Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A critique of Islamism's assault on the West.
http://www.livestream.com/ideacity/video?clipId=flv_fd017d81-dc18-42cc-821a-18b86fdea840
Monday, November 28, 2011
Are Pacific Islands really being submerged in the Pacific?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013
Abstract - selected
Article
Figures/Tables
References
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 72, Issue 3, June 2010, Pages 234-246
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Cited By in Scopus (5)
Permissions & Reprints
The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific
Arthur P. Webba, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Paul S. Kenchb, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
Purchase
a Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, SOPAC, Fiji
b School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Received 22 February 2010; Accepted 13 May 2010. Available online 21 May 2010.
Abstract
Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea-level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases. Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea-level rise in the central Pacific. First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change. Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor. Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines. Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.
Keywords: Atoll island; sea-level rise; erosion; island migration; Pacific Ocean
Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Field setting
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Net change in island area
5.2. Net vs gross island planform change
5.3. Styles of island planform change
5.3.1. Ocean shoreline adjustments
5.3.2. Lagoon shoreline adjustments
5.3.3. Island migration
5.3.4. Contraction, expansion and extension
5.4. Mechanisms driving change
5.4.1. Change in boundary conditions: sea level and climate
5.4.2. Anthropogenic modification
5.5. Implications for vulnerability assessments
6. Conclusions
References
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883
Abstract - selected
Article
Figures/Tables
References
Global and Planetary Change
Volume 72, Issue 3, June 2010, Pages 234-246
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Cited By in Scopus (5)
Permissions & Reprints
The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific
Arthur P. Webba, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Paul S. Kenchb, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
Purchase
a Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission, SOPAC, Fiji
b School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Received 22 February 2010; Accepted 13 May 2010. Available online 21 May 2010.
Abstract
Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea-level rise. Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area. Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms. Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands. Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases. Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea-level rise in the central Pacific. First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change. Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor. Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines. Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.
Keywords: Atoll island; sea-level rise; erosion; island migration; Pacific Ocean
Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Field setting
3. Methodology
4. Results
5. Discussion
5.1. Net change in island area
5.2. Net vs gross island planform change
5.3. Styles of island planform change
5.3.1. Ocean shoreline adjustments
5.3.2. Lagoon shoreline adjustments
5.3.3. Island migration
5.3.4. Contraction, expansion and extension
5.4. Mechanisms driving change
5.4.1. Change in boundary conditions: sea level and climate
5.4.2. Anthropogenic modification
5.5. Implications for vulnerability assessments
6. Conclusions
References
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-research-shows-pacific-islands-not-shrinking-3577883
God and Schrodinger
I think about God's will like the thought experiment proposed by Schrodinger, as part of his uncertainty principal. A card, with an infinitely fine edge stands erect perfectly balanced. It exists in a quantum-isolated state. The question: which way does it fall face-down or face up, is answered: it exists in both states. In reality the state only collapses on observation. Humans are the quintessential observers of implicate order in chaos. God sets up the experiment, we collapse the future by our interaction in the now. He doesn't choose sides. We choose. Any sort of miraculous intervention does not suspend the laws of the Universe, it only adds to it. Each individual observes his reality from his own vantage point. We can only imagine/approximate what that might be.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A proposed cold fusion theory from Nasa:
The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.
November 21, 2011
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration – NASA has taken the initiative to file a patent application at the US Patent Office relating to Cold Fusion. This application was filed in Washington on March 24, 2011 claiming priority from an earlier U.S. Provisional Patent Application filed March 25, 2010. Publication of this application occurred in pursuance of the standard rule that applications are laid open for public examination as of 18 months from their earliest priority/filing date. This rule does not always apply. The Patent Office can, if an invention relates to defense or matters of national interest, withhold applications from publication in the normal course.
Viewing the patent application
The US publication number is 20110255645 and the application can be viewed at the following link (here). A TIFF reader is required to view the images. TIFF software can be downloaded from the US PTO Images webpage. Alternately, the publication number can be transferred to www.patent2PDF.com where a PDF image with the drawings can be downloaded.
The sole named inventor on this application is Joseph (Joe) M Zawodny. Googling this name leads to this link, (here).
and this link, a review of a book on Amazon.com (here)
and this link, on PeakYou (here).
I will let the readers chase-down other biographic information on this inventor.
The title of the patent application is: “Method for Producing Heavy Electrons” and the Abstract reads as follows:
“A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure. “
More significant is claim 1 which is the 1st of 3 independent claims (the others being claims 12 and 19). Claim 1 is analyzed in detail further below.
One Key Requirement for validity
For this claim to be valid, it must not describe or “read-on” anything that was available in a printed publication anywhere in the world prior to March 25, 2009. Further, it must not describe any public use or offer for sale occurring in the United States prior to that date.
In this respect, this application explicitly acknowledges in paragraph [0006] that the theory of Widom and Larsen that “heavy electrons” have been linked to LENR activity. This is described in the application as follows:
“Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of “surface plasmon polaritons” (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electrons that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process.”
Readers should appreciate that statements made in patent applications and issued patents are not necessarily true.
The patent application acknowledges the article by A. Widom et al. “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface,” European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al, published September 15, 2007, as being prior art which cannot be covered by a claim in the present application. The application goes on to premise that, as of the priority date, heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices, limiting the capacity of this phenomenon to support a device in an efficient energy generation application.
This inventor himself premises the legitimacy of LENR as a potential source of energy generation. The fact that NASA has supported this application by paying for the patent filing provides further modest endorsement of this premise, at least as a prospective possibility. But this filing does not commit the US government to acknowledge that LENR is a significant phenomenon of great potential importance. This initiative may merely be the whim of a NASA supervisor.
Classification of invention
This application has been assigned to US patent class 376/108. A link to this class including further links to other applications and patents in the same class and subclass may be found (here).
Highlighting and clicking on the description of the sub-class on this page will lead to a class definition. That class definition includes systems which aspire to achieve nuclear fusion in the most general sense of yielding, after a reaction, a nucleus of greater mass, whether successful or not. It includes cases where neutrons are used to cause a fission reaction.
Classification in this subclass does not necessarily define what is really happening. It is really just a 1st guess and it is further subject to the possibility/likelihood that the subclasses in this classification system are not fully up to date with latest developments.
From the link to US patent class 376/108 further hyperlinks to pending patent applications and issued US patents in the same subclass may be effected by activating the links “A” and “P“.
Claim 1
A better understanding of claim 1 can be achieved by parsing it as follows:
1. A method of producing heavy electrons, comprising the steps of:
selecting a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material, said material system having a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment; and
forming a structure having a surface, said structure comprising a non-electrically-conductive material and said material system, said structure incorporating said electrically-conductive material at least at said surface of said structure,
wherein a geometry of said structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to said resonant frequency of said material system, and producing heavy electrons at said electrically-conductive material as said surface plasmon polaritons propagate along said structure.
This claim is very broad and may have to be narrowed to achieve the approval of the US examiner. The applicant must not only establish that the claim qualifies as covering only to novel, nonobvious, methods in view of what was before March 25, 2009, but also the examiner must be satisfied that the disclosure is free of uncertainties and contains sufficient information to enable the replication of the invention once the patent expires. This application may be vulnerable on both counts.
This could turn out to be a remarkably broad claim if it is upheld. Readers may be able to supply examples of prior art that fall within its scope. Regarding uncertainty, the meaning of this claim will depend upon understanding what is meant by the word “propagation”, as in the phrase “supports propagation”. This could mean increasing in quantity, or advancing in space. Contrast: a propagation of new species (after a massive extinction) versus propagating in space (radio waves). The 2nd use of propagation at the end of the claim is in the latter sense. In the circumstances, we may look to the general “story” of the disclosure to clarify the meaning of words used in a claim. We must also examine the disclosure to determine if it is “enabling”.
Disclosure of the invention
The Summary of the Invention portion of the disclosure is clearly written by a patent attorney. The rich use of “may” rather than “is” is a clear indication of this conclusion. Attorneys never wish to commit themselves if they can avoid it. The 1st paragraph in this section also contains some strange passages:
“The structure may include a solid matrix material with the electrically-conductive material mixed therein. The structure may exist in a state selected from the group consisting of a gas, a liquid, and a plasma. The electrically-conductive material may be mixed in the structure.”
To suggest that the structure can exist in the state of being a gas, liquid or a plasma seems to stretch the word “structure” too far. But patents are to be read with a mind willing to understand.
