... The Solution to Global Warming Everyone Can Agree On!
not-jonathan
Democracy and Freedom!
The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
controls.
The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
Imho. Thank you for reading.
Jonathan
s
o%nbo
"not-jonathan" <Bit...@myass.com> wrote in message
news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPX...@giganews.com...
>
> Democracy and Freedom!
>
>
> The best solution to climate change is found in
> a world dominated
> by proper and legitimate free market
> democracies.
>
Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent
problem!
All we can do is adapt to any natural climate
variations.
Regards
Bonz0
"I care about the environment (I grew up in a
solar house) and think there are a dozen good
reasons why we should burn less fossil fuels,
but.global warming is not one of them."
Nir Shaviv, Israeli physicist 2009
not-jonathan
"o%nbo" <k...@l.com> wrote in message news:4ade4a31$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "not-jonathan" <Bit...@myass.com> wrote in message
> news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>
>>
>> The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
>> by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
>>
>
>
> Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent problem!
> All we can do is adapt to any natural climate variations.
I just don't think this question should be whether
warming is happening or not. The question should
be whether society should gain the ability to
manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
I think is you scroll down to fig 1-5, the problem
becomes clear. Change is coming. Whether the current
rate of change prevents the next ice age, or set's
is off is the big question. Having the ability to manage
the biosphere should be useful for ...either...possibility.
"From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years
was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks
above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand
to perhaps twenty thousand years. These data should frighten you.
All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data
show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up."
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
>"o%nbo" <k...@l.com> wrote in message news:4ade4a31$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "not-jonathan" <Bit...@myass.com> wrote in message
>> news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>>
>>>
>>> The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
>>> by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent problem!
>> All we can do is adapt to any natural climate variations.
>
>I just don't think this question should be whether
>warming is happening or not. The question should
>be whether society should gain the ability to
>manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
>
>I think is you scroll down to fig 1-5, the problem
>becomes clear. Change is coming. Whether the current
>rate of change prevents the next ice age, or set's
>is off is the big question. Having the ability to manage
>the biosphere should be useful for ...either...possibility.
>
>"From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years
>was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks
>above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand
>to perhaps twenty thousand years. These data should frighten you.
>All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data
>show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up."
>http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
I don't know about this, but what is a gov lab
doing publishing such a frightening image at the
end of this page?
The lab must really be busy with research
to be able to publish online enough to get 2.7 million
hits on google.
While I agree that either warming is possible,
from whatever cause or randomness, the ice age
looks like the most likely possibility if the graph
showing a cooling drift over the last 900 years
before the recent warming data spike.
Having UHI mask a cooling plunge would
be really a disaster in the making, but maybe
nothing could prevent cooling if it is caused by
snow cover, even blowing black dust over the
snow fields might not be enough.
Maybe this will cause hanson to rethink
the problem. :-)
o%nbo
>
> "o%nbo" <k...@l.com> wrote in message
> news:4ade4a31$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "not-jonathan" <Bit...@myass.com> wrote in
>> message
>> news:NtSdne1XQ6yP2kPX...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>>
>>>
>>> The best solution to climate change is found
>>> in a world dominated
>>> by proper and legitimate free market
>>> democracies.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Impossible to have a solution to a non-existent
>> problem!
>> All we can do is adapt to any natural climate
>> variations.
>
> I just don't think this question should be
> whether
> warming is happening or not. The question should
> be whether society should gain the ability to
> manage the biosphere to the benefit of all?
I think Canute tried something like that without
success a few hundred years ago.
Some people never learn ...
john fernbach
Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
disagree.
But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Well -
when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
Or excuse my French. My biases are showing.
When is your favorite flexible, adaptive "free market" economic
system actually going to take radical action to cease using fossil
fuels and start relying on renewable forms of energy?
It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
adaptive & wonderful and all.
It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
As a half-baked student of Karl Marx, I strongly agree with you (and
with Marx) that capitalist economies excel at "revolutionizing the
instruments of production, and with them the relations of production,
and thereby relations of the whole society."
The history of capitalist industrialism to date has demonstrated that
the system repeatedly "revolutionizes the instruments of production"
and replaces older technologies with newer ones all the time.
So "free market democracies" COULD -- theoretically -- abandon their
old, environment-destroying industrial technologies and energy sources
(eg fossil fuels) and base their future prosperity on the development
and commercialization of new, environment-friendly, non-carbon energy
sources.
But ARE THEY ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT?
Can American capitalism, in particular, actually enact meaningful
climate legislation without threatening thousands of coal miners &
auto mechanics & oil patch mayors with higher unemployment -- which
"free market" libertarians in the US insist that the government cannot
and should not try to relieve?
Can American capitalism change its present suicidally stupid patterns
of energy production without hurting the profits of the electric
utility industry, thus threatening the pension funds of older
Americans who are already being hurt badly by the latest financial
crisis and the latest capitalist world recession?
I'm not so sure that American capitalism can do this. Not when it's
hamstrung by idiotic libertarian ideologues and partisan Republicans,
who staunchly refuse to let the government rescue the capitalist
system when it needs it the most.
