There are numerous problems. I am working on a youtube to post so you guys can see for yourself.
First of all the program crashes a minimum of 4 times a day due to runtime errors: ie: R6016 not enough space for a thread", and many that crash without leaving me information beyond indicating they were C++ errors.
Default settings need to be reset every time you restart the program. Very poor studies section. Bolingers were poor, check out Trade Navigator. No RSI, Occilators are minimal, MacD, and most important studies are just not there.
The program needs short cut keys. An alt-c to close a window is crucial. Volume defaults are nice, but we should be able to set the defaults we want, ie fast-moving averages, bolinger bands, MacD and they should tuck away nicely like your volume pane does.
Security should have defaults. On my home computer I want to be able to elect an auto sign-on. Why not have the option. Default at public computer settings, but then let us change them as we like. Reset to factory defaults should be universal and on the bar.
Link colour choices should survive restarts.
Account summary/order/positions etc. screens should show positive (greens) and negative (reds) by default.
Need a vertical scroll and/or a grab chart feature for charting. How do you extrapolate a channel, set targets or exit strategies outside of the rigid parameters of the immediate chart?
Symbols needed in charting.
Escape should undo, or revert a chart backwards one step.
Pricelines, either double click to set them or press and hold to set, now I have to triple click or click and drag to get them to appear.
Why not have a hot-key default for basic charting needs (especially support and resistance lines {pricelines})?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Peas about Pipelines.
Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Place their People in Peril. Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that *iss in Pathetic Places Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability.
Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability. Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that Pander to Pathetic Philosophy: Put all that Petroleum on Rail or Truck instead. Then we can Pretend to be Positive People Profound in our Putrid Polemic.
Political, Posing, Posturing People Proposing Pseudo-science Platitudes, Pretending Presuppositions are Preferred to Preposterous imProbability. Promoting Penile, Putative Positions, they Prattle Preposterously against Pragmatic Petroleum Pipelines, Preferring instead Presuppositions that Pander to Pathetic Philosophy: Put all that Petroleum on Rail or Truck instead. Then we can Pretend to be Positive People Profound in our Putrid Polemic.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Northern Gateway discussion.
Inevitability. If you drive, it is inevitable you will crash. If you fly, it is inevitable you will crash. If you walk across the street enough, inevitably you will eventually be hit. That is the deception in using that word. If you know statistics, the risks can be ranked: Walking across the road--Most risk. Driving less risk. Flying--negligible risk. So by using such terms, to the extent the gullible buy into it, so then real discussion of risk is near impossible. Right now, the highway from Prince Rupert to Alberta spills far more oil than a modern pipeline. There is no probability in that calculation apart from 100%. Finally, a rail line follows the Fraser river bed, sometimes no more than a stone's throw away. The people hysterical on the pipeline issue have no clue how much disastrously worse the risk of a derailment could deal to the ecosystem. I find this so tedious, people want to be seen right more than they want the truth.
Galileo from a different view
It seems normal to lay willful ignorance at the feet of the Catholic church. I begin by saying I am not Catholic, so any defense is not because of any leanings to.
Here are facts to consider, in case some are innocently ignorant: After the destruction of the Roman Empire, the only entity with enough organization to retain knowledge, was the church. In the early middle ages, monasteries contained and collected what was ever known about philosophy and science. The monastic orders can at least be credited for writing down what was meticulously. Universities rose from these foundations. They were sponsored by the church. Within the framework of the middle ages, DaVinci and Copernicus and… Galileo. There was nevertheless a growing segmentation. Philosophy, and Theology became increasingly distinct. Within Philosophy there were further groups forming, that gave birth to most of the major branches of science. What apparenltly “modern” scholarship has profoundly failed to do, is recognise that this happened and the implications that it did. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were a form of natural sciences focused on the heavens. This scientific interest extended back millenia, –For the purpose of astrology. In the early middle ages, astrologer/astronomers were consulted before launching a war… Massive volumes of the study of the movements of stars were written, and massive costs were paid to scholars to preserve this “knowledge”.
This group was directly threatened by the simplicity of a helio-centric universe. Debates raged through Universities in Europe. The simplicity the accuracy and the beauty of the helio-centric of Galileo withstood a broad assault by the most prestige astrologers and philosophers of the day. Universities arose to repudiate Galileo. The problem was, they consistently lost debates. Realizing their very survival that depended on the old star system's income was threatened, they appealed to the pope. Who, you have to admit was not trained in science. The church was compelled to make judgement not because the entity itself was threatened, at least at first, but because of the political agenda of “the sciences”. Frankly, the theologians were duped into backing the wrong horse. There was more prestige and money to be gained by siding with the wealthy astrologers after all…
So now there are two choices to make.
One sort of ignorance is glad for new information, the others…
Here are facts to consider, in case some are innocently ignorant: After the destruction of the Roman Empire, the only entity with enough organization to retain knowledge, was the church. In the early middle ages, monasteries contained and collected what was ever known about philosophy and science. The monastic orders can at least be credited for writing down what was meticulously. Universities rose from these foundations. They were sponsored by the church. Within the framework of the middle ages, DaVinci and Copernicus and… Galileo. There was nevertheless a growing segmentation. Philosophy, and Theology became increasingly distinct. Within Philosophy there were further groups forming, that gave birth to most of the major branches of science. What apparenltly “modern” scholarship has profoundly failed to do, is recognise that this happened and the implications that it did. Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were a form of natural sciences focused on the heavens. This scientific interest extended back millenia, –For the purpose of astrology. In the early middle ages, astrologer/astronomers were consulted before launching a war… Massive volumes of the study of the movements of stars were written, and massive costs were paid to scholars to preserve this “knowledge”.
