FACTS ON OILSANDS:
Oilsands accounts for 0.1% of GLOBAL GHG EMISSIONS
For Canada OILSANDS represents 6.5% Of Canadas GHGS.
For the WORLD Canada produces 2% of WORLD GHGS with 0.5% of the WORLDS POPULATION. (Source: www.capp.ca)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China and USA produce almost 40% of world GHGs
India produces 17% of world GHGs.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/Asbestos+Canada+latest/5921003/story.html#ixzz1hxT4amSo
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Climate gate 2
This just in. No surprises here.
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) informs scientist Mike Hulme that his services are no longer required – not because it has found someone with more experience and expertise to replace him, but because the IPCC feels a
need to maintain a balance in geographical representation…
and because its governing body, the plenary, has decided it should swap out “about half of the membership.”
To those of us who’ve already deduced that the IPCC does not, in fact, consist of the world’s top scientists there’s nothing earth-shattering here. But it’s yet one more bit of evidence that IPCC insiders have been fully aware that the reality of the IPCC differs rather dramatically from the marketing message being delivered to the rest of us.
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) informs scientist Mike Hulme that his services are no longer required – not because it has found someone with more experience and expertise to replace him, but because the IPCC feels a
need to maintain a balance in geographical representation…
and because its governing body, the plenary, has decided it should swap out “about half of the membership.”
To those of us who’ve already deduced that the IPCC does not, in fact, consist of the world’s top scientists there’s nothing earth-shattering here. But it’s yet one more bit of evidence that IPCC insiders have been fully aware that the reality of the IPCC differs rather dramatically from the marketing message being delivered to the rest of us.
Friday, December 16, 2011
MIT caught with its pants down!
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/134455268b4a9489
Infinite-Energy Magazine publishes 100th issue
by Ruby Carat
I finally got my hardcopy of Infinite Energy magazine.
I'm on the road, with mail forwarded here and there, so there was a delay in the November/December issue. Even though selected articles are available on their website for free, there's nothing like having it in hand to take around.
Infinite Energy mastIt's the 100th issue!
Infinite Energy started back in 1995 by Eugene Mallove, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University graduate in aeronautical engineering and environmental health sciences, respectively. He had a talent for communicating science to the public and wrote several books including "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor". Fire From Ice
Dr. Mallove was also a chief science writer at MIT's news office before resigning over their falsification of data from Fleischmann-Pons-style experiments. One of the first passionate advocates of new energy, he wrote a well-documented expose of MIT's data manipulation in issue #24. From his own words:
In the spring of 1991, as I was finishing Fire from Ice, and feeling increasingly uncomfortable with what was happening at MIT with respect to cold fusion, I made a fateful discovery.
Questions had already arisen about exactly how the MIT PFC-Chemistry Dept. team had analyzed their excess heat calorimetry study that pared a heavy water/palladium cell with an ordinary water/palladium cell. This was the so-called “Phase-II Calorimetry” study that had been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. (Edited at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center—how’s that for short-circuiting peer review!)
From the pile of information that I had been collecting about the on-going work at MIT and elsewhere, I found two draft documents concerning this calorimetry that had been given to me by PFC team members during the rush toward publication. I could see immediately that there was a serious discrepancy between the unpublished, pre-processed raw data (the July 10, 1989 draft) and the final published data on the July 13, 1989 draft. (See page 11 graphs reproduced from these drafts).
At first glance, it appeared that the data had been altered between July 10th and 13th to conform to what would be most welcome to the hot fusion people—a null result for excess heat in the heavy water data. I would later publicly challenge the creation and handling of these graphs by MIT PFC staff (see extensive Exhibits J through Z-11).
Dr. Eugene Mallove MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report IE#24
Infinite Energy #1 cover 1994
Infinite Energy issue #1 has Dr. Edmund Storms on the cover.
It was the poor treatment of cold fusion that compelled Dr. Mallove to start Infinite Energy magazine.
The very first issue was partially funded by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote "though the title may be criticized on logical grounds, I can't really think of a better one." It also included a letter from Clarke to then Vice-President Al Gore requesting funding for this science.
A strong supporter of cold fusion, Arthur Clarke wrote in a 1998 Science magazine article "Even more controversial than the threat of asteroid impacts is what I would call perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science, the cold fusion caper."
Arthur C. Clarke contributed several articles over the years including “2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power And the Dawn of a New Era” [read] from issue #22.
That very first issue of Infinite Energy also included an article by Nobel Laureate and quantum field theorist Julian Schwinger "Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine". [read] He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1965 for quantum electrodynamics along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga, and originated the oft-quoted "The circumstances of cold fusion are not the circumstances of hot fusion."
Dr. Schwinger later resigned from the American Physical Society APS for their refusal to publish his papers on cold fusion theory, saying "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
Contributors to issue #1 include names that are familiar to those following cold fusion developments today such as Edmund Storms with his essay "Cold Fusion: From Reasons to Doubt to Reasons to Believe" [read], Jed Rothwell's "Very Hot Cold Fusion in Japan", Peter Gluck with "Why Technology First", and Bruce Klein and Dennis Cravens' "Cell Testing at Clean Energy Technologies".
Pioneers like then Associate Editor Hal Fox, Tom Benson, Geoff Rohde, Andrew Rothovius, Michael T. Huffman, Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III contributed articles, original research and reviews.
Cold Fusion Lives!
This T-Shirt from Al Kemme Associates was advertised in Infinite Energy Vol. 1 No. 3 in 1995. I want one!
Looking at the earlier issues reveals a community of researchers and writers fully engaged about the possibilities of clean, abundant energy from hydrogen, and excited too.
Advertised in several early issues is this t-shirt design from Al Kemme Associates. Above the order form you could cut-out and mail was this description:
Cold Fusion Lives! The definitive T-Shirt for the Cold Fusion supporter!
Grinning skull with red and yellow atomic eye sockets is guaranteed to be a hit at a scientific conference or biker convention!
Infinite Energy magazine has profiled the major players in cold fusion/LENR/LANR/ condensed matter nuclear science and published original scientific work shunned by the mainstream "peer-reviewed" journals for seventeen years.