Detailed description
The Detailed Description of the Invention portion of the disclosure is more often associated with the words of the inventor. In this section we nevertheless find text which is entirely predictive with no examples. This portion of the disclosure is supposed to enable others to build and operate the invention. In this case, the instructions are tied-to or expressed in terms of achieving the object of the exercise. This is generally not considered to be sufficient to meet disclosure and enablement requirements. Sample paragraphs that are somewhat indefinite are as follows:
“[0021] ….In general, device 10 includes a selected material system 12 that is incorporated onto/into a tuned structure 14 that supports propagation of SPPs and resulting heavy electron production that is sustained by device 10 across and/or through the entirety thereof.
[0022]….device 10 is made in such a way that it will establish a resonance in a SPP (e.g., via its inherent thermal energy for a given working environment, or via the application of energy to initiate SPP resonance) at a small region or portion of device 10.
[0023]….Regardless of the application, material system 12 will have a resonant frequency associated therewith for the working or operating environment of the application. Determination of this resonant frequency can be achieved by experimentation as would be understood in the art. For example, the resonant frequency for metal hydride systems can be measured using neutron scattering. The resonant frequency for molecules (e.g., molecular films such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, hydrogenated/deuterated molecular structures such as graphane and its nanotube variants) can be determined for specific vibrational or rotational modes using spectroscopy. [Comment: earlier, it was suggested that resonance was to be formed in particles. Why is resonance within molecules relevant? Is there a distinction between the resonant response of a material system and the resonant response of "heavy electrons?]
[0025] With material system 12 being so-selected and its resonant frequency for a working environment being determined/known, tuned structure 14 incorporating material system 12 is formed. In accordance with the present invention, this is achieved by making the geometry of structure 14/material system 12 such that the SPP resonance thereof is established (i.e., either by inherent thermal energy of device 10 or application of energy thereto that initiates SPP resonance) at a frequency (i.e., the SPP resonant frequency) that is approximately equal to the above-described resonant frequency of material system 12.
Apparently, this text assumes that the geometry of structure 14/material system 12 can be chosen so that the displacement of surface plasmon polaritons – SPPs (also described as “heavy electrons”, but not otherwise defined) along the surfaces of the particles of structure can be pumped in their translational motion by applying energy intermittently from an external source, necessarily in synchronization with the presumed reversing travel of SPPs within the particles. Since the disclosure premises that an external source can be: “a form of energy selected from the group consisting of electric energy, thermal energy, photonic energy, energy associated with an ion beam, and energy associated with a flow of gas” para [0007], there is a presumption that each of these energy sources can be modulated appropriately and will couple with the heavy electrons increasing their energy content or, presumably, their effective mass.
The objective of “propagating” the existence of “heavy electrons” is said to have utility because of their prospective role in:
“coupling…… to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride (and) … undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process” (para [0006]).
Accordingly, this patent does not represent that it is establishing a process for producing energy based on an LENR or Cold Fusion process that arises from the formation and absorption of neutrons. Rather, it accepts such process as a given and presumes to provide a method for enhancing the efficiency of neutron production.
Overall, the specification is speculative and suspect for lacking any data on actual procedures that have been carried out to successfully produce the results promised.
Results promised
And the disclosure runs the dangerous risk of making excessive promises:
“The present invention allows an entire device surface or volume to produce heavy electrons as opposed such production in small random regions of materials/devices. Thus, devices/systems constructed in accordance with the present invention will have performance that is predictable and maximize heavy electron production that results in, for example, maximum energy production for a given device/system or predictable efficiency and effectiveness of a gamma ray shield.” [0007]
It’s better not to make promises as to the degree of performance that can be achieved from the invention since, if such promises do not deliver, this is a grounds for questioning the validity of a patent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this application seems to be as much the creation of a patent attorney who has received the advice that the resonant excitation of “heavy electrons” will improve their “propagation”. It will be interesting to see how the examiner reacts when this filing is reviewed in 2 or 3 years.
Postscript: Apparently, no corresponding application was filed either under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or before the Canadian Patent Office. This indicates that the relative importance thought to be associated with the patent filing by those paying the bill is modest.
Persons wishing to make comments on this posting are invited to visit the Cold Fusion Now website where this article is posted.
David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.
David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or by direct email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.
November 21, 2011
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration – NASA has taken the initiative to file a patent application at the US Patent Office relating to Cold Fusion. This application was filed in Washington on March 24, 2011 claiming priority from an earlier U.S. Provisional Patent Application filed March 25, 2010. Publication of this application occurred in pursuance of the standard rule that applications are laid open for public examination as of 18 months from their earliest priority/filing date. This rule does not always apply. The Patent Office can, if an invention relates to defense or matters of national interest, withhold applications from publication in the normal course.
Viewing the patent application
The US publication number is 20110255645 and the application can be viewed at the following link (here). A TIFF reader is required to view the images. TIFF software can be downloaded from the US PTO Images webpage. Alternately, the publication number can be transferred to www.patent2PDF.com where a PDF image with the drawings can be downloaded.
The sole named inventor on this application is Joseph (Joe) M Zawodny. Googling this name leads to this link, (here).
and this link, a review of a book on Amazon.com (here)
and this link, on PeakYou (here).
I will let the readers chase-down other biographic information on this inventor.
The title of the patent application is: “Method for Producing Heavy Electrons” and the Abstract reads as follows:
“A method for producing heavy electrons is based on a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material is selected. The material system has a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment. A structure is formed that includes a non-electrically-conductive material and the material system. The structure incorporates the electrically-conductive material at least at a surface thereof. The geometry of the structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to the resonant frequency of the material system. As a result, heavy electrons are produced at the electrically-conductive material as the surface plasmon polaritons propagate along the structure. “
More significant is claim 1 which is the 1st of 3 independent claims (the others being claims 12 and 19). Claim 1 is analyzed in detail further below.
One Key Requirement for validity
For this claim to be valid, it must not describe or “read-on” anything that was available in a printed publication anywhere in the world prior to March 25, 2009. Further, it must not describe any public use or offer for sale occurring in the United States prior to that date.
In this respect, this application explicitly acknowledges in paragraph [0006] that the theory of Widom and Larsen that “heavy electrons” have been linked to LENR activity. This is described in the application as follows:
“Briefly, this theory put forth by Widom and Larsen states that the initiation of LENR activity is due to the coupling of “surface plasmon polaritons” (SPPs) to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride. The theory goes on to describe the production of heavy electrons that undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process.”
Readers should appreciate that statements made in patent applications and issued patents are not necessarily true.
The patent application acknowledges the article by A. Widom et al. “Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surface,” European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields, 46, pp. 107-112, 2006, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,893,414 issued to Larsen et al, published September 15, 2007, as being prior art which cannot be covered by a claim in the present application. The application goes on to premise that, as of the priority date, heavy electron production has only occurred in small random regions or patches of sample materials/devices, limiting the capacity of this phenomenon to support a device in an efficient energy generation application.
This inventor himself premises the legitimacy of LENR as a potential source of energy generation. The fact that NASA has supported this application by paying for the patent filing provides further modest endorsement of this premise, at least as a prospective possibility. But this filing does not commit the US government to acknowledge that LENR is a significant phenomenon of great potential importance. This initiative may merely be the whim of a NASA supervisor.
Classification of invention
This application has been assigned to US patent class 376/108. A link to this class including further links to other applications and patents in the same class and subclass may be found (here).
Highlighting and clicking on the description of the sub-class on this page will lead to a class definition. That class definition includes systems which aspire to achieve nuclear fusion in the most general sense of yielding, after a reaction, a nucleus of greater mass, whether successful or not. It includes cases where neutrons are used to cause a fission reaction.
Classification in this subclass does not necessarily define what is really happening. It is really just a 1st guess and it is further subject to the possibility/likelihood that the subclasses in this classification system are not fully up to date with latest developments.
From the link to US patent class 376/108 further hyperlinks to pending patent applications and issued US patents in the same subclass may be effected by activating the links “A” and “P“.
Claim 1
A better understanding of claim 1 can be achieved by parsing it as follows:
1. A method of producing heavy electrons, comprising the steps of:
selecting a material system that includes an electrically-conductive material, said material system having a resonant frequency associated therewith for a given operational environment; and
forming a structure having a surface, said structure comprising a non-electrically-conductive material and said material system, said structure incorporating said electrically-conductive material at least at said surface of said structure,
wherein a geometry of said structure supports propagation of surface plasmon polaritons at a selected frequency that is approximately equal to said resonant frequency of said material system, and producing heavy electrons at said electrically-conductive material as said surface plasmon polaritons propagate along said structure.