This group was directly threatened by the simplicity of a helio-centric universe. Debates raged through Universities in Europe. The simplicity the accuracy and the beauty of the helio-centric of Galileo withstood a broad assault by the most prestige astrologers and philosophers of the day. Universities arose to repudiate Galileo. The problem was, they consistently lost debates. Realizing their very survival that depended on the old star system's income was threatened, they appealed to the pope. Who, you have to admit was not trained in science. The church was compelled to make judgement not because the entity itself was threatened, at least at first, but because of the political agenda of “the sciences”. Frankly, the theologians were duped into backing the wrong horse. There was more prestige and money to be gained by siding with the wealthy astrologers after all…
So now there are two choices to make.
One sort of ignorance is glad for new information, the others…
Neocon?
Neocon? Really are we still throwing that around? That is a word that means nothing,but sounds like the writer thinks he is important by the use of his "sophisticated" language. Sophisticated? Really? Neocon is just a 90's swear word. Means nothing today.
Privacy and Child Pornography.
Dear Mr. Toews. I can appreciate you are a man of principles. In many respects I am probably more socially conservative than you are; I say that as a matter of fact and not to boast. I see a parallel between this legislation and the previous long gun legislation: It provided a cover for illegal search and seizure. If there were long guns in the house, the house could be "inspected" at any time without notice. I believe you share with me the profound concerns about state intrusion, not only in what may happen as intended in the legislation: Nailing Child Pornographers asap, but what other things could be found out on fishing expeditions. Already much of what should have been private has been made public. The conservatives once opposed SIN cards, the Liberals promised the Sin Card would only related to an orderly way for government to organize social security and taxes. The conservatives raised alarm--that was smothered under the decades long slide toward liberalism. Mr. Toews, my concern is that we may be making the same mistake. Please allow the bill to be amended so it cannot be abused by some later government to do what it was not intended to: Stop Child Pornography.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Poor poor climate change scientists...
It seems to me that instead of having difficulty, anyone who is pro climate change is riding the tidal wave.
It is utter hypocrisy to appeal to science when the IPCC has lost its foundational data. So you tell each other you do science, but have destroyed it and will make a mockery of it in the end.
Here is an example of how it works. India has many climate scientists, this is what they report, and how they were found out absolutely lying about the scientific "facts".
A diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading, Nature News, 27 September 2011
It is utter hypocrisy to appeal to science when the IPCC has lost its foundational data. So you tell each other you do science, but have destroyed it and will make a mockery of it in the end.
Here is an example of how it works. India has many climate scientists, this is what they report, and how they were found out absolutely lying about the scientific "facts".
A diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment. Indian officials have apparently known about the problem for at least two years. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading, Nature News, 27 September 2011
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
In
order for sin to be atoned for, God who has no sin needed to turn away
from the sacrifice, so that the total abandonment (that is the real hell)
by God would be afflicted on Jesus: "He who knew no sin, was made sin for
us." The idea of God's righteous
judgement has been marginalized in western society. But that doesn't
change its existence. God in heaven and God on the cross, is an
incredible paradox. It reminds me of "if god is omnipotent can he make a
rock he cannot lift?" Atheists feel smug and some Christians don't know
how to respond. But the right answer is yes--yet the instant he did
so, he could move it. This is the paradox of God and Salvation. The
only one who could bear the wrath of God against sin, was God. And in
bearing it, he prayed: "forgive them for they know not what they do."
Sunday, February 12, 2012
On Pandas and Pipelines
Railways, built over the last centuries and a half were carefully built along side rivers in BC. In many cases major tributaries flow a few metres from the rail bed.
A simple risk calculation will show, the danger of a derailment's impact on the ecosystems are far far higher than a pipeline (which statistically loses 2.2 litres per thousand miles; 22bbl of oil per billion bbl). If anyone would quiet down, do the math, and think rationally, the numbers show this has insignificant risk compared to current modes of transportation that have been moving for the past 100 years.
If Canada were to ship its oil by rail to Kitimat, (and we could be already shipping hydrocarbons by rail to the North West Coast,) the risks would be astronomical by comparison. Worse, if a pipeline were compared with the far more toxic chemicals that are presently shipped to and from Kitimat and Prince Rupert. The devastation to fish stocks in event of derailment would make a pipeline spill so insignificant, that if you are talking real risk, a pipeline spill-danger approaches zero at infinity. Saying that an oil spill is inevitable is like saying it is inevitable you will win the lottery. Someone does every time after all...
A simple risk calculation will show, the danger of a derailment's impact on the ecosystems are far far higher than a pipeline (which statistically loses 2.2 litres per thousand miles; 22bbl of oil per billion bbl). If anyone would quiet down, do the math, and think rationally, the numbers show this has insignificant risk compared to current modes of transportation that have been moving for the past 100 years.
If Canada were to ship its oil by rail to Kitimat, (and we could be already shipping hydrocarbons by rail to the North West Coast,) the risks would be astronomical by comparison. Worse, if a pipeline were compared with the far more toxic chemicals that are presently shipped to and from Kitimat and Prince Rupert. The devastation to fish stocks in event of derailment would make a pipeline spill so insignificant, that if you are talking real risk, a pipeline spill-danger approaches zero at infinity. Saying that an oil spill is inevitable is like saying it is inevitable you will win the lottery. Someone does every time after all...