Experimental data and articles on speculative science were published to support independent research. Giving a voice and a platform to new energy scientists around the world, allowing the field to advance - before the Internet allowed global networked communication.
The non-profit New Energy Foundation was formed as an adjunct to the magazine in order to further support independent new energy researchers through direct funding. Donations made to the Foundation are distributed to labs that successfully apply to the Foundation. Your donation can also be earmarked for specific researchers and be assured that they will reach their labs in particular.
The death of founder Eugene Mallove in 2004 was devastating to the tight crew that operates the office. Recent losses of Technical Editor Scott Chubb earlier this year and then his uncle, long-time researcher and author Talbot Chubb, this month have also forced difficult changes.
Infinite Energy #100
Infinite Energy issue #100
However, Technical Editors Dr. Peter Graneau and William H. Zebuhr along with Managing Editor Christy L. Frazier have honored their work by continuing to publish cutting-edge new energy science and technology.
Struggling through a difficult economy, the recent 100th issue looks at the state of the science today, surveying scientists working in the field such as Drs. Brian Ahern, Jean-Paul Biberian, Talbot Chubb, William Collis, Dennis Cravens, John Dash, Mitchell Swartz, and Francis Tarzella.
A second status report includes remarks by Thomas Bearden, Arnold Gulko, Donald Hotson, Thomas Phipps, Jr and William Zebuhr with Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney as the lone female respondent.
It includes a review of the first commercial course on cold fusion from NuCat founder David J. Nagel, "A Model for a Sonofusion Process" by Roger Stringham, and a theoretical paper by Scott Chubb "Conventional Physics Can Explain Cold Fusion Excess Heat".
Infinite Energy provides a critical service for scientists, students, and clean energy activists. They have generously helped our efforts at Cold Fusion Now through magazine and book donations for our educational and outreach events.
My subscription aids in that endeavor, and yours can too.
Cold Fusion Now!
Related Links
Eugene Mallove on Coast-to-Coast February 3, 2004
Eugene Mallove Remembering Cold Fusion's Slain Champion from PESN
Sir Arthur C. Clarke Challenges the Scientific Community with Provocative Essay in Science by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #20
Arthur C. Clarke: The Man Who "Predicted" Cold Fusion and Modern Alchemy compiled by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #22
Infinite-Energy Magazine publishes 100th issue
by Ruby Carat
I finally got my hardcopy of Infinite Energy magazine.
I'm on the road, with mail forwarded here and there, so there was a delay in the November/December issue. Even though selected articles are available on their website for free, there's nothing like having it in hand to take around.
Infinite Energy mastIt's the 100th issue!
Infinite Energy started back in 1995 by Eugene Mallove, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University graduate in aeronautical engineering and environmental health sciences, respectively. He had a talent for communicating science to the public and wrote several books including "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor". Fire From Ice
Dr. Mallove was also a chief science writer at MIT's news office before resigning over their falsification of data from Fleischmann-Pons-style experiments. One of the first passionate advocates of new energy, he wrote a well-documented expose of MIT's data manipulation in issue #24. From his own words:
In the spring of 1991, as I was finishing Fire from Ice, and feeling increasingly uncomfortable with what was happening at MIT with respect to cold fusion, I made a fateful discovery.
Questions had already arisen about exactly how the MIT PFC-Chemistry Dept. team had analyzed their excess heat calorimetry study that pared a heavy water/palladium cell with an ordinary water/palladium cell. This was the so-called “Phase-II Calorimetry” study that had been published in the Journal of Fusion Energy. (Edited at the MIT Plasma Fusion Center—how’s that for short-circuiting peer review!)
From the pile of information that I had been collecting about the on-going work at MIT and elsewhere, I found two draft documents concerning this calorimetry that had been given to me by PFC team members during the rush toward publication. I could see immediately that there was a serious discrepancy between the unpublished, pre-processed raw data (the July 10, 1989 draft) and the final published data on the July 13, 1989 draft. (See page 11 graphs reproduced from these drafts).
At first glance, it appeared that the data had been altered between July 10th and 13th to conform to what would be most welcome to the hot fusion people—a null result for excess heat in the heavy water data. I would later publicly challenge the creation and handling of these graphs by MIT PFC staff (see extensive Exhibits J through Z-11).
Dr. Eugene Mallove MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report IE#24
Infinite Energy #1 cover 1994
Infinite Energy issue #1 has Dr. Edmund Storms on the cover.
It was the poor treatment of cold fusion that compelled Dr. Mallove to start Infinite Energy magazine.
The very first issue was partially funded by Arthur C. Clarke who wrote "though the title may be criticized on logical grounds, I can't really think of a better one." It also included a letter from Clarke to then Vice-President Al Gore requesting funding for this science.
A strong supporter of cold fusion, Arthur Clarke wrote in a 1998 Science magazine article "Even more controversial than the threat of asteroid impacts is what I would call perhaps one of the greatest scandals in the history of science, the cold fusion caper."
Arthur C. Clarke contributed several articles over the years including “2001: The Coming Age of Hydrogen Power And the Dawn of a New Era” [read] from issue #22.
That very first issue of Infinite Energy also included an article by Nobel Laureate and quantum field theorist Julian Schwinger "Cold Fusion Theory: A Brief History of Mine". [read] He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1965 for quantum electrodynamics along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga, and originated the oft-quoted "The circumstances of cold fusion are not the circumstances of hot fusion."
Dr. Schwinger later resigned from the American Physical Society APS for their refusal to publish his papers on cold fusion theory, saying "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
Contributors to issue #1 include names that are familiar to those following cold fusion developments today such as Edmund Storms with his essay "Cold Fusion: From Reasons to Doubt to Reasons to Believe" [read], Jed Rothwell's "Very Hot Cold Fusion in Japan", Peter Gluck with "Why Technology First", and Bruce Klein and Dennis Cravens' "Cell Testing at Clean Energy Technologies".
Pioneers like then Associate Editor Hal Fox, Tom Benson, Geoff Rohde, Andrew Rothovius, Michael T. Huffman, Nelson Ying and Charles W. Shults III contributed articles, original research and reviews.