And not when it's paralyzed by the cowardice and conservativism of
"moderate" Democrats, many of them from coal-producing states, who are
likely to vote with the fossil fuel lobbyists & the Republicans when
it comes to legislating on climate change & its solutions.
So I think it's possible that in the United States, anyway, your
famous "free market democracy" is going to fall flat on its face when
faced with the challenge of transitioning out of our current energy
economy and into a more climate-friendly one.
If you love capitalism so much - how are you going to keep this from
happening, dude?
If the biggest capitalist corporations in America & the world continue
to be addicted to fossil fuel exploitation, and if the hundreds of
corporate lobbyists plaguing Capitol Hill prevent the US Congress and
the Obama White House from doing anything meaningful to correct the
biases of the coal, oil, utility and natural gas boys -- your "free
market democracy" is going to FAIL, isn't it?
And in failing, demonstrate to every thoughtful environmentalist that
"free market democracy" is actually just another word for eco-suicide?
n00b-
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:faf5b743-4b94-47ea...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
======================================
There is no "climate change problem", it's a
socialist scam designed to introduce global
governance and wealth redistribution.
"Scientist" Admits Using Climate Change To Further
His Socialist Agenda
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
August 6 2009
Book Review:
Why We Disagree About Climate Change By Mike Hulme
Cambridge University Press, 2009 432 pages,
ISBN-13: 978-0521727327
QUOTE: We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us
QUOTE: socialists like Hulme can frame the global
warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as
sustainable development, income redistribution,
population control, social justice, and many other
items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.
QUOTE: We will continue to create and tell new
stories about climate change and mobilise them in
support of our projects
QUOTE: These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
QUOTE: It is troubling to read a prominent
"scientist" who has so clearly lost sight of his
cardinal duty-to be skeptical of all theories and
always open to new data. It is particularly
troubling when this "scientist" endorses lying to
advance his personal political agenda.
More than a few people will be tempted to buy this
book based on the promise, implicit in its title,
that it examines the ideas and motives of both
sides in the global warming debate. But that is
not what this book is about. It is the musings of
a British socialist about how to use global
warming claims as a means of persuading "the
masses" to give up their economic liberties.
That the author, Mike Hulme, is a "scientist" who
helped write the influential reports of the IPCC
and many other government agencies makes this book
even more disturbing.
Narrow-Minded Outlook
Hulme frankly admits his perspective is colored by
his politics-"democratic socialist"-and it soon
becomes apparent that the only disagreements about
climate change he's aware of are those occurring
between the left (people who think like him) and
the far left, people he describes as
"eco-anarchists," "eco-socialists," and
"eco-authoritarians."
Opposition from centrists, conservatives,
libertarians, and nonideological scientists who
dispute his alarmist spin on the complicated data
of global warming merit hardly any mention.
Warming Gospel in Doubt
The notion that science can be determined by
government agencies proclaiming to speak on behalf
of entire scientific communities might be
passively accepted in Old Europe, but it is
jarring for an American reader.
Opinion polls show two-thirds of us do not believe
global warming is manmade, and more than 30,000
American scientists (including more than 9,000
with Ph.D.s) have signed a petition saying there
is no convincing scientific evidence that human
activity will cause catastrophic global warming.
A group of scientists called the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) has
produced an 880-page rebuttal of the latest IPCC
report containing more than 4,000 references to
peer-reviewed science. I edited that work.
There is a debate taking place about global
warming in America, and it is not the one
described by Hulme as being between those who
favor "cap and trade" and those who favor even
more radical changes in political, social, and
economic behavior.
Rather, it is about how much of the warming of the
late twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, whether the consequences of that
warming were on balance positive or negative, and
whether anything should be or could be done to
prevent or delay future warming.
This debate-the real public policy debate-is
entirely missing from Hulme's book.
Ideological Agenda
Convinced that the scientific debate is over and
he won, Hulme devotes most of his attention to
finding ways to overcome "barriers other than lack
of scientific knowledge to changing the status of
climate change in the minds of
citizens-psychological, emotional, and behavioural
barriers." He attempts to explain the public's
failure to respond to his calls for action in
terms of popular theories of irrational group
behavior, such as anchoring, fear of change, and
so on. He lacks the power of introspection that
would have led him to understand the fountains of
his own irrational beliefs.
The real purpose of this book isn't revealed until
far into it. "The idea of climate change," Hulme
writes at page 326, "should be seen as an
intellectual resource around which our collective
and personal identities and projects can form and
take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for
climate change, but to ask what climate change can
do for us."
According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot:
"Because the idea of climate change is so plastic,
it can be deployed across many of our human
projects and can serve many of our psychological,
ethical, and spiritual needs."
In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame
the global warming issue to achieve unrelated
goals such as sustainable development, income
redistribution, population control, social
justice, and many other items on the
liberal/socialist wishlist.
Knowingly Telling Lies
Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once
said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts one might have. ... Each of
us has to decide what the right balance is between
being effective and being honest," Hulme writes,
"We will continue to create and tell new stories
about climate change and mobilise them in support
of our projects."
These "myths," he writes, "transcend the
scientific categories of 'true' and 'false'." He
suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists
promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting
Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel,
and Celebrating Jubilee.