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Inviting death and scathing rebuke...
Risking death, I have a different view. Philosophically it begins with the idea that with a push of a button man can destroy the world. We are the only creature with that power of dominance. We are also the only creature that comprehends global environmental issues; we are self aware, therefore we have some understandings of our impacts on nature. We also carry a guilt complex--with varying degrees validity. We are aware that we have conquested the world, and have taken on such horrid power that we in fact can destroy it. Therefore, we cannot escape our stewardship of the world. Stewardship demands active management: Because to be purely passive, let be and let be, will mean we will mindlessly go on to reduce this gaia into a cinder. That is what the human animal will do. However, despite protestations to the opposite, man is more than an animal; our self-awareness is unique if only because of its comprehensiveness--even given that perhaps some animals share self-awareness with us.
We are aware that we are self aware. Why does this matter? Responsibility. Either we have upset the balance of nature, or we are part of it. If we fail to appreciate the concept of stewardship, then as a mindless beast we shall destroy all life around us. An old indian chief sat by my fire and told of times when as young braves they would hunt all winter and not cross a moose track. A wolf explosion that happened in their grandfather's time had created a vast area of extinction. It took a hundred years for peripheral animal life to fill in the void. The moose was actually extinct from central BC until the white man opened it up. Tribes there have no indigenous word for them. So one needs consider extinctions. The fact is, we would rather not have them. The agonizing agony is, that instead of being active stewards, we think we are being environmentally friendly by abdicating our necessary place in the world.
We are aware that we are self aware. Why does this matter? Responsibility. Either we have upset the balance of nature, or we are part of it. If we fail to appreciate the concept of stewardship, then as a mindless beast we shall destroy all life around us. An old indian chief sat by my fire and told of times when as young braves they would hunt all winter and not cross a moose track. A wolf explosion that happened in their grandfather's time had created a vast area of extinction. It took a hundred years for peripheral animal life to fill in the void. The moose was actually extinct from central BC until the white man opened it up. Tribes there have no indigenous word for them. So one needs consider extinctions. The fact is, we would rather not have them. The agonizing agony is, that instead of being active stewards, we think we are being environmentally friendly by abdicating our necessary place in the world.
Harper's human rights criticisms.
It probably isn't true that these are anti-Harper in every other interest as well as the issue of human rights. No, I am sure prior to this trip, Harper was their hero. Of course it was awfully silent from that corner in 2006, when human rights trumped Canada's financial chances in China. For that there was plenty of criticism--but surely not from the lips of these self-same critics. No, I am sure had he behaved similarly, there would be the silence from this camp,-who might have one or two transform into critics who dash him because he sacrificed the economy once again.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
On China's Canadian Investments.
Perhaps I am a naive optimist. I think it is the same Harper that negotiates with China now. It find it puzzling that only a few years ago, Harper was crucified for bringing up human rights to the detriment of our trade with the largest country in the world. I feel sorry for him; he can never win.
However, I can see a long term strategy. Perhaps when there are enough dollars of investment here, we can give those assets a good squeeze under our commitment to human rights--After all, human rights are a significant part of Canada's national interests. No? All governments rise and fall. One day there will be a government that connects the dots. Whether it is this one remains to be seen.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Canada+doesn+know+protect+interests/6102877/story.html#ixzz1lWyJJRg3
However, I can see a long term strategy. Perhaps when there are enough dollars of investment here, we can give those assets a good squeeze under our commitment to human rights--After all, human rights are a significant part of Canada's national interests. No? All governments rise and fall. One day there will be a government that connects the dots. Whether it is this one remains to be seen.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Canada+doesn+know+protect+interests/6102877/story.html#ixzz1lWyJJRg3
Sunday, January 29, 2012
More actual evidence re: Global warming. sans hysteria.
, January 29, 2012 at 9:03 am :
Burt,
like yourself, I’m primarily am engineer, and started working in the aerospace industry in the late 50′s, officially retiring in the early 2000′s. As such, the work involved both the theory & hands on application such as field problems, and correlation of theory & reality.
About 4 years ago I got interested, in the AGW discussion. In the 40′s, I started recording hi/lo temperatures for a neighbor, who was interested in the weather, for 50 cents a week. Back then, that was big money, and it helped finance my back yard telescope.Seems I thought I could capture the “red shift” of receding galaxies, huge failure, but it was interesting, and picked up some optics along the was, and was a preparation for later work in the IR region for space based sensors.
A related area was, in adaptive & statistical process control, & signal processing, using Wiener & Kalman methods. It was work in this area, that caused me to wonder why the temperature “smoothed” graphs were cut off prior to the of the available data. In process control, delay in getting up to date, or “anticipation” can make the system unstable, and a great deal of effort is put into predicting where the process will be.
So I started looking at the available temperature sets UAH, RSS, GISS, etc., and started spectral analysis & Fourier convolution filtering, since celestial mechanics noted that there are secular variations present. In posting over at a site (RC), the response was interesting, especially personal comments. Having been in more heated engineering/science “discussions”, then I care to think about, I knew that personal comments were a sure way to an immediate career change, and it pointed to a discussion based more on emotion & personal views then science.