This claim is very broad and may have to be narrowed to achieve the approval of the US examiner. The applicant must not only establish that the claim qualifies as covering only to novel, nonobvious, methods in view of what was before March 25, 2009, but also the examiner must be satisfied that the disclosure is free of uncertainties and contains sufficient information to enable the replication of the invention once the patent expires. This application may be vulnerable on both counts.
This could turn out to be a remarkably broad claim if it is upheld. Readers may be able to supply examples of prior art that fall within its scope. Regarding uncertainty, the meaning of this claim will depend upon understanding what is meant by the word “propagation”, as in the phrase “supports propagation”. This could mean increasing in quantity, or advancing in space. Contrast: a propagation of new species (after a massive extinction) versus propagating in space (radio waves). The 2nd use of propagation at the end of the claim is in the latter sense. In the circumstances, we may look to the general “story” of the disclosure to clarify the meaning of words used in a claim. We must also examine the disclosure to determine if it is “enabling”.
Disclosure of the invention
The Summary of the Invention portion of the disclosure is clearly written by a patent attorney. The rich use of “may” rather than “is” is a clear indication of this conclusion. Attorneys never wish to commit themselves if they can avoid it. The 1st paragraph in this section also contains some strange passages:
“The structure may include a solid matrix material with the electrically-conductive material mixed therein. The structure may exist in a state selected from the group consisting of a gas, a liquid, and a plasma. The electrically-conductive material may be mixed in the structure.”
To suggest that the structure can exist in the state of being a gas, liquid or a plasma seems to stretch the word “structure” too far. But patents are to be read with a mind willing to understand.
Detailed description
The Detailed Description of the Invention portion of the disclosure is more often associated with the words of the inventor. In this section we nevertheless find text which is entirely predictive with no examples. This portion of the disclosure is supposed to enable others to build and operate the invention. In this case, the instructions are tied-to or expressed in terms of achieving the object of the exercise. This is generally not considered to be sufficient to meet disclosure and enablement requirements. Sample paragraphs that are somewhat indefinite are as follows:
“[0021] ….In general, device 10 includes a selected material system 12 that is incorporated onto/into a tuned structure 14 that supports propagation of SPPs and resulting heavy electron production that is sustained by device 10 across and/or through the entirety thereof.
[0022]….device 10 is made in such a way that it will establish a resonance in a SPP (e.g., via its inherent thermal energy for a given working environment, or via the application of energy to initiate SPP resonance) at a small region or portion of device 10.
[0023]….Regardless of the application, material system 12 will have a resonant frequency associated therewith for the working or operating environment of the application. Determination of this resonant frequency can be achieved by experimentation as would be understood in the art. For example, the resonant frequency for metal hydride systems can be measured using neutron scattering. The resonant frequency for molecules (e.g., molecular films such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs, hydrogenated/deuterated molecular structures such as graphane and its nanotube variants) can be determined for specific vibrational or rotational modes using spectroscopy. [Comment: earlier, it was suggested that resonance was to be formed in particles. Why is resonance within molecules relevant? Is there a distinction between the resonant response of a material system and the resonant response of "heavy electrons?]
[0025] With material system 12 being so-selected and its resonant frequency for a working environment being determined/known, tuned structure 14 incorporating material system 12 is formed. In accordance with the present invention, this is achieved by making the geometry of structure 14/material system 12 such that the SPP resonance thereof is established (i.e., either by inherent thermal energy of device 10 or application of energy thereto that initiates SPP resonance) at a frequency (i.e., the SPP resonant frequency) that is approximately equal to the above-described resonant frequency of material system 12.
Apparently, this text assumes that the geometry of structure 14/material system 12 can be chosen so that the displacement of surface plasmon polaritons – SPPs (also described as “heavy electrons”, but not otherwise defined) along the surfaces of the particles of structure can be pumped in their translational motion by applying energy intermittently from an external source, necessarily in synchronization with the presumed reversing travel of SPPs within the particles. Since the disclosure premises that an external source can be: “a form of energy selected from the group consisting of electric energy, thermal energy, photonic energy, energy associated with an ion beam, and energy associated with a flow of gas” para [0007], there is a presumption that each of these energy sources can be modulated appropriately and will couple with the heavy electrons increasing their energy content or, presumably, their effective mass.
The objective of “propagating” the existence of “heavy electrons” is said to have utility because of their prospective role in:
“coupling…… to a proton or deuteron resonance in the lattice of a metal hydride (and) … undergo electron capture by a proton. This activity produces a neutron that is subsequently captured by a nearby atom transmuting it into a new element and releasing positive net energy in the process” (para [0006]).
Accordingly, this patent does not represent that it is establishing a process for producing energy based on an LENR or Cold Fusion process that arises from the formation and absorption of neutrons. Rather, it accepts such process as a given and presumes to provide a method for enhancing the efficiency of neutron production.
Overall, the specification is speculative and suspect for lacking any data on actual procedures that have been carried out to successfully produce the results promised.
Results promised
And the disclosure runs the dangerous risk of making excessive promises:
“The present invention allows an entire device surface or volume to produce heavy electrons as opposed such production in small random regions of materials/devices. Thus, devices/systems constructed in accordance with the present invention will have performance that is predictable and maximize heavy electron production that results in, for example, maximum energy production for a given device/system or predictable efficiency and effectiveness of a gamma ray shield.” [0007]
It’s better not to make promises as to the degree of performance that can be achieved from the invention since, if such promises do not deliver, this is a grounds for questioning the validity of a patent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this application seems to be as much the creation of a patent attorney who has received the advice that the resonant excitation of “heavy electrons” will improve their “propagation”. It will be interesting to see how the examiner reacts when this filing is reviewed in 2 or 3 years.
Postscript: Apparently, no corresponding application was filed either under the Patent Cooperation Treaty or before the Canadian Patent Office. This indicates that the relative importance thought to be associated with the patent filing by those paying the bill is modest.
Persons wishing to make comments on this posting are invited to visit the Cold Fusion Now website where this article is posted.
David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.
David French is prepared to address questions included as commentaries to any of his postings or by direct email. In particular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to better understand patents.
Separation of Church and State.
While the Canadian mind accepts the idea of separation of church and state, actually it is a concept borrowed from the US. If anyone does any research at all, they would understand Canada's entire legal system, common law, has catholic/Anglican law at its roots. Furthermore, so long as Canada has a queen or king, we are under the wing of the Anglican church. That is the fact. Obviously we don't think that way. But I do find it ironic this comes from a quote of a US document.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Curiosity
I suppose some people live life without curiosity of any sort. In the purest, simplistic sense science is about curiosity. Human beings are curious. We are interested in shifting plates, the movement of the stars, climate, physiology, chemistry, and so on... Curiosity brings about questions who's conclusions have erected the monolith called science today. You strike a false dichotomy when you say if someone has no interest in one area, he should have no interest in any area. To try to stand on that point is an exercise in futility. Why can't it be that because I am interested in temperature variations over billions of years, I can also have an interest in geology, but for some reason am not allowed to be particularly not interested in ornithology? I am perplexed at the confrontational stances we find ourselves in. I think believing someone should think or feel a different way based on *our* world view is inherently problematic. I am perplexed that this conversation has evolved this way. Do you somehow think I am not interested in temperature variations over millions of years? Where did that come from? I am trying to allow for divergent perspectives. For example, the beating of a butterfly's wing in Japan significantly effects the flight of a 747 in Laguardia--if you think of quantum cause and effect. But it is also true that from a classical perspective this is immeasurable. Both can be true. What we should avoid is being unable to ask questions with impunity. It is this sort of fear that has been the enemy of science far more than 2 people with divergent opinion.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
NY Times and Global Warming email leaks Pt. II
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/science/earth/new-trove-of-stolen-e-mails-from-climate-scientists-is-released.html
Wiki leaks are heroes for uncovering government corruption. Global Warming leaks are terrible crimes.
New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released
By JUSTIN GILLIS and LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: November 22, 2011
Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share
The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.
Related in Opinion
Dot Earth Blog: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail (November 22, 2011)
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
Go to Blog »
The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.
Climate scientists said the release was likely intended to torpedo any potential progress in the Durban negotiations, though not much progress had been expected anyway given that countries have been reluctant to commit to binding emissions limits.
