Re: Who is this Al Gore ***?

On a sunny day (Tue, 27 May 2008 03:16:54 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote in
<d53e1002-ed2c-43ae-9c45-ab40d055f86d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Last time a I bought a book I cannot remember.

Why am I not surprised?

Because most people these days get their science info from the net, and you know that.
Making paper kills trees, creates CO2, something you are against, so, if anybody,
I would have expected *you* to stop buying processed dead trees.


To my surprise even Winfield's book is at least partly online.
No magazines either.

Your loss.

Actually I ordered a single copy of a magazine
(special edition on some super computer like issue) from Germany,
it set me back about 30 Euros. (say 50 dollars).
Nearly all the info in it is also online.
That did it for me.
It is still worth it, but the bank benefited most.

I do not know how much CO2 is generated creating a single DVD,
but Winfield could sell the book on DVD as pdf.
Maybe that would reduce CO2?
I have some Feynman lectures (physics) downloaded and burned to DVD.
Save a tree.


Only partly true.
You would need very high voltage DC networks to go from dark to light...

That used to be true - super-conducting transmission lines have much
lower losses. Pumped storage is probably still the cheaper option for
solar cells.

Come on, the longest super conducting real power line is still experimental,
less then a few miles, IIRC.



It was Alexanders the Great's empire where the sun did never set.

Actually, it was the British Empire. Alexander didn't get anywhere
near 180 degrees.

You must be British :-)


As for wind, well that is even more unpredictable.

In any one area. And it does blow at night.

True, and sometimes not for weeks.
Will have to see what sea based windparks do.
Sill we need gigawatts more continuously.


Lyon and environment is already radioactive.... (I've heard).

It hasn't been evacuated yet.

Thats is my point exactly, even if you hit that nuclear plant,
within a few years life will just get on, around it.



Modern H bombs destroy a 200 mile radius, no need to exactly hit
a nuclear reactor.

You've got to get even an H-bomb fairly closer to a nuclear reactor to
crack the containment and disperse the - tons - of fissile material
inside.

And your 200-mile radius of destruction would seem to refer to
radioactive pollution -

Yes.


you may get light blast damage out to a radius
of about ten miles, and you'd need to get closer than that to even
crack the containment shell.

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

Yes I know...




As price of oil goes up, coal becomes very attractive for countries that h=
ave it.
Energy is needed for industry, industry exports to o.a. US.
Industry controls gov, Gore is dead ;-)

And with carbon dioxide sequestration, it can be pretty close to
carbon neutral.

Yea, you mean could be, but why bother, CO2 is good for you ;-)

Not a proposition that even Karl Rove could sell.

I have seen 'CO2 is good for you' recently in a politics group IIRC.
But google search does not show it now, sensitive to lots of things.


"Objectively informed"? You obviously haven't read any of the counter-
propaganda, which does tend to skate around objective facts in a
rather obvious way.

Look you bought one book, did read it, your neurons were wired....
Now let's say if Gore was right, and human made global warming added a 1% (just an example)
extra to sea level, or 1 degree C extra to temperature in 100 years, that does not much now does it?

Climate and weather is very noise like on the short term, look at any parameter.
And all your complaints about kangaroo land drying up, you may just as well get a few wet years
in the future, then would you also blame that on human made global warming? Probably.



It may look persuasive to people dim enough to
believe that they have a "genius level IQ" - like out friend Eeyore -
but most of it is blatant special pleading.

Well, I did an IQ test (actually it was for a job, that I actually got too), many years
ago.
It took a whole day psychological test, we were a group of maybe 15 applicants.
I finished most things rather quickly, was a bit worried why everybody else was still at it...
At the end of the day the testers were bowing to me, still had no clue why.
But then, for them, a 4 digit IQ is rare I think.
;-)


Now a recent report says that cellphone radiation studies that showed DNA =
changes
were faked, one professor says no.

It is rather difficut to imagine a plausible mechanism for cellphone
radiation to produce DNA changes.

mmm, seems simple to me, bit of generated heat will cook the stuff.

Not to mention the enzymes doing the day-to-day work of the cells
involved. You wouldn't have mutant ear if that were the case, but a
cooked ear. The difficulty is that there is no plausible mechanism for
a selective excitation of the DNA - all the radiation can do is warm
the cell as a whole.

Well, here is that professor who _did_ the tests.
It seems one of his co-workers accessed the data later.
Does that invalidate the test?
I think no, unless she 'cooked' the data.
The professor still claims his study is valid.
Not difficult to repeat I think?
That is what should be done.


I find it not clever if you confuse short time cycles (El nino / nina whatever
, forgive the spelling) with a steady warming.

The drought started with the strongest El Nino ever recorded and has
persisted through the subsequent La Nina, which is very worrying. The
steady warming is a real problem,

You are still looking at far to short timescales.


There is
always a place for minority opinions, usually the waste-paper basket.

Sure, but minorities can be right, and mainstream can be misguided,
as the American people were misguided into a war.

True. But that's not the way you bet, certainly not in this case.

I sure do not bet on political biased or manipulated science result.

The world climate _will_ change, it always has, and we need to be ready.
We better have those energy sources to cope with it.
Better then go live in the wild to reduce CO2.

.

Quantcast