To make a long story short, here is a sample graph using Fourier convolution filtering, (a 20 & 50 yr lo pass), on a composite anomaly of stations which started recording prior to 1800 (CEL, Debilt, Uppsalla, etc.), to evaluate periodic components. Using this method dose get me to the endpoints, and gives insight as to periodic “energy” in the raw data.
http://www.4shared.com/photo/I04JY2jI/Ave14_2010_FF_20yr.html
http://www.4shared.com/photo/4FKXcwnw/Ave14_2010_FF_50yr.html
From the graphs, I think I’ll keep my Union suit handy.
Good article!
!
Here’s an estimate of the warming capability from no less than the late Stephen Schneider:
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
like yourself, I’m primarily am engineer, and started working in the aerospace industry in the late 50′s, officially retiring in the early 2000′s. As such, the work involved both the theory & hands on application such as field problems, and correlation of theory & reality.
About 4 years ago I got interested, in the AGW discussion. In the 40′s, I started recording hi/lo temperatures for a neighbor, who was interested in the weather, for 50 cents a week. Back then, that was big money, and it helped finance my back yard telescope.Seems I thought I could capture the “red shift” of receding galaxies, huge failure, but it was interesting, and picked up some optics along the was, and was a preparation for later work in the IR region for space based sensors.
A related area was, in adaptive & statistical process control, & signal processing, using Wiener & Kalman methods. It was work in this area, that caused me to wonder why the temperature “smoothed” graphs were cut off prior to the of the available data. In process control, delay in getting up to date, or “anticipation” can make the system unstable, and a great deal of effort is put into predicting where the process will be.
So I started looking at the available temperature sets UAH, RSS, GISS, etc., and started spectral analysis & Fourier convolution filtering, since celestial mechanics noted that there are secular variations present. In posting over at a site (RC), the response was interesting, especially personal comments. Having been in more heated engineering/science “discussions”, then I care to think about, I knew that personal comments were a sure way to an immediate career change, and it pointed to a discussion based more on emotion & personal views then science.
To make a long story short, here is a sample graph using Fourier convolution filtering, (a 20 & 50 yr lo pass), on a composite anomaly of stations which started recording prior to 1800 (CEL, Debilt, Uppsalla, etc.), to evaluate periodic components. Using this method dose get me to the endpoints, and gives insight as to periodic “energy” in the raw data.
http://www.4shared.com/photo/I04JY2jI/Ave14_2010_FF_20yr.html
http://www.4shared.com/photo/4FKXcwnw/Ave14_2010_FF_50yr.html
From the graphs, I think I’ll keep my Union suit handy.
Good article!
!
Here’s an estimate of the warming capability from no less than the late Stephen Schneider:
“It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.”
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
- The real problem is still the observed data since 1998 in ocean heat, stratosphere temperature – they show a no to a small fraction of what the IPCC or main AGW models were predicting.
This is used to present an argument that that positive temperature feedback to ncreased CO2 not only May not exist, measured data indicates the feedback is likely negative.
Without the positive feedback, a lot of the scenarios on warming would require a revisit of the models.
Past decade or so measured data continues to deviate from the IPCC and agw proponent’s computer models. This is the real reasons why the consensus is fraying. Scientific theories no matter how elegant cannot deny measured observations – that’s how the null-hypothesis gets disproved.
- Lets see I can take the opinion of some obscure engineer or a world renown engineer. I can take the opinion of some second year physics major or the word of the most important physicist (Freeman Dyson) of our modern era. Wow, hard choice don’t you think?
I am also an engineer by trade and like Rutan, had concerns for how the science was being conducted. I researched and evaluated and came to the same conclusion as Rutan: The data has been manipulated ( which was proven in the Climategate emails), the parameters of the IPCC climate models are horribly incomplete and the raw observed temperatures dont relate to the “homogenized” data from the temperature reporting bureaus. BTW if you want to reconsider your opinion, now is the time. Take one look at this article from the MET Office in the UK (THE most important AGW institute) and you will have to hold your head low and immediately apologize to Mr. Rutan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
-
Saturday, January 28, 2012
1st Nations and Dirty Oil.
A reflection on the wealth of natural resources to whom ever cares to work, and our propensity to shunt the dirty-ness of our gasoline to other places in the world.
Foolishness, and very ill informed. Many first nations people can be proud because of their work in Canadian mines, forestry, oil and gas. Many work in the oil sands and do very well for themselves, and Bravo for that!
Dirty oil is such a yesterday word. Take a look at Nancy Pelosi's Bakersfield oil wells, and come back and call us dirty. Or why not take a cruise down the coast of Nigeria. How many Gulf-size oilspills have been covered up there?
No, we seem to be very fine with turning on the key and driving away keeping our dirt in other people's back yard. All Canadians including 1st Nations people benefit from that.
__________________________________________
Foolishness, and very ill informed. Many first nations people can be proud because of their work in BC mines, forestry, oil and gas. Many work in the oil sands and do very well for themselves, and Bravo for that! Dirty oil is such a yesterday word. Take a look at Nancy Pelosi's
Bakersfield oil wells, and come back and call us dirty. Or why not take a cruise down the coast of Nigeria. How many Gulf-type oil spills have been covered up there? No, we seem to be very fine with turning on the key and driving away keeping our dirt in other people's back yard.
Wall Street Journal and Anthropological Global Warming?