It is troubling to read a prominent "scientist"
who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal
duty-to be skeptical of all theories and always
open to new data. It is particularly troubling
when this "scientist" endorses lying to advance
his personal political agenda.
Read this book if you want insight into the mind
of a "scientist" who has surrendered all moral
authority to speak truthfully about global
warming.
Avoid it if you are looking for a book that
explains why we disagree about climate change.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3823
BradGuth
I can extensively agree with that analogy. However, why do you and so
many others need to have so many phony Usenet/newsgroup accounts?
What exactly are you hiding from us?
Are you suggesting that we should all be as phony and bogus as
yourself?
Your Spectra and "IceAgeTheories" are each interesting:
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/Spectra.html
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/IceAgeTheories.html
So, why are you hiding yourself behind multiple bogus names, and why
are tax payers having to pay for whatever it is that you actually do?
Are you any part of the BHO team (such as Steven Chu)?
In other words, what is your true motivation? and what is your
objective?
~ BG
BradGuth
It's all pretty much in those kosher Big Energy hands of those in
charge of most everything that counts.
As long as self-policing is not viable or otherwise working, our only
option is to suck it in and flat our go for it before China, India and
Russia end up with all the cookies.
I'm all for stopping a good portion of our hydrocarbon depletion and
of its environment pollution, including much of the hard-rock and
mineral mining that's also devastating to our environment. There are
technology alternatives and considerable efficiency gains that could
not only replace our dependency on fossil/bio fuels to one of
renewable and fusion that resolve most of our energy needs.
If you're interested, Steven Chu and I have ideas, and even logical
ones at that.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:faf5b743-4b94-47ea...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Earth has been getting warmer, our atmosphere is wetter and obviously
resources are depleted and otherwise our frail biodiversity
environment is artificially polluted. It's also called thawing out
from the last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to see.
10% < 25% of this global warming trend is caused by humanity.
That leaves us with 75% < 90% that's outside of human factors.
The rich and powerful (such as yourself) can always adapt by moving to
higher ground and cranking up the HVAC and/or going high tech (usually
government subsidized), and otherwise the middle class and poor can
just go off and die.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "o%nbo" <k...@l.com> wrote in messagenews:4ade4a31$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
As long as we have such a nearby moon that's so massive and
contributing 2e20 N/sec, and especially as we keep getting closer to
the vibrant and massive Sirius star system, there's no way this planet
is ever going to see another ice-age, not even if every hydrocarbon
consuming human on Earth were removed.
The question is, how thawed, hot and stormy is it going to get?
Can we (all ten billion of us) survive with deeper and more expansive
oceans that are extensively dead-zone populated?
~ BG
tunderbar
Some people see no difference between "free market democracies" and
"corrupt and incompetent dictatorships".
James
> On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, "not-jonathan" <Bit...@myass.com> wrote:
>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>
>> The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
>> by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
>>
>> A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
>> by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
>>
>> One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
>> has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
>> of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
>> While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
>> rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
>> controls.
>>
>> The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
>> determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
>> stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
>>
>> Imho. Thank you for reading.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> s
>
> Jonathan, I'm a green socialist, as everybody knows, and I somewhat
> disagree.
>
> But let's suppose for argument's sake that you're correct. Well -
> when is your GODDAMNED CAPITALIST SYSTEM actually going to show the
> flexibility to fix the climate change problem?
What makes you believe we can control the climate? It's no more possible to do that than to go faster than light. Any fool knows there are so many variables that make up climate that many of them are unknown.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
What "hard rock" mining other than gold is there?
BradGuth
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> :
> : What "hard rock" mining other than gold is there?
> :
>
> Copper, zinc, nickel, lead, ...
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
> man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> --George Bernard Shaw
Those hard-rock obtained elements at the very least.
Obviously there's iron but also uranium, thorium and even in some
instances coal that has a surface and/or mixed layer of earth and rock
that has to get removed and dumped somewhere, as well as having been
washed/processed with multiple millions of tonnes of fresh water
that's no longer drinkable unless you're doing a Dr.Kevorkian thing.
~ BG
not-jonathan
"john fernbach" <fernba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:faf5b743-4b94-47ea...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
> adaptive & wonderful and all.
> It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
Right. What I worry about most is that markets are very good
at anticipating, but I fear their perspective is too short term
for this problem. But it looks to me like the US was the big
holdout against action on climate change, while Europe and
others have a consensus action is needed. But Hurricanes
Katrina and Wilma changed a lot of minds in the states, and
with Bush gone, the US position has shifted substantially.
I also dabble to day trading, and I keep running into start ups
like below that make me believe real change is possible.
Ocean Power Technologies and Lockheed Martin Developing
Utility-Scale Wave Power System
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS112136+13-Oct-2009+PRN20091013
California Utility to Capture Solar Power in Space
http://www.livescience.com/technology/090414-space-solar.html
And my favorite is to return NASA to a program it started just
before Bush came into office. It's not hard to see why a Texas
oilman, and fast friend of Lockheed chose to return to the Moon
instead of continuing with this promising project. A project
capable of turning American into the next energy "Saudi Arabia"
so to speak
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
I can just hear Pres Bush now, sounding like that football coach Jim Mora
pleading...."playoffs...playoffs...you gotta be kidding me ...playoffs?"