The University of East Anglia, the British institution at the middle of the previous hacking episode, confirmed that at least some of the newly released e-mails were authentic. The cache released in 2009 appeared to have come from a file someone obtained by hacking into the university’s computers, a crime for which no charges have been filed or suspects named. The new batch of more than 5,000 e-mails is evidently a fresh selection from the same set of records.
A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.
Myron Ebell, a climate-change skeptic who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, called the new e-mails “strong evidence that a small group of scientists centered around East Anglia were engaged in a conspiracy to provide a scientifically misleading assessment of the case for catastrophic global warming.” Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is the most prominent climate-change contrarian in Congress, cited the e-mails in a statement attacking the Obama administration’s attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
But Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”
In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”
Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”
Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”
Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.
“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”
Wiki leaks are heroes for uncovering government corruption. Global Warming leaks are terrible crimes.
New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released
By JUSTIN GILLIS and LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: November 22, 2011
Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
Reprints
Share
The anonymous hacker who shook the world of climate science two years ago by posting a trove of stolen e-mails delivered a new batch on Tuesday, stirring up climate-change contrarians a little more than a week before global negotiations on greenhouse gases are to begin in Durban, South Africa.
Related in Opinion
Dot Earth Blog: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail (November 22, 2011)
Green
A blog about energy and the environment.
Go to Blog »
The new e-mails appeared remarkably similar to the ones released two years ago just ahead of a similar conference in Copenhagen. They involved the same scientists and many of the same issues, and some of them carried a similar tone: catty remarks by the scientists, often about papers written by others in the field.
Climate scientists said the release was likely intended to torpedo any potential progress in the Durban negotiations, though not much progress had been expected anyway given that countries have been reluctant to commit to binding emissions limits.
The University of East Anglia, the British institution at the middle of the previous hacking episode, confirmed that at least some of the newly released e-mails were authentic. The cache released in 2009 appeared to have come from a file someone obtained by hacking into the university’s computers, a crime for which no charges have been filed or suspects named. The new batch of more than 5,000 e-mails is evidently a fresh selection from the same set of records.
A string of investigations following the 2009 release all came to the conclusion that scientists had not manipulated data to support their findings, though some of the reports did criticize them on minor points, such as failing to share their data or to respond properly to freedom of information requests.
Myron Ebell, a climate-change skeptic who works for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, called the new e-mails “strong evidence that a small group of scientists centered around East Anglia were engaged in a conspiracy to provide a scientifically misleading assessment of the case for catastrophic global warming.” Senator James M. Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who is the most prominent climate-change contrarian in Congress, cited the e-mails in a statement attacking the Obama administration’s attempts to limit greenhouse gases.
But Michael E. Mann, a Pennsylvania State University scientist who wrote or received some of the e-mails, said they showed the opposite of any conspiracy, demonstrating instead that climate science is a vigorous enterprise where scientists were free to argue over conclusions. “Scientists rely on the ability to have frank, sometimes even contentious discussions with each other,” Dr. Mann said in an interview Tuesday. “Science requires that.”
In one of the e-mails, Raymond S. Bradley, director of the Climate System Research Center at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, criticized a paper that Dr. Mann wrote with the climate scientist Phil Jones, which used tree rings and similar markers to find that today’s climatic warming had no precedent in recent natural history. Dr. Bradley, who has often collaborated with Dr. Mann, wrote that the 2003 paper “was truly pathetic and should never have been published.”
Dr. Bradley confirmed in an interview that the e-mail was his, but said his comment had no bearing on whether global warming was really happening. “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.”
Some of the other e-mails involved comments about problems with the computer programs used to forecast future climate, known as climate models. For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”
Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.
“Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”
Monday, November 21, 2011
Iran the Bomb and the NPT
It is so painfully obvious so many responders have neglected to brush up on what exactly the NPT was all about. In the heights of the cold war, there was a massive peace movement around the world. There was a near universal call for nuclear disarmament, and to find a way nations would vow not to pursue nuclear weapons. In exchange, those signatories would be granted the right, and even be aided by the world to install peaceful nuclear industries.
China, the US, France, Britain, and the USSR agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, partially in exchange for a world in which more and more countries would not pursue Nuclear weapons. The major nuclear powers have reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals. There were follow up treaties like the START treaty that furthered this process.
Signing the treaty was OPTIONAL. To sign meant a country would be able to transfer nuclear technology from the major powers to use it for peaceful use in EXCHANGE for the promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. The IAEA has been the referee, and reports on the various levels of compliance. By signing countries could fast-track to nuclear power generation etc, without having to invent or discover nuclear theory entirely on their own. 190 countries signed on.
Countries were never required to sign, but once they did, they were bound to the terms and conditions. There were non-nuclear states who cheated, North Korea-who officially dropped out of the NPT after it had obtained that level of nuclear technology by information transfer; Pakistan and India. The last two countries were given nuclear capability by many NPT signatories including Canada. It is difficult to overstate the peril that arose from these developments.
Iran has been building nuclear weapons, secretly, while still being an NPT signatory. The IAEA has reams of evidence that Iran has been flat-out lying: That despite all the polite diplomatic ways of saying it or dancing around the issue.
But beyond the issue that they promised one thing and do another, that they lie in open offense of Allah, they are assembling the bomb. That is simply undeniable. They have broken their word, they have effectively broken the treaty, although they continue ostensibly as though they were in compliance. To make matters worse, Iran has been backing global terrorism openly and clandestinely. Funding Hamas is enough evidence, but worse are its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and acts upon Iraq to the point of puppetry that they openly deny. The denial of course is in keeping with their deception on the NPT.
It is the prospect of Iran passing along nuclear weapons to terrorist groups that is most serious. The risk of a nuclear attack on the west in the next 10 years, is tantamount to the early days of the Cuban missile crisis.
It really disgusts me that so many would post minimizing this reality: Especially when those would be the same voices protesting Canada's nuclear power generation.
The next issue of stupidity, is to throw Israel into the mix. It NEVER signed the NPT, and as every sovereign state, could never be required to! That's what so many people just don't get! To bring the issue up knowing this, is to deflect the issue at hand, introduce a red herring, and mire problem solving into oblivion.
This is the rub. Israel has nukes. But Iran would have pursued this in any event, don't kid yourselves. By way of the terrorist underground, their having the bomb is a direct threat to the west.
China, the US, France, Britain, and the USSR agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals, partially in exchange for a world in which more and more countries would not pursue Nuclear weapons. The major nuclear powers have reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals. There were follow up treaties like the START treaty that furthered this process.
Signing the treaty was OPTIONAL. To sign meant a country would be able to transfer nuclear technology from the major powers to use it for peaceful use in EXCHANGE for the promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. The IAEA has been the referee, and reports on the various levels of compliance. By signing countries could fast-track to nuclear power generation etc, without having to invent or discover nuclear theory entirely on their own. 190 countries signed on.
Countries were never required to sign, but once they did, they were bound to the terms and conditions. There were non-nuclear states who cheated, North Korea-who officially dropped out of the NPT after it had obtained that level of nuclear technology by information transfer; Pakistan and India. The last two countries were given nuclear capability by many NPT signatories including Canada. It is difficult to overstate the peril that arose from these developments.
Iran has been building nuclear weapons, secretly, while still being an NPT signatory. The IAEA has reams of evidence that Iran has been flat-out lying: That despite all the polite diplomatic ways of saying it or dancing around the issue.
But beyond the issue that they promised one thing and do another, that they lie in open offense of Allah, they are assembling the bomb. That is simply undeniable. They have broken their word, they have effectively broken the treaty, although they continue ostensibly as though they were in compliance. To make matters worse, Iran has been backing global terrorism openly and clandestinely. Funding Hamas is enough evidence, but worse are its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and acts upon Iraq to the point of puppetry that they openly deny. The denial of course is in keeping with their deception on the NPT.
It is the prospect of Iran passing along nuclear weapons to terrorist groups that is most serious. The risk of a nuclear attack on the west in the next 10 years, is tantamount to the early days of the Cuban missile crisis.
It really disgusts me that so many would post minimizing this reality: Especially when those would be the same voices protesting Canada's nuclear power generation.
The next issue of stupidity, is to throw Israel into the mix. It NEVER signed the NPT, and as every sovereign state, could never be required to! That's what so many people just don't get! To bring the issue up knowing this, is to deflect the issue at hand, introduce a red herring, and mire problem solving into oblivion.