This week a rather unknown and obscure newspaper published this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Of course it has caused a little stir, the question is when will this "settled science" wake up and find its a has been?
A Face Book dialogue: Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming online.wsj.com
Of course it has caused a little stir, the question is when will this "settled science" wake up and find its a has been?
A Face Book dialogue: Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming online.wsj.com
Sixteen
scientists write in The Wall Street Journal that there's no compelling
scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's
economy.
A challenge to Novelity in thought.:
Dear Diana:
Ah yea IQ the intelligence "quotient"(I would guess about 150ish. Close?) Hmm, I don't think many have made it this far in an argument for a while. It’s relevance pretty much breaks down in people's 20s. You are bright, and can go far if you can get past reading but one book on Religion and Philosophy.
You do know that this thought has grown out of the 1890s right?
Perhaps you think you can prove that no one has made a significant contribution to this form of Existentialism since the 1890s. Camus and Sartre are the poster children of the last century, but they were hardly powerhouses of thought...pathetic really. What I have been trying to explain to you is that your thought was printed in 1973. It has been prominent to this day, because they are extension and application of thought that was birthed in 1849: Perhaps earlier. **However, it is clearly obvious these thoughts are hardly original. Rudolf Bultmann’s work to de-mythologize the Bible dominated mainline theology thru to the 1930s. Bultmann’s work was error prone, and rather shoddy, but aside from that, the impetus behind his idea really arose under the shadow of Voltaire--with Immanuel Kant and David Hume,( a century earlier)—both philosophies were understood by so few.
Kierkegaard knew Hegel; he actually attended some of his lectures in fact. Nietzsche secularized Existential thought, which was straight from Kierkegaard. (Without his admitting he had stolen his ideas from an obscure Danish philosopher). Some serious philosophers say there hasn’t been a new thought since Heidegger. Having not read your textbook, I really don’t know what it says—obviously. But the “fear thing” has been around since at least David Hume. “People are religious out of fear” just doesn’t cut it as a novel concept. I just hope your author sourced and credited the appropriate contributors. I can’t make a comment about that because I haven’t looked at the book. Well look, I have almost written another soliloquy or meandering megillah… We ought to meet. Perhaps when OJ or Dustin come over, or I actually get away to Vic. The advantage if you came here, is that I could take you into my library and give you some new reading.
· **1974, grade 9 English class on mythologies. Fear of death, concurrent and similar myths and story lines. But only myth, the sort of which is patently not the truth, nor intended to be believed as real historical truth.
Friday, January 27, 2012
An interesting dialogue with an old friend...
- If I get started leveling blame all parties get tarred and feathered... 16 trillion deficit? Isn't that more than all the other presidents added together? It will take down the world eventually...
6 minutes agoCarl Ek- Owen. That's not the issue. Debt ceiling is not the same as citizens debt and budget. Countries hav means to raise and lower taxes, and issue bonds. Case in point: all the conservatives scaremongering about interest rates and inflation skyrocking since 2008? Nada. These things are managed. And when countries WANT and CAN reduce the fiscal differences it can be done. Europe crash is slightly different because there are so many fragile dominoes pushing each other. But USA? Remember even Canada recovered from Trudeaus liberal spending. And I must say that If Harper was here, he'd be a freaking communist in relation to these GOPers.
about a minute agoOwen Abrey- We have a conservative government that supports a low interest rate. But you are right to a point. The problem I have is when I hear arguments of invincibility. 10 years ago, Greece, Italy, and Spain were considered able to handle their debt without breaking a sweat. I am not sure if this isn't pure genius in a way. The non-stop printing presses of the fed are ultimately feeding the banks who are buying sovereign debt with it. So long as all that capital is locked away in the bowls of the banks, we will stave off disaster perhaps--in the near term. If they had allowed those trillions to actually be distributed through out the economy, the US would definitely be back in the doldrums of stagflation.
By the way, I appreciate your commentary. Canadian conservatism could be an interesting contrast for historians if nothing else..
Monday, January 16, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
The Northern Gate Way Debate:
Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Pipeline+proposal+fraught+with+risks/5998741/story.html#ixzz1jYJwhvrr
Aleithia
10:08 AM on 1/15/2012
I can appreciate this is an opinion piece.
Opinions are fine, but when we proffer our opinions we should be careful about exaggeration. A few points to calm the hysteria down a bit: Enbridge owns hundreds of miles of pipe line it didn't build. The lines came to Enbridge as a "bonus" when Enbridge was acquiring other assets. Large sections are 40-50 years old. Some of the pipe was corroded, and was not accurately assessed as such in time to fix it.
Since corrosion is a valid worry, why not demand that Canada's pipeline be ultra modern with a minimum of 8% Molybdenum in it's steel. Off shore oil platforms are made of it, they don't rust. Moly steel can last for 100 years in salt water without a spec of rust. This is one solution that could tackle one fear, demonstrating Enbridge and the Governments are listening.
Opinions are fine, but when we proffer our opinions we should be careful about exaggeration. A few points to calm the hysteria down a bit: Enbridge owns hundreds of miles of pipe line it didn't build. The lines came to Enbridge as a "bonus" when Enbridge was acquiring other assets. Large sections are 40-50 years old. Some of the pipe was corroded, and was not accurately assessed as such in time to fix it.