Instead, Bush...."solar power...solar power... you gotta be kidding me
...solar power?" Instead Bush just asked Big Aero what their wish list
was and of course they wanted to build a bunch of shiny new Saturn V's
only bigger. Apollo redux on steroids, kick around some more Moon
rocks instead of replacing fossil fuels and help stop global warming.
So I'm rather optimistic these days that programs and ideas like that
can become reality if enough people demand it happen.
> If the biggest capitalist corporations in America & the world continue
> to be addicted to fossil fuel exploitation, and if the hundreds of
> corporate lobbyists plaguing Capitol Hill prevent the US Congress and
> the Obama White House from doing anything meaningful to correct the
> biases of the coal, oil, utility and natural gas boys -- your "free
> market democracy" is going to FAIL, isn't it?
> And in failing, demonstrate to every thoughtful environmentalist that
> "free market democracy" is actually just another word for eco-suicide?
I am afraid that there is a worst case scenario out there with the oil market.
My specialty in stock trading is playing off of panics. The recent Big Crash
was a classic example of a system where the uncertainty was of such an
extent to cause a panic selling situation. They can happen almost overnight
and be devastating. I'm not sure how many people are aware that OPEC
sets its quotas based on the estimated reserves of each country. So the
more a country...claims...to have in the ground, the more they can pump
each year. A huge incentive to over state how much oil they have.
I believe a reasonable estimate is they have about half of what they claim.
What happens in a panic is that everyone sells off as fast as they can, or
everyone starts hoarding if it's a resource. A day just might come along
where the market place collectively realized an already thin oil market
just experienced some bad news that sets off a world wide oil panic.
And the oil market collapses somewhat like the recent Stock Crash.
Instead of a complete collapse of the housing industry in the US, and
oil panic could cause the collapse of much of the industrialized world.
To me that's a possible and very scary.
That's another reason I think NASA should restart the Space Solar Power
Program, so that the world markets know there is an alternative 'out there'
that could be ramped up quickly enough to save the day. Giving confidence
to a nervous market.
I see that kind of scenario becoming possible twenty or thirty some years out.
The projects started in the next few years are crucial if they are to
become reality in time. Right now Pres Obama is considering a restructuring
of NASA's manned flight program, and NASA needs a new reason
for being. I say Space Solar Power should be that new goal.
We should insist on change, imho, using the link below.
Jonathan
To contact your Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
s
BradGuth
> "john fernbach" <fernbach1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:faf5b743-4b94-47ea...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's one thing to CLAIM that free market democracies actually are
> > adaptive & wonderful and all.
> > It's another thing whether they actually deliver the goods.
>
> Right. What I worry about most is that markets are very good
> at anticipating, but I fear their perspective is too short term
> for this problem. But it looks to me like the US was the big
> holdout against action on climate change, while Europe and
> others have a consensus action is needed. But Hurricanes
> Katrina and Wilma changed a lot of minds in the states, and
> with Bush gone, the US position has shifted substantially.
>
> I also dabble to day trading, and I keep running into start ups
> like below that make me believe real change is possible.
>
> Ocean Power Technologies and Lockheed Martin Developing
>
> California Utility to Capture Solar Power in Spacehttp://www.livescience.com/technology/090414-space-solar.html
>
> And my favorite is to return NASA to a program it started just
> before Bush came into office. It's not hard to see why a Texas
> oilman, and fast friend of Lockheed chose to return to the Moon
> instead of continuing with this promising project. A project
> capable of turning American into the next energy "Saudi Arabia"
> so to speak
>
> Executive Summary
> NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
SSP can work as long as Big Energy that's extensively kosher doesn't
stand in the way. Unfortunately, your odds of being left alone or
much less assisted by Big Energy or any of their associates is zilch.
In the mean time, 40% efficient terrestrial PV derived energy is at
least technically a done deal, not to mention directed solar to IR for
local process heating is pretty hard to ignore. Then there's nearly
unlimited geothermal (<10 km deep wells are within existing
capability).
~ BG
BradGuth
The "Cosmological Ice Ages" by Henry Kroll and myself as having
specifically associated our global environment with the Sirius star
system, is by far the most compelling logic for establishing the
greater environmental pattern of events and consequences, not that our
human impact hasn't contributed 10<25% towards the the most recent
thawing out trend.
From here on out there's no relief in sight, as Earth will continue to
thaw until only the highest mountains, Antarctica and the northern
portion of upper Greenland sustain any volume of old glacial or pack
ice. This in not to say that snowy and otherwise stormy winters are
out.
As long as our moon (Selene) is doing its usual 2e20 N/sec thing of
contributing its tidal force that's in part transferred into thermal
energy, there's no way this planet is ever seeing another deep glacial
ice age, other than those mini glacial cycles associated with the
elliptical orbit of our sun that's only getting hotter, and as we get
closer to the Sirius star system is only going to make things hotter
yet.
~ BG
Eric Chomko
> "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
> :
> : What "hard rock" mining other than gold is there?
> :
>
> Copper, zinc, nickel, lead, ...
>
Platinum, palladium, silver, osmium
Len Lekx
Iron, cobalt, aluminum, titanium...