This is the rub. Israel has nukes. But Iran would have pursued this in any event, don't kid yourselves. By way of the terrorist underground, their having the bomb is a direct threat to the west.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Reading my Mail on Climate Change....
A professor of telecommunications at the Université du Québec's Institut national de la recheche scientifique/Energy, Materials and Telecommunications Centre.
As is typical of media reports on climate, columnist Albert Nerenberg ("The legacy we leave should be interesting," Friday Voice, Nov. 4) makes interpretations that do not stand up as he joins the chorus to DO SOMETHING about climate change.
Nerenberg says that "in 50 or 100 years from now it's very possible that climate change will be at a whole new level." Climate activists tend to use the words "possible" and "may" when describing negative views of the future, but then assume such "possibilities" will come true.
As a professor who has taught stochastic signal processing for more than 30 years, I can reliably state that many people misunderstand probability and computer models. (Witness a Lotto 6/49 player who, having lost 10 times, figures his odds of winning are thus higher.)
I have read much physical evidence, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (set up by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization). I favour reducing pollution, but not spending to combat "climate change."
People are arrogant to think they can control climate. Humans pollute their environment and render species extinct, but evidence of climate impact is marginal. Temperatures have risen for years, but links between temperature rise and carbon dioxide emissions are tenuous.
Climate publicity rarely cites any evidence of those links besides talk of a "greenhouse" effect. Greenhouses limit the circulation of air - something that is not true of our complex atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not form a barrier up there, trapping heat. Atmospheric experiments on how carbon dioxide may affect heat transfer are impossible, which leads to uncertainty in the models.
I am open (as all scientists should be) to evidence from proper experiments. So far, the evidence is not convincing. As has been reported elsewhere, the IPCC process has been badly distorted and political from its inception. Its reports present much science, but have highly political interpretations, saying what their funders want to see.
I love the scientific method; it is always open to new data. Science is never "settled." Physics Today recently compared climate-change theory to heliocentrism and relativity, two theories widely criticized in their day. But the sun as the centre of the solar system has vast supporting evidence, while climate-change theory is based on unreliable computer models.
Post-hoc models often suggest human impact on climate, because the model-makers seek to find such links. Scientists need to make a living too. They see much governmental funding to explore (and find) climate change. Early researchers saw that finding no carbon dioxide-climate link led to little funding. Funders, as well as researchers, are affected by politics. (I know the system quite well, my research having been supported in Canada for 33 years now; I have been on several Ottawa and Quebec funding panels.) One always has an infinite range of possible experiments to do, but it is human nature to examine those likely to give pleasing results.
My career has focused on the development and use of computer models - not in the area of climate, but IPCC models are very similar to ones I know. One starts a model from basic scientific principles, but then one tweaks the system to "fit the data," as all models are simplifications and researchers rarely understand all phenomena they are examining. Climate models "predict" past data well, in hindsight, by manual adjustment of the models' parameters. The true challenge is to predict future occurrences, and here recent climate models fail badly. Despite carbon-dioxide emissions continuing to rise, temperature has not risen in the last decade or so. Few, if any, models in the 1990s predicted this. Much work remains to be done to achieve good models. We should not rush to spend vast sums of money based on such inadequate models.
Nerenberg says, "New parts of the planet could be turning to desert, the weather will be volatile, and food and land shortages will be precipitating terrible - human conflicts." This has been happening for centuries. There is no clear link with carbon dioxide; and we cannot really do anything about it anyway. Alarmists present no practical scenario in which people will agree to forfeit major parts of their lifestyle for vague possibilities of cutting temperature increase.
Science is not settled by majority vote, but by valid experimentation. Most "climate scientists" may well support the alarmists, but just as many meteorologists and geologists do not. Just as it is too important to leave decisions about war to the military, our Earth is too important to be left to those whose careers have been largely funded supporting a popular hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives.
Climate has always been changing. Why are we now blaming carbon dioxide? The glaciers in the Canadian Rockies have been receding since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. There are many factors involved in climate. Carbon dioxide is a minor one.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/scientific+models+behind+climate+change+data+weak/5717111/story.html#ixzz1duLNLfd4
As is typical of media reports on climate, columnist Albert Nerenberg ("The legacy we leave should be interesting," Friday Voice, Nov. 4) makes interpretations that do not stand up as he joins the chorus to DO SOMETHING about climate change.
Nerenberg says that "in 50 or 100 years from now it's very possible that climate change will be at a whole new level." Climate activists tend to use the words "possible" and "may" when describing negative views of the future, but then assume such "possibilities" will come true.
As a professor who has taught stochastic signal processing for more than 30 years, I can reliably state that many people misunderstand probability and computer models. (Witness a Lotto 6/49 player who, having lost 10 times, figures his odds of winning are thus higher.)
I have read much physical evidence, including reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (set up by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization). I favour reducing pollution, but not spending to combat "climate change."
People are arrogant to think they can control climate. Humans pollute their environment and render species extinct, but evidence of climate impact is marginal. Temperatures have risen for years, but links between temperature rise and carbon dioxide emissions are tenuous.
Climate publicity rarely cites any evidence of those links besides talk of a "greenhouse" effect. Greenhouses limit the circulation of air - something that is not true of our complex atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not form a barrier up there, trapping heat. Atmospheric experiments on how carbon dioxide may affect heat transfer are impossible, which leads to uncertainty in the models.
I am open (as all scientists should be) to evidence from proper experiments. So far, the evidence is not convincing. As has been reported elsewhere, the IPCC process has been badly distorted and political from its inception. Its reports present much science, but have highly political interpretations, saying what their funders want to see.
I love the scientific method; it is always open to new data. Science is never "settled." Physics Today recently compared climate-change theory to heliocentrism and relativity, two theories widely criticized in their day. But the sun as the centre of the solar system has vast supporting evidence, while climate-change theory is based on unreliable computer models.
Post-hoc models often suggest human impact on climate, because the model-makers seek to find such links. Scientists need to make a living too. They see much governmental funding to explore (and find) climate change. Early researchers saw that finding no carbon dioxide-climate link led to little funding. Funders, as well as researchers, are affected by politics. (I know the system quite well, my research having been supported in Canada for 33 years now; I have been on several Ottawa and Quebec funding panels.) One always has an infinite range of possible experiments to do, but it is human nature to examine those likely to give pleasing results.
My career has focused on the development and use of computer models - not in the area of climate, but IPCC models are very similar to ones I know. One starts a model from basic scientific principles, but then one tweaks the system to "fit the data," as all models are simplifications and researchers rarely understand all phenomena they are examining. Climate models "predict" past data well, in hindsight, by manual adjustment of the models' parameters. The true challenge is to predict future occurrences, and here recent climate models fail badly. Despite carbon-dioxide emissions continuing to rise, temperature has not risen in the last decade or so. Few, if any, models in the 1990s predicted this. Much work remains to be done to achieve good models. We should not rush to spend vast sums of money based on such inadequate models.
Nerenberg says, "New parts of the planet could be turning to desert, the weather will be volatile, and food and land shortages will be precipitating terrible - human conflicts." This has been happening for centuries. There is no clear link with carbon dioxide; and we cannot really do anything about it anyway. Alarmists present no practical scenario in which people will agree to forfeit major parts of their lifestyle for vague possibilities of cutting temperature increase.
Science is not settled by majority vote, but by valid experimentation. Most "climate scientists" may well support the alarmists, but just as many meteorologists and geologists do not. Just as it is too important to leave decisions about war to the military, our Earth is too important to be left to those whose careers have been largely funded supporting a popular hypothesis to the exclusion of alternatives.
Climate has always been changing. Why are we now blaming carbon dioxide? The glaciers in the Canadian Rockies have been receding since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. There are many factors involved in climate. Carbon dioxide is a minor one.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/scientific+models+behind+climate+change+data+weak/5717111/story.html#ixzz1duLNLfd4
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Hypotheses and Science
To use the word scam: you must draw a conclusion that not only is the experiment flawed but that deception was the intent of the "scientist"
This is the mistake of the quasi-skeptic perspective. A truly unemotional skeptic must say we cannot prove this to be wrong, we can only raise doubts. One scheme for example suggested that if H202 were a large part of the inlet water, then there would be enough energy to account for the excess apparent in the demonstration. As a doubt this has validity until it can be proven otherwise, but the doubt is not conclusive proof in any way shape or form. It falls to the doubt to prove itself on infallible evidence, not the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't need to prove itself to be right. The criticism must prove the hypothesis wrong, or it isn't valid science at all. Remember, this is a black box experiment. All that can be monitored is what goes in and what comes out of the box over a certain time period. However, you and I did not do the monitoring, so technically this is a doubt we can never satisfy. We monitor the monitoring, but that cannot bring scientific proof at best it can only raise doubt.. The hypothesis must be FALSIFIED; to be found to be discounted, otherwise it stands among many hypotheses--some with a greater body of evidence than others.