Since corrosion is a valid worry, why not demand that Canada's pipeline be ultra modern with a minimum of 8% Molybdenum in it's steel. Off shore oil platforms are made of it, they don't rust. Moly steel can last for 100 years in salt water without a spec of rust. This is one solution that could tackle one fear, demonstrating Enbridge and the Governments are listening.
Aleithia
10:18 AM on 1/15/2012
How comparable are the pipeline risks to risk that happens every day when we truck gasoline, and diesel and oil products to Kitimat or Prince Rupert? Will there be a set-back minimum that keeps the pipeline at least a certain distance away from major rivers? If so, it should be apparent, we already tolerate far greater risk from the hydrocarbons we truck than those posed by a pipeline. The EPA has determined hydrocarbon leaks, (including ruptures) are 22 barrels of oil per billion. Or .002 litres per km. How does that risk compare with the hydrocarbons we know spill from our automobiles every year?
@Bruno 1997: More facts to slake the
hysteria: Since the Exon Valdez, over 1600 tankers have shipped oil
down the west coast of Canada.
Much has been made of risk. In fact, that is a smoke-screen. Risk is a number: it is at least theoretically quantifiable. So the new term/concept is inevitability. Inevitability is the security blanket of the opposers of the pipeline, because it is always guaranteed to equal at least 100%, by stretching risk to infinity. Of course, since this is an emotional issue, that fact is conveniently hidden. Consider how this logic would apply to any disaster: For example, there is natural gas being piped to Prince Rupert, where it is being compressed into CNG product for shipment over seas. There is a risk this plant will blow up. It is a small number, but if you extend time to infinity, the risk is 100%.
Much has been made of risk. In fact, that is a smoke-screen. Risk is a number: it is at least theoretically quantifiable. So the new term/concept is inevitability. Inevitability is the security blanket of the opposers of the pipeline, because it is always guaranteed to equal at least 100%, by stretching risk to infinity. Of course, since this is an emotional issue, that fact is conveniently hidden. Consider how this logic would apply to any disaster: For example, there is natural gas being piped to Prince Rupert, where it is being compressed into CNG product for shipment over seas. There is a risk this plant will blow up. It is a small number, but if you extend time to infinity, the risk is 100%.
@Bruno continued: Similarly, where the highway parallels the Fraser
river, there is a risk a tanker truck will over turn dumping
hydrocarbons disastrously. That risk becomes 100% if you spread the
time to infinity. This is why this is flawed reasoning. If there is
anything that has risk, it always must be inevitable if you spread it
over enough time. Regrettably, many people in BC have never been taught
to think critically, so when some emotional idea like an inevitable oil
spill is proposed. Suddenly moved by emotion the public jumps on
board, not realizing they have been duped.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Retrrospect and the Grace of God.
Go backwards half your age. If you knew then what you know now, what would you have done different? On comment under this post, please put half of the age you are now, and what you would have done different at that time... Curious to see your posts! thanks my lovies xoxox
_______________________________________
Owen Abrey I am not sure about the value of this. I think the intent is to determine to change future decisions for the good based on the mistakes we have made in our past. But the experiences of life bring a wisdom that we wouldn't have today via any other way. I don't mean to discount those decisions we have made to change a direction toward God and away from destructive life styles, I just think about how God's work in our lives is a work of grace: he works more powerfully with our weaknesses, and failures than He could have had we not stumbled, bruised our knees and our pride so that we were ready to allow Him to change us.
3 hours ago ·
Owen Abrey For me the challenge is being mired in regret. All I get is stuck there. This is the challenge with retrospect. There needs to be a place where we lodge our failures in the sea of God's forgetfulness in a way we trust Him for our future.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
The Northern Gate way and Public Perceptions.
Perceptions. This is a game of perceptions. 2l/1000 km is the established rate of pipeline leaking risk, with ruptures included. There is more oil leaked onto public highways per kilometer per day.
Perceptions. Ever go to Google earth and try to find the oil-sands? You might be surprised how difficult it is. Because we have the perception that the big oil companies are tearing up northern Alberta to mine that "dirty oil". Why is it we have that perception? I had to see for my self.
I suggest you check it.
Perceptions, all about perceptions. We perceive that instead of Canadian oil sands oil, that oil should come somewhere else. We westerners like to pee in other nation's pool. Ever see Nigeria's coast line? We have dirty oil? See its all about perceptions. We cannot perceive that Canada's environmental standards make the oil sands far cleaner than many alternatives. Because we aren't told all the facts, we sometimes perceive things differently than they actually are.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Long+review+process+Gateway+pipeline+begin/5960084/story.html#ixzz1ioFAt2qE
Perceptions. Ever go to Google earth and try to find the oil-sands? You might be surprised how difficult it is. Because we have the perception that the big oil companies are tearing up northern Alberta to mine that "dirty oil". Why is it we have that perception? I had to see for my self.
I suggest you check it.
Perceptions, all about perceptions. We perceive that instead of Canadian oil sands oil, that oil should come somewhere else. We westerners like to pee in other nation's pool. Ever see Nigeria's coast line? We have dirty oil? See its all about perceptions. We cannot perceive that Canada's environmental standards make the oil sands far cleaner than many alternatives. Because we aren't told all the facts, we sometimes perceive things differently than they actually are.
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business/Long+review+process+Gateway+pipeline+begin/5960084/story.html#ixzz1ioFAt2qE
Friday, January 6, 2012
A facebook/youtube on Castle Law.