Jonathan
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2448e0f4-fc79-47de...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> What exactly are you hiding from us?
Only my real name. So I can rant and rave all I want
without worrying about it finding it's way to my job
and such. Besides, words should stand on their own
merit. Debates and policies shouldn't be decided by
a battle of titles and names, but by the better idea
regardless of who said it.
> Are you suggesting that we should all be as phony and bogus as
> yourself?
It really isn't a good idea to post your real name and email address
on the Internet. There are just too many loony lurkers out there
that might go after anyone, even the nicest among us.
What do you gain by posting your real name?
An ego boost is about it...vanity. While the downsides
are countless, especially in the reticence to speak freely
about anything at all. Not to mention identity theft
on and on.
Posting a real name reduces the Internet to merely a microcosm
of the regular world...normal...everyday...average...just like
everyone else...INVISIBLE! Why do YOU want to be
invisible?
The Internet has boundless potential.
The Internet should be about what....should be.
Our 'alts' on Usenet should be about who we...want to be.
Or anything else our hearts should desire.
Not limited to ourselves.
> So, why are you hiding yourself behind multiple bogus names, and why
> are tax payers having to pay for whatever it is that you actually do?
That's not my site, I pay my own way.
> In other words, what is your true motivation? and what is your
> objective?
My objective is the same as always, get rid of the idea of going
back to the Moon, and replace that with Space Solar Power.
And spouting about Complexity science and so on.
It's important to keep repeating the same message for an
extended period if one wants to change any opinions.
My rants are nothing more than billboards for what I believe
is very important to the future. Of course I try every way I
can think of to get the message across. I'm also trying to
improve my writing. It helps to get feedback on what is
effective and what isn't. It's hard to tell.
s
~ BG
Jonathan
"James" <king...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:4adf2a44$0$11304$d94e...@news.iglou.com...
john fernbach wrote:
> What makes you believe we can control the climate?
For the same reason we can control a society, or a business.
We merely need to provide the system at hand with what
it needs to become a complex adaptive system. Which
is a generic evolving system, with all the properties we
normally ascribe to Darwinian evolution. A system which
has the ability to hill climb and evolve, and settle on the
best practical solution all by ...itself. Self organized.
Self organized systems find the optimum, and create the self
correcting mechanisms needed to stay near there
even against all odds.
> It's no more possible
> to do that than to go faster than light. Any fool knows there are so many
> variables that make up climate that many of them are unknown.
We don't have to know all the infinite details of such a complicated
system to be able to predict it's future, or know how it works.
That's the big advance of the Chaos and Complexity Sciences.
As this mathematics uses the output of the whole as it's source
of knowledge, not the details of the components. The components
details become more irrelavent as the level of complexity of
the whole increases. Hence, classical objective methods are
best for the simplist the universe has to offer. The complexity
of the biosphere works for us, not against...in the new math.
In a complex system, there are only two primary driving forces
or variables which largely control the system behavior.
The rest essentially sum to zero, as order of the whole...increases.
"If we have a complex system whose formula is unknown in detail,
one would think it is impossible to determine with any certainty its
ultimate behaviour. However, one of the main themes within the
field of Chaos Theory is the universal behaviour of complex systems
on the edge of chaos where the main features of the "outward" behaviour
are not dependent on their hidden "inward" mechanism."
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm
An output based system can be applied to ANY system at all.
Crossing all the disciplines, all of them, even the philosophical
can be treated with a SINGLE scientific language.
Dynamics of Complex Systems, full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
And like magic, the previously unseen commonalities
throughout all the disciplines appears as if a light switch
was turned on. The simplicity and elegance of the universe
can be seen for the first time.
The new math inverses the initial frame of reference.
So, the output of the whole, replaces part details.
Subjective methods replace objective.
Complexity Science has solved the problem of how to
get any two ...subjective...observers to agree consistently.
This is done simply by comparing the actual behavior of a system
to it's possible behavior. Things are measured against themselves.
Not against other objects, allowing universal application of this
from of analysis.
It's the universal application that's the big advance.
James
--
Well, I dunno. He seems reasonably intelligent but there is
something ....... I've got it!. He's full of shit. - George Carlin
--
The entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don't have any other issue.
Carbon Dioxide, that's it. - John Coleman
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2448e0f4-fc79-47de...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > What exactly are you hiding from us?
>
> Only my real name. So I can rant and rave all I want
> without worrying about it finding it's way to my job
> and such. Besides, words should stand on their own
> merit. Debates and policies shouldn't be decided by
> a battle of titles and names, but by the better idea
> regardless of who said it.
That's certainly idealistic and/or wishful. Too bad it can not happen
in this real world where you can't hardly trust anyone that uses a
phony/bogus name. Ghost writing for yourself isn't exactly a good
idea, because you can't convey integrity or trust.
>
> > Are you suggesting that we should all be as phony and bogus as
> > yourself?
>
> It really isn't a good idea to post your real name and email address
> on the Internet. There are just too many loony lurkers out there
> that might go after anyone, even the nicest among us.
Life is risky business, where death is always around the next corner.
I'm a risk taker as long as innocent others are not getting hurt by my
actions.