Cold Fusion Lives!
This T-Shirt from Al Kemme Associates was advertised in Infinite Energy Vol. 1 No. 3 in 1995. I want one!
Looking at the earlier issues reveals a community of researchers and writers fully engaged about the possibilities of clean, abundant energy from hydrogen, and excited too.
Advertised in several early issues is this t-shirt design from Al Kemme Associates. Above the order form you could cut-out and mail was this description:
Cold Fusion Lives! The definitive T-Shirt for the Cold Fusion supporter!
Grinning skull with red and yellow atomic eye sockets is guaranteed to be a hit at a scientific conference or biker convention!
Infinite Energy magazine has profiled the major players in cold fusion/LENR/LANR/ condensed matter nuclear science and published original scientific work shunned by the mainstream "peer-reviewed" journals for seventeen years.
Experimental data and articles on speculative science were published to support independent research. Giving a voice and a platform to new energy scientists around the world, allowing the field to advance - before the Internet allowed global networked communication.
The non-profit New Energy Foundation was formed as an adjunct to the magazine in order to further support independent new energy researchers through direct funding. Donations made to the Foundation are distributed to labs that successfully apply to the Foundation. Your donation can also be earmarked for specific researchers and be assured that they will reach their labs in particular.
The death of founder Eugene Mallove in 2004 was devastating to the tight crew that operates the office. Recent losses of Technical Editor Scott Chubb earlier this year and then his uncle, long-time researcher and author Talbot Chubb, this month have also forced difficult changes.
Infinite Energy #100
Infinite Energy issue #100
However, Technical Editors Dr. Peter Graneau and William H. Zebuhr along with Managing Editor Christy L. Frazier have honored their work by continuing to publish cutting-edge new energy science and technology.
Struggling through a difficult economy, the recent 100th issue looks at the state of the science today, surveying scientists working in the field such as Drs. Brian Ahern, Jean-Paul Biberian, Talbot Chubb, William Collis, Dennis Cravens, John Dash, Mitchell Swartz, and Francis Tarzella.
A second status report includes remarks by Thomas Bearden, Arnold Gulko, Donald Hotson, Thomas Phipps, Jr and William Zebuhr with Dr. Cynthia K. Whitney as the lone female respondent.
It includes a review of the first commercial course on cold fusion from NuCat founder David J. Nagel, "A Model for a Sonofusion Process" by Roger Stringham, and a theoretical paper by Scott Chubb "Conventional Physics Can Explain Cold Fusion Excess Heat".
Infinite Energy provides a critical service for scientists, students, and clean energy activists. They have generously helped our efforts at Cold Fusion Now through magazine and book donations for our educational and outreach events.
My subscription aids in that endeavor, and yours can too.
Cold Fusion Now!
Related Links
Eugene Mallove on Coast-to-Coast February 3, 2004
Eugene Mallove Remembering Cold Fusion's Slain Champion from PESN
Sir Arthur C. Clarke Challenges the Scientific Community with Provocative Essay in Science by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #20
Arthur C. Clarke: The Man Who "Predicted" Cold Fusion and Modern Alchemy compiled by Eugene Mallove Infinite Energy issue #22
Germany, Canada and Kyoto
Kyoto kicked out of Kanada !!!
This ineffective environmental accord was signed by an inept liberal government.
After a few years of following the process, Canada calls it off!!
(hey, that Kyoto Emperor ain't wearing no clothes !)
So what now Canada? How will you address your tarnished image of an environmentally friendly country?
Canada set to announce Kyoto pullout - Politics - CBC News
www.cbc.ca
Environment Minister Peter Kent is expected to announce Monday that Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, to avoid an estimated $7 billion in penalties.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · 4 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey
This way: posted this on the G&M last night: Freedom from Kyoto Day
From the Kyoto Implementation Act of 2007:
The Government's analysis, broadly endorsed by some of Canada's leading economists, indicates that Canadian Gross Domestic Produ...See More
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey At the time Canada signed Kyoto, it only did so because the US did too. Yes thats right, the US of A negotiated signed on the dotted line... then congress voted it down. Canada was stiffed at the altar. The whole thing became a joke without the largest emitter playing...
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey So, without a partner Canada didn't dance.
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey The "annulment" (pun intended) came through last week.
3 hours ago · Like
Carl Ek Read what various German press are saying:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00.html
The World from Berlin: 'Canada Should Be Shunned for Kyoto Ignorance' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - Inte
www.spiegel.de
Canada is under fire for exiting the Kyoto Protocol just one day after UN climat...See More
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey The whole EU can go ahead after it finishes swirling. They pick on Canada because we mean nothing and we can't really fight back. The US? No. China? No. Russia? No. All the emitters that really count are their best friends. They can go fluff a duck, we will sell our oil-sands for a extra 65% and call it a Carbon tax.
This ineffective environmental accord was signed by an inept liberal government.
After a few years of following the process, Canada calls it off!!
(hey, that Kyoto Emperor ain't wearing no clothes !)
So what now Canada? How will you address your tarnished image of an environmentally friendly country?
Canada set to announce Kyoto pullout - Politics - CBC News
www.cbc.ca
Environment Minister Peter Kent is expected to announce Monday that Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, to avoid an estimated $7 billion in penalties.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · 4 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey
This way: posted this on the G&M last night: Freedom from Kyoto Day
From the Kyoto Implementation Act of 2007:
The Government's analysis, broadly endorsed by some of Canada's leading economists, indicates that Canadian Gross Domestic Produ...See More
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey At the time Canada signed Kyoto, it only did so because the US did too. Yes thats right, the US of A negotiated signed on the dotted line... then congress voted it down. Canada was stiffed at the altar. The whole thing became a joke without the largest emitter playing...
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey So, without a partner Canada didn't dance.
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey The "annulment" (pun intended) came through last week.