The nature of a black box experiment is that as the observation is limited, so the conclusions must be prefaced by terms like: "it would appear (That temperatures were maintained at x over a delta t."; or "apparently (the input was in fact tap water for example). In the last experiment for example, it is valid to comment that the initiating generator ran through out the test. However, what is unknown is the degree this 3rd party was certain that power source was disconnected. (remember they supplied the switches and guages).
I share many of the doubts of this group of skeptics, but I resist drawing premature conclusions. If I were there, I would verify this and that and settle the issues in my own mind. Only if you were there to do the same things, would your skepticism stand. Otherwise, it is cynicism to jump to a conclusion when there are not enough facts to do so.
This is the mistake of the quasi-skeptic perspective. A truly unemotional skeptic must say we cannot prove this to be wrong, we can only raise doubts. One scheme for example suggested that if H202 were a large part of the inlet water, then there would be enough energy to account for the excess apparent in the demonstration. As a doubt this has validity until it can be proven otherwise, but the doubt is not conclusive proof in any way shape or form. It falls to the doubt to prove itself on infallible evidence, not the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't need to prove itself to be right. The criticism must prove the hypothesis wrong, or it isn't valid science at all. Remember, this is a black box experiment. All that can be monitored is what goes in and what comes out of the box over a certain time period. However, you and I did not do the monitoring, so technically this is a doubt we can never satisfy. We monitor the monitoring, but that cannot bring scientific proof at best it can only raise doubt.. The hypothesis must be FALSIFIED; to be found to be discounted, otherwise it stands among many hypotheses--some with a greater body of evidence than others.
The nature of a black box experiment is that as the observation is limited, so the conclusions must be prefaced by terms like: "it would appear (That temperatures were maintained at x over a delta t."; or "apparently (the input was in fact tap water for example). In the last experiment for example, it is valid to comment that the initiating generator ran through out the test. However, what is unknown is the degree this 3rd party was certain that power source was disconnected. (remember they supplied the switches and guages).
I share many of the doubts of this group of skeptics, but I resist drawing premature conclusions. If I were there, I would verify this and that and settle the issues in my own mind. Only if you were there to do the same things, would your skepticism stand. Otherwise, it is cynicism to jump to a conclusion when there are not enough facts to do so.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Pipelines and Protests
Who can object to a utopian dream where we live in a world with far less pollution?
Who would object to developing renewable energy technologies--especially at a price that can compete with current market rates.
People who tend to be supporters of renewable energy are probably unaware that even after 100s of billions in grants and loan guaranties, virtually every North American and European company has gone bankrupt this past year. China has produced at a price point, no one else in the world could. There are no green jobs here any more... they have disappeared here and reappeared there.
We are in this place today, despite every altruism where we need hydrocarbons for our very survival, that is a fact. So until such time as we bear down on cold fusion as an energy source, this is the way of it. Canada's synthetic crude is a premium product and will eventually be treated that way.
Unfortunately, even if 90% of all Canadians want to build a pipeline to the West Coast, there will be people lying before bull-dozers all the way across BC. I propose we simultaneously build a pipe-line to the McKenzie delta, so we can build a city there to export via the NW passage. Choosing between which pipeline would be too confusing for the dope-smoking protestors. One way or the other Canada wins.
Who would object to developing renewable energy technologies--especially at a price that can compete with current market rates.
People who tend to be supporters of renewable energy are probably unaware that even after 100s of billions in grants and loan guaranties, virtually every North American and European company has gone bankrupt this past year. China has produced at a price point, no one else in the world could. There are no green jobs here any more... they have disappeared here and reappeared there.
We are in this place today, despite every altruism where we need hydrocarbons for our very survival, that is a fact. So until such time as we bear down on cold fusion as an energy source, this is the way of it. Canada's synthetic crude is a premium product and will eventually be treated that way.
Unfortunately, even if 90% of all Canadians want to build a pipeline to the West Coast, there will be people lying before bull-dozers all the way across BC. I propose we simultaneously build a pipe-line to the McKenzie delta, so we can build a city there to export via the NW passage. Choosing between which pipeline would be too confusing for the dope-smoking protestors. One way or the other Canada wins.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Pacific Gateway Pipeline debate.
Some people in BC aren't so stupid. Some of us know the safety of modern pipelines. All of the spills were from old pipelines. The new pipelines are moly-steel. In 100 years moly steel will not rust even in the Pacific Ocean. Moly Steel is stronger, and has greater tensile strength. If BC people really care, they would educate themselves, and demand pipe-line standards be that high.
BC already has many major pipelines: Oil, and Natural gas. One is an Artery right into the city of Vancouver. Pipelines are only scary when the spin-doctors get at them. Real education, unbiased by mantras and prejudices, is important. BC has always created great wealth by way of our ports. But we have hardly scratched the surface of what is possible. The agents of fear have a hammer-lock on our brains.
_______________________________
Well, do you have a retirement pension coming? Chances are the 1% you are referring to are comprised of pension plan holders, mutual fund owners, as well as the little guy managing their own portfolios. To think derisively about share-holders is to cut your nose off to despite your face. Even Canada Pension Plan is invested, silly.
______________________________
In a generation, we could be sheikhs. When the oil sands wealth starts to flow, Canada will be the next Dubai. There will be no such thing as income taxes. Our children can go to University for free. Our medical system will never want for money.
Or, we can go back to the stone age... or rather some of you can, the rest of Canada understands pragmatism. For pragmatists are what we are. I mention to the suzukiites among us, we could export it from Prince Rupert, and create a second vibrant wealthy port, or we could pipe line it up to the McKenzie Delta, since the North West passage is opening up anyhow. People in the NWT know and appreciate the importance of jobs... Why shouldn't Northerners be wealthy?
BC already has many major pipelines: Oil, and Natural gas. One is an Artery right into the city of Vancouver. Pipelines are only scary when the spin-doctors get at them. Real education, unbiased by mantras and prejudices, is important. BC has always created great wealth by way of our ports. But we have hardly scratched the surface of what is possible. The agents of fear have a hammer-lock on our brains.
_______________________________
Well, do you have a retirement pension coming? Chances are the 1% you are referring to are comprised of pension plan holders, mutual fund owners, as well as the little guy managing their own portfolios. To think derisively about share-holders is to cut your nose off to despite your face. Even Canada Pension Plan is invested, silly.
______________________________
In a generation, we could be sheikhs. When the oil sands wealth starts to flow, Canada will be the next Dubai. There will be no such thing as income taxes. Our children can go to University for free. Our medical system will never want for money.
Or, we can go back to the stone age... or rather some of you can, the rest of Canada understands pragmatism. For pragmatists are what we are. I mention to the suzukiites among us, we could export it from Prince Rupert, and create a second vibrant wealthy port, or we could pipe line it up to the McKenzie Delta, since the North West passage is opening up anyhow. People in the NWT know and appreciate the importance of jobs... Why shouldn't Northerners be wealthy?
Friday, November 4, 2011
AGW graphs.
Owen Abrey
Home
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/climategate-redux-co-author-of-seminal.html
This is a graphical representation of temperature data obtained and published by BEST, a group of 4 scientists sponsored out of Berkley University.
But this picture puts it all in context...
Mike Babulic One more bit of context: It's important to remember that we, along with the other flora & fauna now inhabiting earth, are adapted for the "chilly" conditions of tthe last 12 MILLION years
Owen Abrey Agreed. All I wanted to be able to show was that climate varies. Particularly in the past million years, there have been very rapid oscillations, with pronounced temp swings.
A.j. Heinrich One cannot deny the fact that global warming is occuring...however, whether or not WE are to blame is debatable...
Owen Abrey Actually, temps have plateaued since 1999. They spin it differently. One minute they tell you climate isn't the weather, and you can't measure it in a year, then they say that 6 out of the 12 past years have been the hottest since the 1800's when we started using thermometers. The problem with pushing the fact it has been flat, is that 12 years is a very small time to project solid climate data. However when you compare the data with this: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png* The past 12,000 years, you can see we actually are in a slump, despite the temps being the warmest in 150 years.