>
> What do you gain by posting your real name?
> An ego boost is about it...vanity. While the downsides
> are countless, especially in the reticence to speak freely
> about anything at all. Not to mention identity theft
> on and on.
Unlike most, I can be directly contacted outside of this infowar
cesspool, and I'm actually a really quite a nice guy. You always need
to sell yourself, and without truth of who you really are and
represent to begin with, there's nothing to sell.
>
> Posting a real name reduces the Internet to merely a microcosm
> of the regular world...normal...everyday...average...just like
> everyone else...INVISIBLE! Why do YOU want to be
> invisible?
This Usenet/newsgroup is global published, meaning that anyone
anywhere on this planet or even in LEO can read whatever you publish,
as well as directly interact with you in almost real time.
>
> The Internet has boundless potential.
> The Internet should be about what....should be.
> Our 'alts' on Usenet should be about who we...want to be.
> Or anything else our hearts should desire.
> Not limited to ourselves.
Pretending is for LeapFrog pop-up books, as much as it's for those
brown-nosed clowns, spooks and moles that have their ulterior motives
and hidden agendas.
>
> > So, why are you hiding yourself behind multiple bogus names, and why
> > are tax payers having to pay for whatever it is that you actually do?
>
> That's not my site, I pay my own way.
>
> > In other words, what is your true motivation? and what is your
> > objective?
>
> My objective is the same as always, get rid of the idea of going
> back to the Moon, and replace that with Space Solar Power.
> And spouting about Complexity science and so on.
> It's important to keep repeating the same message for an
> extended period if one wants to change any opinions.
>
> My rants are nothing more than billboards for what I believe
> is very important to the future. Of course I try every way I
> can think of to get the message across. I'm also trying to
> improve my writing. It helps to get feedback on what is
> effective and what isn't. It's hard to tell.
>
> s
SSP is perfectly noble enough, although it too is downright spendy and
loaded with technological compromises. You do realize that my LSE-CM/
ISS included at least 1.2 TW of laser cannon capacity that's tethered
to within 2r of Earth.
~ BG
Sylvia Else
Why would a free market (whether democratic or otherwise, and whatever
that means anyway) be able to handle this?
If global warming exists, and is caused by humans, then it's a good
example of both an external cost mechanism, which the free market tends
to ignore complete, and a "tragedy of the commons", which the free
market is particularly incapable of dealing with.
Both of these have to be addressed by regulatory intervention, because
the freemarket can never cope.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> not-jonathan wrote:
> > Democracy and Freedom!
>
> > The best solution to climate change is found in a world dominated
> > by proper and legitimate free market democracies.
>
> > A global catastrophe is likely if the world finds itself dominated
> > by corrupt and incompetent dictatorships.
>
> > One form of society is highly adaptive, resilient to change and
> > has countless nested self correcting mechanisms. And 'change'
> > of almost any kind is considered an opportunity for a new market.
> > While dictatorships like China and others might just fuel their
> > rapid industrialization with coal, and with few environmental
> > controls.
>
> > The collective ability of society to adapt to changes should
> > determine if our biosphere is headed for a new level of
> > stability, or some unpredictable calamity.
>
> > Imho. Thank you for reading.
>
> Why would a free market (whether democratic or otherwise, and whatever
> that means anyway) be able to handle this?
You mean a Alan Greenspan free-for-all market of special-interest
groups and insider trading plus grandiose marketeering, whereas their
greed, corruption and arrogance are revered and even public bailout
funded, of which obviously doesn't want any sort of change or much
less historical revision beyond 24 hours ago.
>
> If global warming exists, and is caused by humans, then it's a good
> example of both an external cost mechanism, which the free market tends
> to ignore complete, and a "tragedy of the commons", which the free
> market is particularly incapable of dealing with.
EXACTLY !
>
> Both of these have to be addressed by regulatory intervention, because
> the freemarket can never cope.
>
> Sylvia.
That is correct, whereas the unregulated and thus unpoliced free-for-
all market of public funded corruption is only suited to the pleasures
of a kosher mindset, not that a few too many other faith-based cartels/
cabals of similar fraud and corruption don't also exist.
We need to rules and accountability that includes going retroactive,
as far back in time and as wide of scope as this policy can muster.
In other words, history needs to reflect the whole truth and nothing
but the truth.
~ BG
BradGuth
Those and other hard-rock obtained elements at the very least.
Obviously there's iron but also uranium, thorium and even in some
instances coal that has a surface and/or mixed layer of earth and rock
that has to get removed and dumped somewhere, as well as having been
washed/processed with multiple millions of tonnes of fresh water
that's no longer drinkable unless you're doing a Dr. Kevorkian thing.
Otherwise Eden/Earth has been ''hard rock" mined to death, especially
where entire mountain tops are removed, plus otherwise extensively
plundered and pillaged from oily sands to deep underground, with
little if any regard for their tailings or the polluted fresh water as
lethal muck that's left behind or temporarily hidden out of sight for
future generations and our frail biodiversity to deal with.
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com>
> >technology alternatives and considerable efficiency gains that could
> >not only replace our dependency on fossil/bio fuels to one of
> >renewable and fusion that resolve most of our energy needs.