3 hours ago · Like
Carl Ek Read what various German press are saying:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,803670,00.html
The World from Berlin: 'Canada Should Be Shunned for Kyoto Ignorance' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - Inte
www.spiegel.de
Canada is under fire for exiting the Kyoto Protocol just one day after UN climat...See More
3 hours ago · Like
Owen Abrey The whole EU can go ahead after it finishes swirling. They pick on Canada because we mean nothing and we can't really fight back. The US? No. China? No. Russia? No. All the emitters that really count are their best friends. They can go fluff a duck, we will sell our oil-sands for a extra 65% and call it a Carbon tax.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A Tribute to David Wells. A Giant in the Land.
...and he gave gifts to men"... Dr. Lim used to say the gifts of the spirit were FULLY God and FULLY Men. A gift needs the cooperation of the one by whom it comes; and cooperation really is a poor understatement. Collaboration may come closer... Perhaps the mystery of this intermingling will always resist the definition of our language; as though we could ever with a word draw a circle around that which melds men to their creator: infinity plus one.
With all that in my heart I thank you for being a gift in my life David. Yes I am thankful to God, without whose grace we would be nothing, but also to the human agent that has bent his will and become intertwined with it. For that I thank you, aware you are a gift to all of us, but also to me. Merry Christmas.
With all that in my heart I thank you for being a gift in my life David. Yes I am thankful to God, without whose grace we would be nothing, but also to the human agent that has bent his will and become intertwined with it. For that I thank you, aware you are a gift to all of us, but also to me. Merry Christmas.
Theology Philosophy and Science, poor and wonderful bed-fellows.
Dr. Higgs who's famous 1964 paper detested that his boson be called the God particle. "I am an atheist!" he exclaimed. It would appear many commentators here would say the same. As is helpful in many problem solving exercises between entrenched camps on one side of a theory or another, I offer this discussion about science religion and philosophy.
Really, tombs should be written to draw a line around these topics, but the already mountain of tombs sit in dusty libraries lost to human knowledge. It is one of my biggest beefs about the lack of rigor found in Canadian and probably American education.
The study of the classics has pretty much disappeared. So we do not appreciate from whence came our ideas of science--except as regurgitated by those who failed in their charge to really educate us.
So let me take a quick snap shot to try to build a few bridges. Science Philosophy and Theology were once considered the sciences. Many trained to some extent in the sciences believe theology has been dumped, and philosophy, well one holds its nose to it--but science, ah science! It is understandable because science has shown us so much; answered many of our kind of questions; it therefor holds a place of honor in our minds. At the graduate level, as one studies the philosophy of science and math, one begins to appreciate how philosophy is very much intertwined and pervades science. With the logic of philosophy man-kind would still be trying to figure out the wheel. Logic and Reasoning are integral to science. Philosophy drives the mechanism and direction of it, and without philosophy we could never add one plus one and come up with two.
______________
I suspect that at this point most of you are still with me. At worst giving grudging acceptance that philosophy must be given place, even if you would not be prepared to say science is really an off-shoot of philosophy--that's fine. With Philosophy and Science (P&S hereon), we have been able to understand how we have come to be on this planet at this time in the universe. We are able to look back 14 billion years and pick up the count nano-seconds from the instant of the big bang, trace the formation of subatomic and atomic particles, we have seen them combine together and form hydrogen stars that live short lives, super-nova and give breed to stars of more and more complex isotopic composition, to the point where we are today with a yellow sun, and rocky worlds that orbit in "goldie-lock" zones.
As these things were taking place, Theology went into a place of profound introspection. Its absence from academic thought bred an idea that just like we may have thought philosophy had nothing to do with science, so P&S had nothing to do with Theology. That is a profoundly ignorant point of view, and I don't mean to use "ignorant" as an insult, but draw it close to ideas of being uninformed. During the time of Theology's estrangement various apologists, defenders, and assassins were loosed into the arena of thought. I use these three terms as classifiers not pejorative in some way.
There arose in those times a branch of theology called Deism. Deism is reflected in the idea that says "If there is a God, a creator of all things, then He wound up the universe established a few laws, and then pretty much has no more to do with us." I think perhaps the majority of astrophysicists would have an affinity for this view. Stephen Hawking talked of it in "A Brief History of Time", and Roger Penrose took a run at it in "The Large the Small and the Human Mind." Einstein was also very theological as a Deist. To the deist, God exists in that part of the universe we cannot yet explain. And when we finally do understand what we haven't been able to explain, then God will disappear altogether (that by the way is a belief statement-rife with theology).
___________________
Some scientists like Pascal and Newton found themselves of a Christian theology that was not deistic. To them they understood God to be both transcendent (Like the Deists) but also imminent: Intertwined inextricably from his creation, a God who suffuses the universe and perhaps holding all reality together. These are belief statements however. Science has boundaries that are supposed to be at the edge of "belief and reason". So really a true scientist-who is atheistic, should have nothing to say about the validity of God's existence, for by science it is not informed of these things.
___________________
One of the galling aspects of the way Science and Faith interject, is when theologians trammel on scientific holy ground. Everyone would recognise the despised creationists at that juncture. Believe me when I tell you that among theologians, there is equal dismay to find ignorant men creating a science book out of a theology.
How is that, do you say? Well to us, science is a fantastic way of describing the processes of nature, the universe, biology, and even science politic. Science if you will is about process. Theology is not about process. Theology is about purpose. Prior to the middle ages, philosophers and scientists when posed by the question: Why does this tree grow? would respond: to give us shade, or provide a nesting place for birds. The science that we know today has been distilled from those ways of thinking, and honed by empiricism and rationalism so that it appropriately avoids purpose. The principles of causality prohibit it. Why are we here must end up at why did the big bang happen. Is it ok to recognise science has limits? Despite the best efforts of some evolutionary anthropologists to make theological comments about how we came to ask the question why, there simply is a boundary where science cannot explain ie hope, love, faith and probably other existential things that virtually all human beings know. Knowledge today has fantastic science, pretty good philosophy, but is beggarly in theology. That really is a loss. For instead of treating it with hostility, perhaps these other pursuits of knowledge can nevertheless inform us.
Really, tombs should be written to draw a line around these topics, but the already mountain of tombs sit in dusty libraries lost to human knowledge. It is one of my biggest beefs about the lack of rigor found in Canadian and probably American education.