A discussion around Castle Law in Cranbrook, BC.
Antoinette Louw
I can relate to your link. Been there, twice actually, in SA. Not something I'd say publicly on FB though. Never know how it can come back to haunt me again... Luckily I did not kill him. He ran away claiming that a mad woman was shooting at him. Had charges against me for firing a fire arm in a residential area. Then charges got dropped after the investigation. Six days later, 2 men showed up, broke the window, and I phoned the police letting them know that I'm going out with 2 pistols, since there are 2 of them. Told them to hurry, since I'll try to hold them as long as I can. They arrived 5 very long minutes later and arrested the idiots. Here in Canada you are not allowed to protect yourself like that. And now in SA, no more either!
Owen Abrey
32 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
We will see a castle law in Harper's second majority. It actually still exists under common law and the magna carta, because of its age and precedence it cannot be dismissed.
Antoinette Louw
29 minutes ago
Antoinette Louw
Sorry Owen, English being my second language, I don't understand your message.
I mean I can read it, but are not familiar with the terminology you used.
Owen Abrey
15 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
In the 13th century a revolutionary document was signed by the King of England. It was the first step towards democracy and human rights. It put all men under the rule of law, and guaranteed you could not be thrown in jail until it could be proved by law. It also had a provision for being able to defend one's castle by force. The document has evolved over the years, in the 1800s the castle law was used to give a person a right to protect one's home with a weapon. Society has many laws, but they are not supposed to conflict with common law. The power of common law brought about the Charter of rights and freedoms
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=magna+carta&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.
www.google.ca
Share
Antoinette Louw
7 minutes ago
Antoinette Louw
You would think that it would work like that, but in reality it doesn't. I recently read on CTV.ca about 2 instances where people shot at intruders while defending themselves and got charged and ended up being found guilty. It really scared me when I read it, because it seems the line for protecting yourself, and breaking the law is incredibly fine.
Owen Abrey
5 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
The problem is cases are not presented with appropriate precedence. Then poor judgements are made. The possibility for appeal is a heavy financial burden, so they get away with it.
Owen Abrey
3 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
It still exists in Canada. To be perfectly covered, they need to be in your house. You need to believe life and limb is threatened and you were defending your self/family. And my RCMP friends say make sure you shoot to kill. It shuts down the thief's testimony, so there can be no contradiction to your story.
Out side, you can fire a weapon in the air with impunity.
but you can't point it and shoot it at someone
Watch to see Harpers government pass legislation clarifying castle rights.
Antoinette Louw
I can relate to your link. Been there, twice actually, in SA. Not something I'd say publicly on FB though. Never know how it can come back to haunt me again... Luckily I did not kill him. He ran away claiming that a mad woman was shooting at him. Had charges against me for firing a fire arm in a residential area. Then charges got dropped after the investigation. Six days later, 2 men showed up, broke the window, and I phoned the police letting them know that I'm going out with 2 pistols, since there are 2 of them. Told them to hurry, since I'll try to hold them as long as I can. They arrived 5 very long minutes later and arrested the idiots. Here in Canada you are not allowed to protect yourself like that. And now in SA, no more either!
Owen Abrey
32 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
We will see a castle law in Harper's second majority. It actually still exists under common law and the magna carta, because of its age and precedence it cannot be dismissed.
Antoinette Louw
29 minutes ago
Antoinette Louw
Sorry Owen, English being my second language, I don't understand your message.
I mean I can read it, but are not familiar with the terminology you used.
Owen Abrey
15 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
In the 13th century a revolutionary document was signed by the King of England. It was the first step towards democracy and human rights. It put all men under the rule of law, and guaranteed you could not be thrown in jail until it could be proved by law. It also had a provision for being able to defend one's castle by force. The document has evolved over the years, in the 1800s the castle law was used to give a person a right to protect one's home with a weapon. Society has many laws, but they are not supposed to conflict with common law. The power of common law brought about the Charter of rights and freedoms
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=magna+carta&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.
www.google.ca
Share
Antoinette Louw
7 minutes ago
Antoinette Louw
You would think that it would work like that, but in reality it doesn't. I recently read on CTV.ca about 2 instances where people shot at intruders while defending themselves and got charged and ended up being found guilty. It really scared me when I read it, because it seems the line for protecting yourself, and breaking the law is incredibly fine.
Owen Abrey
5 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
The problem is cases are not presented with appropriate precedence. Then poor judgements are made. The possibility for appeal is a heavy financial burden, so they get away with it.
Owen Abrey
3 minutes ago
Owen Abrey
It still exists in Canada. To be perfectly covered, they need to be in your house. You need to believe life and limb is threatened and you were defending your self/family. And my RCMP friends say make sure you shoot to kill. It shuts down the thief's testimony, so there can be no contradiction to your story.
Out side, you can fire a weapon in the air with impunity.
but you can't point it and shoot it at someone
Watch to see Harpers government pass legislation clarifying castle rights.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Tales from an Inuit elder...
Sarah Nangmalik
I know it must have been scary at the same time too, I know I would be:) Yes, some people up here take some amazing photos.