>
> >If you're interested, Steven Chu and I have ideas, and even logical
> >ones at that.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> What "hard rock"miningother than gold is there?
Eric Chomko and Fred J. McCall suggested copper, zinc, nickel, lead,
platinum, palladium, silver, osmium and there’s more than a few other
hard-rock obtained elements (including diamonds and other gems) at the
very least. The gold in Florida is in the liquid form of brackish
fresh water.
Obviously there's vast amounts of iron but also uranium, thorium and
even in some instances coal that has a surface and/or mixed layer of
earth and rock that has to get removed and dumped somewhere, as well
as most mineral and coal having been washed/processed with multiple
million tonnes of fresh water that's no longer drinkable or even any
good for agriculture unless you're doing a Dr. Kevorkian thing.
Otherwise Eden/Earth has been ''hard rock" mined to death, especially
where entire mountain tops are removed, plus otherwise extensively
plundered and pillaged from the likes of oily sands to deep
underground coal and exotic minerals, with little if any regard for
their tailings or the polluted fresh water as having become lethal
muck that's left behind or temporarily hidden out of sight for future
generations and our frail biodiversity to deal with.
There’s also vast and expanding ocean dead zones (O2 starved and
acidic from too much CO2 and nitrogens plus otherwise chemically and
physically polluted) where only the nastiest of jellyfish can survive,
whereas I do believe Earth now has 250,000 km2 worth of those to
contend with. So much for our diatoms, as they too are becoming too
few to do their original job.
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:0052e96b$0$6937$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> not-jonathan wrote:
>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>
>> Imho. Thank you for reading.
>
> Why would a free market (whether democratic or otherwise, and whatever that
> means anyway) be able to handle this?
It means a society which is both a legitimate democracy and
a well organized free market system. So the two camps compliment
each other.
>
> If global warming exists, and is caused by humans, then it's a good example of
> both an external cost mechanism, which the free market tends to ignore
> complete, and a "tragedy of the commons", which the free market is
> particularly incapable of dealing with.
>
> Both of these have to be addressed by regulatory intervention, because the
> freemarket can never cope.
So government action alone is better than a combination of govt
and market solutions? My post was meant to say both the form
of govt and market systems need to be free, legitimate and well organized.
All the things most western nations believe in, needs to continue to
expand worldwide if we are to stabilize and gain control of our biosphere.
But otherwise we agree completely on the notion of strong govt
actions in the abstract.
But strong government actions can take the form of new restrictions, and
other mandates imposed upon society. Or govt can try to tackle the
problem itself. By jump starting a new high tech market with endless
potential such as this.
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
The difference between imposed mandates and a direct solution
in partnership with the markets, is the difference between a
negative sum and positive sum game.
Throttling back, as opposed to generating something new is also the
difference between reducing or increasing economic activity, and
being popular or not. This problem needs all the help it can get.
So the political aspect must be the first consideration.
The solution must be first and foremost designed to be as
widely popular as possible, from all angles.
The primary govt action must be popular with the left and right wings.
With big business and the greens. With the taxpayers and legislatures.
With Americans and our allies.
The only groups I can think of that would oppose Space Solar Power
or not benefit....are the Middle Eastern...countries~
The Russians could easily become partners in such a goal.
And it could serve as a way of ending the military space race
with the Chinese, if we get them to join in as a way of
ameliorating the weapons potential of SSP.
Space Solar Power is an elegantly positive sum solution.
Direct, creative and a simple idea anyone can comprehend.
If a politician can't 'sell' Space Solar Power these days, they
can't sell anything to anyone.
Jonathan
s
>
> Sylvia.
BradGuth
SSP is worth doing at 50/50, meaning 50% public funded. However, as
you already know, Big Energy (local and foreign) will manage to foil
any such SSP efforts.
~ BG
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:0052e96b$0$6937$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> not-jonathan wrote:
>>> Democracy and Freedom!
>>>
>
>>> Imho. Thank you for reading.
>> Why would a free market (whether democratic or otherwise, and whatever that
>> means anyway) be able to handle this?
>
> It means a society which is both a legitimate democracy and
> a well organized free market system. So the two camps compliment
> each other.
>
>
>> If global warming exists, and is caused by humans, then it's a good example of
>> both an external cost mechanism, which the free market tends to ignore
>> complete, and a "tragedy of the commons", which the free market is
>> particularly incapable of dealing with.
>>
>> Both of these have to be addressed by regulatory intervention, because the
>> freemarket can never cope.
>
> So government action alone is better than a combination of govt
> and market solutions? My post was meant to say both the form
> of govt and market systems need to be free, legitimate and well organized.
The free market is incapable of dealing with the issue, and to the
extent that governments intervene, the market is not free.
So the concept of the free market has no place in the solution.
Sylvia.
Jonathan
> That's certainly idealistic and/or wishful. Too bad it can not happen
> in this real world where you can't hardly trust anyone that uses a
> phony/bogus name. Ghost writing for yourself isn't exactly a good
> idea, because you can't convey integrity or trust.
The great attractor in the sky is ...uncertainty.
As Dickinson said long ago
" I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there 's a pair of us-don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know."