The study of the classics has pretty much disappeared. So we do not appreciate from whence came our ideas of science--except as regurgitated by those who failed in their charge to really educate us.
So let me take a quick snap shot to try to build a few bridges. Science Philosophy and Theology were once considered the sciences. Many trained to some extent in the sciences believe theology has been dumped, and philosophy, well one holds its nose to it--but science, ah science! It is understandable because science has shown us so much; answered many of our kind of questions; it therefor holds a place of honor in our minds. At the graduate level, as one studies the philosophy of science and math, one begins to appreciate how philosophy is very much intertwined and pervades science. With the logic of philosophy man-kind would still be trying to figure out the wheel. Logic and Reasoning are integral to science. Philosophy drives the mechanism and direction of it, and without philosophy we could never add one plus one and come up with two.
______________
I suspect that at this point most of you are still with me. At worst giving grudging acceptance that philosophy must be given place, even if you would not be prepared to say science is really an off-shoot of philosophy--that's fine. With Philosophy and Science (P&S hereon), we have been able to understand how we have come to be on this planet at this time in the universe. We are able to look back 14 billion years and pick up the count nano-seconds from the instant of the big bang, trace the formation of subatomic and atomic particles, we have seen them combine together and form hydrogen stars that live short lives, super-nova and give breed to stars of more and more complex isotopic composition, to the point where we are today with a yellow sun, and rocky worlds that orbit in "goldie-lock" zones.
As these things were taking place, Theology went into a place of profound introspection. Its absence from academic thought bred an idea that just like we may have thought philosophy had nothing to do with science, so P&S had nothing to do with Theology. That is a profoundly ignorant point of view, and I don't mean to use "ignorant" as an insult, but draw it close to ideas of being uninformed. During the time of Theology's estrangement various apologists, defenders, and assassins were loosed into the arena of thought. I use these three terms as classifiers not pejorative in some way.
There arose in those times a branch of theology called Deism. Deism is reflected in the idea that says "If there is a God, a creator of all things, then He wound up the universe established a few laws, and then pretty much has no more to do with us." I think perhaps the majority of astrophysicists would have an affinity for this view. Stephen Hawking talked of it in "A Brief History of Time", and Roger Penrose took a run at it in "The Large the Small and the Human Mind." Einstein was also very theological as a Deist. To the deist, God exists in that part of the universe we cannot yet explain. And when we finally do understand what we haven't been able to explain, then God will disappear altogether (that by the way is a belief statement-rife with theology).
___________________
Some scientists like Pascal and Newton found themselves of a Christian theology that was not deistic. To them they understood God to be both transcendent (Like the Deists) but also imminent: Intertwined inextricably from his creation, a God who suffuses the universe and perhaps holding all reality together. These are belief statements however. Science has boundaries that are supposed to be at the edge of "belief and reason". So really a true scientist-who is atheistic, should have nothing to say about the validity of God's existence, for by science it is not informed of these things.
___________________
One of the galling aspects of the way Science and Faith interject, is when theologians trammel on scientific holy ground. Everyone would recognise the despised creationists at that juncture. Believe me when I tell you that among theologians, there is equal dismay to find ignorant men creating a science book out of a theology.
How is that, do you say? Well to us, science is a fantastic way of describing the processes of nature, the universe, biology, and even science politic. Science if you will is about process. Theology is not about process. Theology is about purpose. Prior to the middle ages, philosophers and scientists when posed by the question: Why does this tree grow? would respond: to give us shade, or provide a nesting place for birds. The science that we know today has been distilled from those ways of thinking, and honed by empiricism and rationalism so that it appropriately avoids purpose. The principles of causality prohibit it. Why are we here must end up at why did the big bang happen. Is it ok to recognise science has limits? Despite the best efforts of some evolutionary anthropologists to make theological comments about how we came to ask the question why, there simply is a boundary where science cannot explain ie hope, love, faith and probably other existential things that virtually all human beings know. Knowledge today has fantastic science, pretty good philosophy, but is beggarly in theology. That really is a loss. For instead of treating it with hostility, perhaps these other pursuits of knowledge can nevertheless inform us.
Freedom from Kyoto Day
From the Kyoto Implementation Act of 2007:
The Government's analysis, broadly endorsed by some of Canada's leading economists, indicates that Canadian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would decline by more than 6.5% relative to current projections in 2008 as a result of strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol's emission reduction target for Canada. This would imply a deep recession in 2008, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $51 billion relative to 2007 levels. By way of comparison, the most severe recession in the post-World War II period for Canada, as measured by the fall in real GDP, was in 1981-1982. Real GDP fell 4.9% between the second quarter of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982.
All provinces and sectors would experience significant declines in economic activity under this scenario, while employment levels would fall by about 1.7% (or 276,000 jobs) between 2007 and 2009. In addition, there would be a reduction of real per capita personal disposable income levels from forecast levels of around 2.5% in 2009 (or about $1,000 per Canadian in today's dollars).
Meeting Canada's Kyoto Protocol target on the timeline proposed in the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would also have implications for energy prices faced by Canadian consumers. Natural gas prices could potentially more than double in the early years of the 2008-2012 period, while electricity prices could rise by about 50% on average after 2010. Prices for transportation fuels would also inevitably rise by a large margin -- roughly 60%.
According to the Swiss bank UBS, the European Union’s carbon trading scheme has cost European consumers $285-billion, while having “almost zero impact” on carbon emissions. The scheme did, however, create a windfall for market participants. In other words, doing something can be a whole lot worse than doing nothing.
The Government's analysis, broadly endorsed by some of Canada's leading economists, indicates that Canadian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would decline by more than 6.5% relative to current projections in 2008 as a result of strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol's emission reduction target for Canada. This would imply a deep recession in 2008, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $51 billion relative to 2007 levels. By way of comparison, the most severe recession in the post-World War II period for Canada, as measured by the fall in real GDP, was in 1981-1982. Real GDP fell 4.9% between the second quarter of 1981 and the fourth quarter of 1982.
