As a board-certified hippie-New-Ager, I intuitively sense that the
nuances of music cannot be nurtured within a computerized stream of
soulless digital bits, but must be released from the endless undulating
groove. Likewise, I feel your car will benefit from this holistic
approach to LP fueling. Especially the engine and transmission chakras.

War Damn Namasté!

Corry

--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

Bob & Holly Wilson

2007-11-15 14:20:07 UTC

Post by Chuck Taylor
Nonsense. Any good American history book will tell you that gas
stations dotted the landscape for decades before the gasoline engine
was invented, starting with Philips Petroleum's push to establish a
nationwide network of filling stations and distribution centers by
1866 (the "Philips '66 plan") and Union a decade later.

Primarily selling 'coal oil' used for lighting.

Bob Wilson

Bob & Holly Wilson

2007-11-15 14:20:08 UTC