File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-ce...See More
Owen Abrey Then there is this data for the past 800,000 years: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg*
File:EPICA temperature plot.svg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
·
Owen Abrey you will notice the obvious cycles, and you can plainly see the earth is the temperature we ought to be if the cycles are measured at all. In fact, it actually becomes clear that we should be on the back of a severe downward trend, and even the warming over the past 100 years is incorporated into a plateau that extends back about 10,000 years.
Owen Abrey We should be seeing a temperature collapse over the next 2,000 years that will end in an iceage. To be quite frank. The AGW nonsense will be AGCC. (Anthropogenic global Climate Cooling) Because after all man kind is to blame no matter what happens.... the collective guilt experienced over AGW keeps the masses under control...
Owen Abrey These are my opinions, cultivated apart from the other climate skeptics. I am an optimistic skeptic. I want to expect good things, but am happy to hold back judgement until all the information is accounted for. Since the IPCC in my opinion deceptively keeps the graphs since the 1800 and not before, I will keep bringing it up until it receives proper treatment.
Home
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/climategate-redux-co-author-of-seminal.html
This is a graphical representation of temperature data obtained and published by BEST, a group of 4 scientists sponsored out of Berkley University.
But this picture puts it all in context...
Mike Babulic One more bit of context: It's important to remember that we, along with the other flora & fauna now inhabiting earth, are adapted for the "chilly" conditions of tthe last 12 MILLION years
Owen Abrey Agreed. All I wanted to be able to show was that climate varies. Particularly in the past million years, there have been very rapid oscillations, with pronounced temp swings.
A.j. Heinrich One cannot deny the fact that global warming is occuring...however, whether or not WE are to blame is debatable...
Owen Abrey Actually, temps have plateaued since 1999. They spin it differently. One minute they tell you climate isn't the weather, and you can't measure it in a year, then they say that 6 out of the 12 past years have been the hottest since the 1800's when we started using thermometers. The problem with pushing the fact it has been flat, is that 12 years is a very small time to project solid climate data. However when you compare the data with this: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png* The past 12,000 years, you can see we actually are in a slump, despite the temps being the warmest in 150 years.
File:Holocene Temperature Variations.png - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-ce...See More
Owen Abrey Then there is this data for the past 800,000 years: *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg*
File:EPICA temperature plot.svg - Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org
·
Owen Abrey you will notice the obvious cycles, and you can plainly see the earth is the temperature we ought to be if the cycles are measured at all. In fact, it actually becomes clear that we should be on the back of a severe downward trend, and even the warming over the past 100 years is incorporated into a plateau that extends back about 10,000 years.
Owen Abrey We should be seeing a temperature collapse over the next 2,000 years that will end in an iceage. To be quite frank. The AGW nonsense will be AGCC. (Anthropogenic global Climate Cooling) Because after all man kind is to blame no matter what happens.... the collective guilt experienced over AGW keeps the masses under control...
Owen Abrey These are my opinions, cultivated apart from the other climate skeptics. I am an optimistic skeptic. I want to expect good things, but am happy to hold back judgement until all the information is accounted for. Since the IPCC in my opinion deceptively keeps the graphs since the 1800 and not before, I will keep bringing it up until it receives proper treatment.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
An optimistic skeptic: Rossi's LENR
This answers a series of questions that were explicitly detailed in the Oct 28 experiment; they showed up on a forum, ignorant. The guy didn't bother to read, just spewed what he thought were intelligent caveats.
Having obtained one of the report forms, I can state that apparently there was a feed back loop to obtain any water post reactor. If I recall correctly, that loop reported something like 6 litres over 7 hours of testing. It was a feed back loop, in that the water, presumably warm was cycled back through the reactors. If I understood it correctly, this contributed to the "self sustained" mode of operation as that heat was recycled to help keep the reactor temperature above 100C. That said, it didn't seem enough to be statistically important, and the data I saw indicated a very constant temperature of 105C while the reactor was operating.
I am an optimistic skeptic. I still don't have enough to say definitively this is bona fide. But I have been studying this LENR since January, and have read the SPAWAR journal articles published over the past 15 years. I have conceded it certainly does appear that there is anomalous heat, considering the whole range of experiments that have gone on since Stanley and Pons 1989.
Having obtained one of the report forms, I can state that apparently there was a feed back loop to obtain any water post reactor. If I recall correctly, that loop reported something like 6 litres over 7 hours of testing. It was a feed back loop, in that the water, presumably warm was cycled back through the reactors. If I understood it correctly, this contributed to the "self sustained" mode of operation as that heat was recycled to help keep the reactor temperature above 100C. That said, it didn't seem enough to be statistically important, and the data I saw indicated a very constant temperature of 105C while the reactor was operating.
I am an optimistic skeptic. I still don't have enough to say definitively this is bona fide. But I have been studying this LENR since January, and have read the SPAWAR journal articles published over the past 15 years. I have conceded it certainly does appear that there is anomalous heat, considering the whole range of experiments that have gone on since Stanley and Pons 1989.
The Cold Fusion Experiment and the Generator left running:
I think it was sheer stupidity that kept that generator running, the critics are right to bring that factoid up. However, if SPAWAR was the buyer, and set up the switches and gauges, there would be 100% confidence in the amount of electricity that flows regardless of whether that generator was running. They could have simply not foreseen the stumbling block, by virtue of their over-confidence.
Cold Fusion breaks the laws of Physics? A Primer:
I have been interested in this topic since 1989. For people unfamiliar with this, the various theories would not violate the laws of physics. Hot fusion uses high energy to force particles together past the "coulomb barrier" There is a force called the weak nuclear force that keeps atom nucleolus' apart. Its the nature repellent of ++ or-- forces we learn about in 3rd grade. There is another force called the strong nuclear force. It is strong, it attracts, but its range is very short. Imagine a magnetic train. Magnets repulse stronger than gravity, but the force drops off faster than gravity, so there is this natural neutral "boyancy" that allows near frictionless movement. Well there is a point where the strong nuclear force falls off, and the weak nuclear force takes over. It is very very close to the nucleus: Between the nucleus and the places where the first electron is typically found.
The idea of cold fusion does not force particles past the coulomb barrier, rather, it "coaxes" protons to snuggle up with a nickle nucleus. That can only happen if there was a way to neutralize the positive charge of the proton. In the 1950s a study was published that saw that happen by essentially "putting" a muon onto the proton. This eliminates the weak nuclear force, and enables the proton to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to grab it.
That is one idea. It breaks no laws. There are a few others, too complex to share here. There are problems with all the theories, and the study of the phenomena is far from complete. This is partially because of the way the Ivy League Universities have shut any study down, by sheer derision. With probable obscurity, what young scientist would want to go down this path? Any published peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years have had inordinate burdens of proof placed on them. The Ivy Leagues, 100 years ago derided the Write brothers and pronounced to the world man could never fly. The inventor went before the science, and the Ivy leagues ate crow and scrambled to catch up. It is possible this is happening again...
The idea of cold fusion does not force particles past the coulomb barrier, rather, it "coaxes" protons to snuggle up with a nickle nucleus. That can only happen if there was a way to neutralize the positive charge of the proton. In the 1950s a study was published that saw that happen by essentially "putting" a muon onto the proton. This eliminates the weak nuclear force, and enables the proton to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to grab it.
That is one idea. It breaks no laws. There are a few others, too complex to share here. There are problems with all the theories, and the study of the phenomena is far from complete. This is partially because of the way the Ivy League Universities have shut any study down, by sheer derision. With probable obscurity, what young scientist would want to go down this path? Any published peer reviewed papers in the past 20 years have had inordinate burdens of proof placed on them. The Ivy Leagues, 100 years ago derided the Write brothers and pronounced to the world man could never fly. The inventor went before the science, and the Ivy leagues ate crow and scrambled to catch up. It is possible this is happening again...
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
LENR developments
I have been watching this for many years. Rossi’s first public demonstration was in January.
Since the nay sayers in the ivy leagues have been dismissive and derisive of this research, Rossi said, “well they said human flight was impossible a century ago too) This is an inventors approach that seized upon a phenomena and evolved it directly into salable technology.
Similar to many who explored scientific phenomena a century and a half ago, he did so not fully understanding the science. Much like Tesla’s early days. Many of these inventor’s technologies have actually driven science to explain it.