All provinces and sectors would experience significant declines in economic activity under this scenario, while employment levels would fall by about 1.7% (or 276,000 jobs) between 2007 and 2009. In addition, there would be a reduction of real per capita personal disposable income levels from forecast levels of around 2.5% in 2009 (or about $1,000 per Canadian in today's dollars).
Meeting Canada's Kyoto Protocol target on the timeline proposed in the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act would also have implications for energy prices faced by Canadian consumers. Natural gas prices could potentially more than double in the early years of the 2008-2012 period, while electricity prices could rise by about 50% on average after 2010. Prices for transportation fuels would also inevitably rise by a large margin -- roughly 60%.
According to the Swiss bank UBS, the European Union’s carbon trading scheme has cost European consumers $285-billion, while having “almost zero impact” on carbon emissions. The scheme did, however, create a windfall for market participants. In other words, doing something can be a whole lot worse than doing nothing.
Monday, December 12, 2011
New LENR work
LENR is widely replicated and the answer to our prayers
by bradarnold8
I found this gem comment the other day while doing some background on LENR:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/05/swedish-skeptics-confirm-nuclear-process-in-tiny-4-7-kw-reactor
“I do not think it is “amazing that the media has not paid more attention to” Rossi. His claims seem astounding. They resemble those of many previous energy scams. Reporters and scientists dismiss Rossi for this reason.
I would dismiss him myself if I did know that hundreds of other researchers have seen similar effects thousands of times. I myself have spent weeks in laboratories watching cold fusion gadgets produce heat. It is boring after a while.
Knowing that the effect has been widely replicated in hundreds of major laboratories puts everything in a different perspective. It makes Rossi far more believable. Believability in experimental physics is predicated on two things: independent replication and a high signal to noise ratio. Cold fusion met these goals back in 1990. There is not a single rational reason to doubt it exists.
The thing is, most reporters and scientists, and people such as Glen Doty know nothing at all about cold fusion. They do not realize it exists. They have not read any papers on the subject. So naturally they say “I’m confident that this is a fraud…” In 1906, three years after Kitty Hawk and one year after the Wrights flew in front a large crowd of leading citizens of Dayton Ohio for 40 minutes, every single newspaper and magazine in the U.S. — especially Scientific American — denounced them as frauds, charlatans and lunatics. Not one of those newspapers bothered to send someone to Dayton to ask the bank president and others if they had really seen a flight.
The editors at Scientific American today are no smarter than their predecessors. They told me they have never read a paper on cold fusion “because reading papers is not our job” but they are sure it is fraud and lunacy. (I uploaded that letter.)
The real question is not why is the mass media is ignoring Rossi, but why have they ignored the rest of cold fusion for 22 years? My answer: because they are stupid, and incurious.” – JedRothwell, May 4, 2011
This bears repeating: “Knowing that the effect has been widely replicated in hundreds of major laboratories puts everything in a different perspective.” To drive home the point: Ni+H(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
Here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR “cold fusion” reaction: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx
Knowing the LENR exothermic reaction has been widely replicated, you ought to assess how much energy we gain with this new clean energy technology. According to Rossi’s patient one gram of nickel ought to yield the energy equivalent of about half a million kilograms (not tons, which was a mistake) of oil. This means that nickel is about half a million times as energy dense as oil (or about one hundred thousand times as energy dense as diesel fuel) using LENR.
Nickel is about 3% of the mass of the Earth, whereas all fossil fuels combined (even oil sands and methane hydrate) are less than a billionth that amount.
Here is another gem internet comment:
“Ramifications
Scalable: Nuclear energy densities from µW to GW
Portable: Little or no need for radiation shielding
Adaptable to the full range of transportation systems
Does not have the weight, safety, and costs of fission
Revolutionizes Aviation and Access to Space
Decouples energetics from reaction mass
Fuel mass essentially goes away for air-breathing applications, reduces total mass
No GHG (CO2, H2O, aerosols, …) concerns
Fuel is very cheap (Nickel abundant, electrolysis of H2O)
Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry” -Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – J.M.Zawodny 27
Couldn’t have said it better myself. The paradigms are so broken man – maybe we can create paradise on Earth and settle the other planets of our solar system. Frankly, it seems like the main barrier to fast LENR integration is psychological.
bradarnold8 | December 11, 2011 at 9:36 PM | Tags: cold fusion, hydrogen, LENR, nickel, ramifications, replicated, widely replicated | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pYQbF-2Nj
by bradarnold8
I found this gem comment the other day while doing some background on LENR:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/05/swedish-skeptics-confirm-nuclear-process-in-tiny-4-7-kw-reactor
“I do not think it is “amazing that the media has not paid more attention to” Rossi. His claims seem astounding. They resemble those of many previous energy scams. Reporters and scientists dismiss Rossi for this reason.
I would dismiss him myself if I did know that hundreds of other researchers have seen similar effects thousands of times. I myself have spent weeks in laboratories watching cold fusion gadgets produce heat. It is boring after a while.
Knowing that the effect has been widely replicated in hundreds of major laboratories puts everything in a different perspective. It makes Rossi far more believable. Believability in experimental physics is predicated on two things: independent replication and a high signal to noise ratio. Cold fusion met these goals back in 1990. There is not a single rational reason to doubt it exists.
The thing is, most reporters and scientists, and people such as Glen Doty know nothing at all about cold fusion. They do not realize it exists. They have not read any papers on the subject. So naturally they say “I’m confident that this is a fraud…” In 1906, three years after Kitty Hawk and one year after the Wrights flew in front a large crowd of leading citizens of Dayton Ohio for 40 minutes, every single newspaper and magazine in the U.S. — especially Scientific American — denounced them as frauds, charlatans and lunatics. Not one of those newspapers bothered to send someone to Dayton to ask the bank president and others if they had really seen a flight.
The editors at Scientific American today are no smarter than their predecessors. They told me they have never read a paper on cold fusion “because reading papers is not our job” but they are sure it is fraud and lunacy. (I uploaded that letter.)