Governments want detailed personal info to
have control. People want that info to place you
(limit you) to one camp, or the other.
> Life is risky business, where death is always around the next corner.
> I'm a risk taker as long as innocent others are not getting hurt by my
> actions.
But our words may end up hurting others. In a non linear world
we can't really predict the future or unintended consequences.
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> Jonathan wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> The free market is incapable of dealing with the issue, and to the extent that
> governments intervene, the market is not free.
>
> So the concept of the free market has no place in the solution.
A government needs to behave like a market system if it's
solutions or 'products' are to be successful. Unless you prefer
the least efficient, or most wasteful solutions?
I think for such large programs the government should start
them, but always with the intention of having the market place
take it over eventually. Like a public utility, a private company
that's tightly regulated. A partnership of the two.
>
> Sylvia.
Jonathan
> SSP is worth doing at 50/50, meaning 50% public funded. However, as
> you already know, Big Energy (local and foreign) will manage to foil
> any such SSP efforts.
Big Energy (Bush/Cheney) ...have left the building!
They have managed to foil it for ten years now, but
ya' never know what the future holds.
Truth is always stranger than fiction.
~ BG
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:005b217b$0$1595$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> Jonathan wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>
>> The free market is incapable of dealing with the issue, and to the extent that
>> governments intervene, the market is not free.
>>
>> So the concept of the free market has no place in the solution.
>
>
> A government needs to behave like a market system if it's
> solutions or 'products' are to be successful. Unless you prefer
> the least efficient, or most wasteful solutions?
>
> I think for such large programs the government should start
> them, but always with the intention of having the market place
> take it over eventually. Like a public utility, a private company
> that's tightly regulated. A partnership of the two.
>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
The market place will always tend to externalise costs where possible,
and individuals will look to their own interests before those of the
community. In the context of global warming that means that no matter
what the government does at the beginning, once it relinquishes control,
the market will undo what the government started.
If the government regulates to prevent these effects, then the market
will adapt accordingly. There's no need for direct government
involvement even at the beginning. But as I said, it's not a free market
if it's regulated.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
They put us at risk and so far in debt that it'll take at least next
decade just to break even if absolutely nothing goes wrong, like
another Ponzi Madoff, AIG, Katrina, 9/11 or let us hope that
Yellowstone doesn't blow a gasket. We're still uncovering nasty shit
that Alan Greenspan and his Federal Reserve insiders had covered up.
~ BG
BradGuth
True, because it's more like a kosher free-for-all market that has us
nailed to a cross, as well as being waterboarded at the same time...
~ BG
BradGuth
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>
> news:005b217b$0$1595$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> > Jonathan wrote:
> >> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> > The free market is incapable of dealing with the issue, and to the extent that
> > governments intervene, the market is not free.
>
> > So the concept of the free market has no place in the solution.
>
> A government needs to behave like a market system if it's
> solutions or 'products' are to be successful. Unless you prefer
> the least efficient, or most wasteful solutions?
>
> I think for such large programs the government should start
> them, but always with the intention of having the market place
> take it over eventually. Like a public utility, a private company
> that's tightly regulated. A partnership of the two.
>
>
>
> > Sylvia.
How about giving my 50/50 option a fair shake?
~ BG
Jonathan
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> There's no need for direct government involvement even at the beginning. But
> as I said, it's not a free market if it's regulated.
A market must be regulated in order to be 'free'.
Free means that the opposing forces have a fairly
even playing field or power, to optimize the interaction
between the two. A lack of regulation allows one side
or the other to have all the control, when that happens
we get things like the recent stock crash.
Too little controls on a market system and the boom and
bust cycle emerges. Too much control leads to all the
inefficiencies of socialism.
And like a public utility, the markets and govt remain partners.
Markets are more short sighted with investment, which is
what I think you are getting at. This only means a long
term problem like climate change needs govt involvement
to help start the solution rolling earlier than a profit motive
normally would.
>
> Sylvia.
>
BradGuth
Perhaps our Sylvia Else is a devout Republican, whereas that alone
would explain quite a lot.
~ BG
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:005f848c$0$23335$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> There's no need for direct government involvement even at the beginning. But
>> as I said, it's not a free market if it's regulated.
>
>
> A market must be regulated in order to be 'free'.
Well, if you want to start redefining terminology.
Sylvia.
BradGuth
Without enforced rules you've got nothing but another Alan Greenspan
free-for all, along with that kosher approved SEC and their Ponzi
Madoff types just about everywhere...
~ BG
~ BG
BradGuth
Where's the usual republican and otherwise kosher come-back?
Jerry Okamura
"Jonathan" <Ho...@Again.net> wrote in message
news:IaKdndEC8cd9z3vX...@giganews.com...
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:005f848c$0$23335$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>> There's no need for direct government involvement even at the beginning.
>> But as I said, it's not a free market if it's regulated.
>
>
> A market must be regulated in order to be 'free'.
> Free means that the opposing forces have a fairly
> even playing field or power, to optimize the interaction
> between the two. A lack of regulation allows one side
> or the other to have all the control, when that happens
> we get things like the recent stock crash.
NO!!! You cannot have a truly free market is it is regulated. When you
regulate a market, that means is it not a free market.