Since the nay sayers in the ivy leagues have been dismissive and derisive of this research, Rossi said, “well they said human flight was impossible a century ago too) This is an inventors approach that seized upon a phenomena and evolved it directly into salable technology.
Similar to many who explored scientific phenomena a century and a half ago, he did so not fully understanding the science. Much like Tesla’s early days. Many of these inventor’s technologies have actually driven science to explain it.
Rob Ford in trouble again... stick handling the hate..
Alethia
11:15 PM on November 2, 2011
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post, and post intelligently. Most Canadians feel they are centrist. Few would admit they are left or right exclusively. I wrote as a push-back to the tone and accuracy of the article. I love satire and irony, metaphor and simile. Please don't read out of this anything different.
I am merely trying to point out the meting out of the "poetry" of our day, is focused on the right, or perhaps more accurately on Mr. Ford and Mr. Harper, by this blog the 2 most hated men in Canada.
Who I might add, have just recently received majority--mandated, by the parliamentary democratic, accepted method of the day.
Both are trying to deal with a soft economy and massive debt. I know this is a quagmire. Points can be made on both sides of this assertion. But whether or not we agree on the fine points, 2 men received a mandate to try to right the ship and prevent disaster. For the fact that, while the world is in crisis, but our economy is growing most Canadians are behind Mr. Harper right now; and are prepared to accept the singing of Christmas carols once again, and other trivial right wing perspectives in order to keep it that way.
I don't live in Ontario and have but a passing interest in Mr. Ford, but I see the left has pretty much successfully ham-strung him. Margaret and Toronto stopped any library closures. But with a hundred libraries in the city would many people miss 10 if it helped balance the budget. Or 10 libraries for the sake of ding ding *reduced municipal taxes, in the highest tax/mil rate structure in Canada? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see that as right wing, but maybe a *bit right of center: I say have fun paying that 770 million dollar deficit. Maybe it will go away with magic, or maybe Margaret would break down and write a cheque...
So I ask you does the left *get irony or satire if its directed at them at all?
Delete
11:15 PM on November 2, 2011
First of all, thank you for taking the time to post, and post intelligently. Most Canadians feel they are centrist. Few would admit they are left or right exclusively. I wrote as a push-back to the tone and accuracy of the article. I love satire and irony, metaphor and simile. Please don't read out of this anything different.
I am merely trying to point out the meting out of the "poetry" of our day, is focused on the right, or perhaps more accurately on Mr. Ford and Mr. Harper, by this blog the 2 most hated men in Canada.
Who I might add, have just recently received majority--mandated, by the parliamentary democratic, accepted method of the day.
Both are trying to deal with a soft economy and massive debt. I know this is a quagmire. Points can be made on both sides of this assertion. But whether or not we agree on the fine points, 2 men received a mandate to try to right the ship and prevent disaster. For the fact that, while the world is in crisis, but our economy is growing most Canadians are behind Mr. Harper right now; and are prepared to accept the singing of Christmas carols once again, and other trivial right wing perspectives in order to keep it that way.
I don't live in Ontario and have but a passing interest in Mr. Ford, but I see the left has pretty much successfully ham-strung him. Margaret and Toronto stopped any library closures. But with a hundred libraries in the city would many people miss 10 if it helped balance the budget. Or 10 libraries for the sake of ding ding *reduced municipal taxes, in the highest tax/mil rate structure in Canada? Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see that as right wing, but maybe a *bit right of center: I say have fun paying that 770 million dollar deficit. Maybe it will go away with magic, or maybe Margaret would break down and write a cheque...
So I ask you does the left *get irony or satire if its directed at them at all?
Delete
Flap over Israel's blocade
It would be far smarter to send it to Somalia. They are starving there, while Palestinians are fat. I am sure all the Somali pirates would provide you safe passage where Alshabaab can take over and make sure it all goes to people in need.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The left slams the right and Rob Ford to teach us tolerance, and patience.
Of course, you are right here regarding personal space. I differ with you on your implied tolerance for media sanctioned insult, whatever the location or medium. One's home derives its sanctity from one's PERSON, not one's dignity from one's possessions
You voted
Report Abuse
Score: 1
etranger
1:59 AM on November 2, 2011
And this is why Kings had castles.....
Report Abuse
Score: 0
Alethia
2:30 AM on November 2, 2011
You see, that is whats wrong with the left. A home's sanctity comes from one's person? So because Mr. Ford is a "bad person", he has no right to privacy?
Ever hear of the Magna Carta? Or inalienable human rights? Or common law that rises as a result of hundreds of years of deliberations from those human rights?
If this is promoted as satire, why don't you stick the camera lens right into Mr. Ford's bedroom? He is the Bogey man anyhow. No body likes his *person*, so should he then should he then expect to have no sanctity of home? He was ambushed at dawn for pity sake on his very front step!
Do you think the pendulum has swung too far to the right? Ever think its because its been swung way too far to the left for a very long time? Of course not. The left seems to have no ability for introspection. If there was such a thing as satire directed to the left, the left would never know it.
The right is supposed to be properly chastened by this satire, but we are here because of the intolerable license the left has stolen from us for 40 years. I am all for good social programs (a left wing ideology), but has society gone too far? Is the left so used to pilfering everyone else's pockets, taking social license from privacy of house and home, that they no longer see?
--That no one should have the right to point out how intolerable that has become?
I like satire. But when it comes to politics, there is 1 target on the right and 3 on the left plus the BQ. When has the sneering ever been spread evenly? Were the Conservatives targets any less than now that they are *in* power? No, they are consistently the target of this class of society. As I read over these comments, what has the author whipped up? I see accusation, slurs, labels, little satire, little humor--instead of respect and tolerance, I see hatred and intolerance, and its not coming from the right.
I say this, holding back all sorts of right wing blather, I am not repeating party dogma or right wing catch phrases, to balance this swell of slurs. When someone decides to dive into the slop, why should their opponent too?
Delete
You voted
Report Abuse
Score: 1
etranger
1:59 AM on November 2, 2011
And this is why Kings had castles.....
Report Abuse
Score: 0
Alethia
2:30 AM on November 2, 2011
You see, that is whats wrong with the left. A home's sanctity comes from one's person? So because Mr. Ford is a "bad person", he has no right to privacy?
Ever hear of the Magna Carta? Or inalienable human rights? Or common law that rises as a result of hundreds of years of deliberations from those human rights?
If this is promoted as satire, why don't you stick the camera lens right into Mr. Ford's bedroom? He is the Bogey man anyhow. No body likes his *person*, so should he then should he then expect to have no sanctity of home? He was ambushed at dawn for pity sake on his very front step!
Do you think the pendulum has swung too far to the right? Ever think its because its been swung way too far to the left for a very long time? Of course not. The left seems to have no ability for introspection. If there was such a thing as satire directed to the left, the left would never know it.
The right is supposed to be properly chastened by this satire, but we are here because of the intolerable license the left has stolen from us for 40 years. I am all for good social programs (a left wing ideology), but has society gone too far? Is the left so used to pilfering everyone else's pockets, taking social license from privacy of house and home, that they no longer see?
--That no one should have the right to point out how intolerable that has become?
I like satire. But when it comes to politics, there is 1 target on the right and 3 on the left plus the BQ. When has the sneering ever been spread evenly? Were the Conservatives targets any less than now that they are *in* power? No, they are consistently the target of this class of society. As I read over these comments, what has the author whipped up? I see accusation, slurs, labels, little satire, little humor--instead of respect and tolerance, I see hatred and intolerance, and its not coming from the right.
I say this, holding back all sorts of right wing blather, I am not repeating party dogma or right wing catch phrases, to balance this swell of slurs. When someone decides to dive into the slop, why should their opponent too?
Delete
Wall Street Journal, on the US defunding UNESCO.
The Canadian government stands staunchly with the US position. It is considering withdrawing funds, although it doesn't have the legal pressure to do so. That said, sad to say, many Canadian people are at odds with the government on this. The popular myth that forgets actual history pervades its educational institutions. It has forgotten that this area of the middle east was the leavings of the collapsed Byzantine empire. Syria and Jordan and even Egypt was offered the land. They turned it down, not because there may have been some Palestinian people living there, they comprise a large part of Jordan's indigenous populations, for example. It was deemed a waste land and no one wanted it. Until the Jews did.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577009791967672810.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204528204577009791967672810.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)