The real question is not why is the mass media is ignoring Rossi, but why have they ignored the rest of cold fusion for 22 years? My answer: because they are stupid, and incurious.” – JedRothwell, May 4, 2011
This bears repeating: “Knowing that the effect has been widely replicated in hundreds of major laboratories puts everything in a different perspective.” To drive home the point: Ni+H(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat. This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
Here is a PowerPoint presentation by George Miley of the University of Illinois who has successfully replicated the LENR “cold fusion” reaction: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498ES%20Energy%20Storage%20Systems/Nuclear%20Battery%20using%20Clusters%20in%20Nanomaterials.pptx
Knowing the LENR exothermic reaction has been widely replicated, you ought to assess how much energy we gain with this new clean energy technology. According to Rossi’s patient one gram of nickel ought to yield the energy equivalent of about half a million kilograms (not tons, which was a mistake) of oil. This means that nickel is about half a million times as energy dense as oil (or about one hundred thousand times as energy dense as diesel fuel) using LENR.
Nickel is about 3% of the mass of the Earth, whereas all fossil fuels combined (even oil sands and methane hydrate) are less than a billionth that amount.
Here is another gem internet comment:
“Ramifications
Scalable: Nuclear energy densities from µW to GW
Portable: Little or no need for radiation shielding
Adaptable to the full range of transportation systems
Does not have the weight, safety, and costs of fission
Revolutionizes Aviation and Access to Space
Decouples energetics from reaction mass
Fuel mass essentially goes away for air-breathing applications, reduces total mass
No GHG (CO2, H2O, aerosols, …) concerns
Fuel is very cheap (Nickel abundant, electrolysis of H2O)
Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry” -Sept 22, 2011 LENR Brief @ GRC – J.M.Zawodny 27
Couldn’t have said it better myself. The paradigms are so broken man – maybe we can create paradise on Earth and settle the other planets of our solar system. Frankly, it seems like the main barrier to fast LENR integration is psychological.
bradarnold8 | December 11, 2011 at 9:36 PM | Tags: cold fusion, hydrogen, LENR, nickel, ramifications, replicated, widely replicated | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pYQbF-2Nj
Friday, December 9, 2011
Edited: 100 Billion Dollars: Wall Street Journal.
When a 100 Billion is put on paper, it seem such a small thing. It is hard to put it in context.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no one on the earth walked on two feet.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our governments are spending it.
When will we stop and give our heads a shake? 100 Billion Dollars? To the UN? Wow, they have a great track record of financial stewardship. This is one big cow to milk!
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion days ago no one on the earth walked on two feet.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our governments are spending it.
When will we stop and give our heads a shake? 100 Billion Dollars? To the UN? Wow, they have a great track record of financial stewardship. This is one big cow to milk!
A billion in perspective.
This is too true to be funny ...
The next time you hear a politician use the
word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
but one advertising agency did a good job of
putting that figure into some perspective in
one of its releases.
A.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D.
A billion days ago no one on the earth walked on two feet.
E.
A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our governments
are spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain ...
let's take a look at New Orleans ....
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ... Interesting number ...
what does it mean?
A
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528.
B
Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C.
Or... if you are a family of four..
your family gets $2,066,012.
Imagine, now $700 billion bailing out banks in the US. That's enough to fund complete medical care for every man, woman and child currently alive in the US for 11 years!!
50 billion to bail out the auto industry???
Washington , D.C.
&
Ottawa
< HELLO!!! >
Are all your calculators broken??
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog & Cat License Taxes
Federal Income Tax , Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS & Rev. Can. Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS & Rev. Can. Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State & Prov. Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax upon Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Income Tax
Everything Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY???
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago ...
and our nations were the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt ...
We had the largest middle class in the world..
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
Can you spell 'politicians!'
And I still have to
press '1'
for English.
I hope this goes around the
US & CANADA
at least 1 billion times
What happened???
The next time you hear a politician use the
word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
but one advertising agency did a good job of
putting that figure into some perspective in
one of its releases.
A.
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B.
A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D.
A billion days ago no one on the earth walked on two feet.
E.
A billion dollars ago was only
8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our governments
are spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain ...
let's take a look at New Orleans ....
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
is presently asking Congress for
250 BILLION DOLLARS
to rebuild New Orleans ... Interesting number ...
what does it mean?
A
Well... if you are one of the 484,674 residents of New Orleans
(every man, woman, and child)
you each get $516,528.
B
Or... if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C.
Or... if you are a family of four..
your family gets $2,066,012.
Imagine, now $700 billion bailing out banks in the US. That's enough to fund complete medical care for every man, woman and child currently alive in the US for 11 years!!
50 billion to bail out the auto industry???
Washington , D.C.
&
Ottawa
< HELLO!!! >
Are all your calculators broken??
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog & Cat License Taxes
Federal Income Tax , Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS & Rev. Can. Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS & Rev. Can. Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State & Prov. Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax upon Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Income Tax
Everything Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY???
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago ...
and our nations were the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt ...
We had the largest middle class in the world..
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
Can you spell 'politicians!'
And I still have to
press '1'
for English.
I hope this goes around the
US & CANADA
at least 1 billion times
What happened???
Monday, December 5, 2011
On per Capita CO2
5x per capita? Sure ok lets work with that number. We are definitely more wealthy per capita as well. We consume what they pollute to make. So perhaps it could be argued that number is higher.
However, part of the problem in the significance of this statement is the fact that Canada's per capita is based on a population density 100 times smaller, and it is a country that is much more northerly than China to boot. This is what bugs me. A tiny country like Denmark can in no way be compared to a country like Canada, and neither can China. We aren't comparing apples to apples. 33 million people strung out over 5,000 km is unheard of anywhere else in the world. The energy to move energy let alone food and clothing, absolutely should be expected to be far higher than a country where people stand almost shoulder to shoulder. Hong Kong's density is more than 6,000 people per sq km for pity sake. One city in China has the population of all of Canada.
Consider how the energy per capita increases dramatically from the 49th parallel:
It is reflected in cost of food: 4.00 per gallon of milk in Inuvik. Natural gas, Canada's mainstay for heat peters out delivery less than 1/2 way up its main land mass. From there, its oil heat.
There is no way to compare Canada's energy consumption with any other country in the world. To do so is a fool's errand.
However, part of the problem in the significance of this statement is the fact that Canada's per capita is based on a population density 100 times smaller, and it is a country that is much more northerly than China to boot. This is what bugs me. A tiny country like Denmark can in no way be compared to a country like Canada, and neither can China. We aren't comparing apples to apples. 33 million people strung out over 5,000 km is unheard of anywhere else in the world. The energy to move energy let alone food and clothing, absolutely should be expected to be far higher than a country where people stand almost shoulder to shoulder. Hong Kong's density is more than 6,000 people per sq km for pity sake. One city in China has the population of all of Canada.
Consider how the energy per capita increases dramatically from the 49th parallel:
It is reflected in cost of food: 4.00 per gallon of milk in Inuvik. Natural gas, Canada's mainstay for heat peters out delivery less than 1/2 way up its main land mass. From there, its oil heat.
There is no way to compare Canada's energy consumption with any other country in the world. To do so is a fool's errand.
PACIFIC Islands disappearing?
Fortunately, there is a peer reviewed study that shows the Pacific Islands have endured a mere 3mm rise in the past 100 years. None of the islands have shrunk, most have increased their land size: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818110001013
But of course, you will never hear that from Green Peace or Durban.
But of course, you will never hear that from Green Peace or Durban.
Canada's voting. Majority at 39%?
Keegan Dane:
lots of the usual harper-bashing.
lifelong liberal here (and that's 'liberal' as in personal socialist persuasion, not 'liberal' as in Liberal Party of Canada: whither the party of Pearson and Trudeau?), and i'm the last to defend Mr. Harper, his philosophy, or his style. but let's be fair.
we have the system we have and he's our democratically elected majority leader. from there we can participate in changing the fact by voting - and voting as a MINIMUM standard - or do what 1/3 of us, 8million of us, did last election and stay home (except maybe complain post-fact in cbc forae).
get out and organise! and change THIS fact:
2011 voter turnout: 61% (from 24million eligible voters)
conservative share of that turnout: 39%
and that means that less than 6million from a total population of 31+million ceded the levers of power, the federal pursestrings, and the dais in Durban to the conservative party of canada and the vision of Steven Harper and a small group (perhaps a couple of dozen) of individuals.
that's my fault, and yours, not Harper's.
What needs to be taught to children and what should give cause to listen, adults, is that when we decide not to vote, we are saying we are in support of the will of the majority. Those that vote, an abstainer backs.
lots of the usual harper-bashing.
lifelong liberal here (and that's 'liberal' as in personal socialist persuasion, not 'liberal' as in Liberal Party of Canada: whither the party of Pearson and Trudeau?), and i'm the last to defend Mr. Harper, his philosophy, or his style. but let's be fair.
we have the system we have and he's our democratically elected majority leader. from there we can participate in changing the fact by voting - and voting as a MINIMUM standard - or do what 1/3 of us, 8million of us, did last election and stay home (except maybe complain post-fact in cbc forae).
get out and organise! and change THIS fact:
2011 voter turnout: 61% (from 24million eligible voters)
conservative share of that turnout: 39%
and that means that less than 6million from a total population of 31+million ceded the levers of power, the federal pursestrings, and the dais in Durban to the conservative party of canada and the vision of Steven Harper and a small group (perhaps a couple of dozen) of individuals.
that's my fault, and yours, not Harper's.
What needs to be taught to children and what should give cause to listen, adults, is that when we decide not to vote, we are saying we are in support of the will of the majority. Those that vote, an abstainer backs.
Canada beat up at Durban
OK everyone…
… here is the list, start marking off everything you currently use and throw them away.
(A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
See you in the caves…
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.
… here is the list, start marking off everything you currently use and throw them away.
(A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
See you in the caves…
One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like:
Solvents
Diesel fuel
Motor Oil
Bearing Grease
Ink
Floor Wax
Ballpoint Pens
Football Cleats
Upholstery
Sweaters
Boats
Insecticides
Bicycle Tires
Sports Car Bodies
Nail Polish
Fishing lures
Dresses
Tires
Golf Bags
Perfumes
Cassettes
Dishwasher parts
Tool Boxes
Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet
Caulking
Petroleum Jelly
Transparent Tape
CD Player
Faucet Washers
Antiseptics
Clothesline
Curtains
Food Preservatives
Basketballs
Soap
Vitamin Capsules
Antihistamines
Purses
Shoes
Dashboards
Cortisone
Deodorant
Footballs
Putty
Dyes
Panty Hose
Refrigerant
Percolators
Life Jackets
Rubbing Alcohol
Linings
Skis
TV Cabinets
Shag Rugs
Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks
Car Battery Cases
Epoxy
Paint
Mops
Slacks
Insect Repellent
Oil Filters
Umbrellas
Yarn
Fertilizers
Hair Coloring
Roofing
Toilet Seats
Fishing Rods
Lipstick
Denture Adhesive
Linoleum
Ice Cube Trays
Synthetic Rubber
Speakers
Plastic Wood
Electric Blankets
Glycerin
Tennis Rackets
Rubber Cement
Fishing Boots
Dice
Nylon Rope
Candles
Trash Bags
House Paint
Water Pipes
Hand Lotion
Roller Skates
Surf Boards
Shampoo
Wheels
Paint Rollers
Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings
Luggage
Aspirin
Safety Glasses
Antifreeze
Football Helmets
Awnings
Eyeglasses
Clothes
Toothbrushes
Ice Chests
Footballs
Combs
CD's & DVD's
Paint Brushes
Detergents
Vaporizers
Balloons
Sun Glasses
Tents
Heart Valves
Crayons
Parachutes
Telephones
Enamel
Pillows
Dishes
Cameras
Anesthetics
Artificial Turf
Artificial limbs
Bandages
Dentures
Model Cars
Folding Doors
Hair Curlers
Cold cream
Movie film
Soft Contact lenses
Drinking Cups
Fan Belts
Car Enamel
Shaving Cream
Ammonia
Refrigerators
Golf Balls
Toothpaste
Gasoline
Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each! But, as shown here petroleum is not just used for fuel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)