There was one man who traveled from Greenland to Canada on kayak (qayaq) high arctic and there was a group of narwhale taking turns two by two on each side of his kayak and lifted his kayak on both sides and carried him for many, many kilometers. Narwhales were friendly and curious and kept watching him until he landed. Our Inuit elders often say if a person falls in the water where there are whales nearby, a person will be carried to shore for safety by whales, I myself have not seen that yet in my life:) When I was a teenager and during my early twenties we lived in Nanisivik, a mining town 30 miles from a community of Arctic Bay. There was one elder who used to watch me jog very early mornings ( I was a marathon runner for several years back then and I ran alot for long distances) One day, he told me to go to the point near Arctic Bay and sit by the shore between 6:00 - 7:00am and listen to the narwhales sing. Now, he never shared that to anyone but me and that was truly my gift from him and every now and then I still go to the same area when I visit the community during late summer and listen to the narwhales sing, the sound they make is so beautiful:)
Owen Abrey
about a minute ago
Owen Abrey
You are an artist with your words... I think I can hear them too. [:)] You are blessed Sarah, as surely as Abraham's wife. I do pray God's richest for you in 2012.
I know it must have been scary at the same time too, I know I would be:) Yes, some people up here take some amazing photos.
There was one man who traveled from Greenland to Canada on kayak (qayaq) high arctic and there was a group of narwhale taking turns two by two on each side of his kayak and lifted his kayak on both sides and carried him for many, many kilometers. Narwhales were friendly and curious and kept watching him until he landed. Our Inuit elders often say if a person falls in the water where there are whales nearby, a person will be carried to shore for safety by whales, I myself have not seen that yet in my life:) When I was a teenager and during my early twenties we lived in Nanisivik, a mining town 30 miles from a community of Arctic Bay. There was one elder who used to watch me jog very early mornings ( I was a marathon runner for several years back then and I ran alot for long distances) One day, he told me to go to the point near Arctic Bay and sit by the shore between 6:00 - 7:00am and listen to the narwhales sing. Now, he never shared that to anyone but me and that was truly my gift from him and every now and then I still go to the same area when I visit the community during late summer and listen to the narwhales sing, the sound they make is so beautiful:)
Owen Abrey
about a minute ago
Owen Abrey
You are an artist with your words... I think I can hear them too. [:)] You are blessed Sarah, as surely as Abraham's wife. I do pray God's richest for you in 2012.
Monday, January 2, 2012
On Iran's threat
Jonathan from Saskatoon
Funny how the America bashers are already claiming that the US intends to invade Iran for oil. America already has adequate supplies from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, West Africa, South America and Canada. What this is about is stability in the Middle East. For almost 35 years Iran has been rattling it's scimitars at every opportunity, frequently waging war against Iraq, supporting terrorism in Israel and around the world. Its one of two states that would be likely to actually use nuclear weapons if it could get them and would definitely not be shy about threatening to use them to dominate the Arab world. The inevitable conflict with Israel would ignite the powder keg and have the potential to start WWIII and a global terrorism spree that would give us first hand knowledge of how Israelis have been living for the last 40 years.I don't mind calling out the Americans when they cross the line, but they established themselves as teh world's police because the rest of the West has been too busy navel gazing since the Berlin wall came down, and because they have already been dragged into 2 global conflicts they wanted nothing to do with.
Funny how the America bashers are already claiming that the US intends to invade Iran for oil. America already has adequate supplies from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, West Africa, South America and Canada. What this is about is stability in the Middle East. For almost 35 years Iran has been rattling it's scimitars at every opportunity, frequently waging war against Iraq, supporting terrorism in Israel and around the world. Its one of two states that would be likely to actually use nuclear weapons if it could get them and would definitely not be shy about threatening to use them to dominate the Arab world. The inevitable conflict with Israel would ignite the powder keg and have the potential to start WWIII and a global terrorism spree that would give us first hand knowledge of how Israelis have been living for the last 40 years.I don't mind calling out the Americans when they cross the line, but they established themselves as teh world's police because the rest of the West has been too busy navel gazing since the Berlin wall came down, and because they have already been dragged into 2 global conflicts they wanted nothing to do with.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Iran Ticking
I have a feeling of inevitability on the doom of Iran. But not terror. War is hell, and woe to the nation by whence it comes. Resorting to evil to defeat evil is a sad conundrum we know too well, but we also know the consequences of leaving evil to its own ends. I weep for the innocents. The people who have no power to change this direction, but will suffer because of it. To cast our eyes past Iran and realize that Iran, an evil unchecked is behind the lingering devastation in Iraq and Afghanistan, begs an answer to the question, if THIS time we defeat evil,will it at least fall back for a while and let us build a new Marshal Plan for the Middle East? Naw, too idealistic... must be dreaming.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Oilsands Data
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since our company was involved in green energy, I guess I could have looked at only the CAGW sources of information. My job would have been a lot easier but it wouldn’t have felt right to me, as an engineer. I was fortunate in that my boss accepted my conclusions. He also found them convincing. I guess there are a lot of people who don’t have that freedom.
The first difficulty people have with learning the truth about a highly emotional and politically charged subject like this is that they bring their preconceptions to the analysis of the information. There is then a strong tendency to pay close attention to evidence that supports your belief while heavily discounting evidence on the other side. I can’t explain how to overcome this bias; what I try to do is to understand the issue completely from the side that I am naturally opposite to.
So the situation now has become fractured. The CAGW viewpoint is common in general science and the media. CAGW supporters control most of the journals that publish ecology related articles. They defend their ideas with peer review in these journals. At the same time, the geologists, who take a much longer view of the climate (and have less faith in politically motivated modeling), publish anti-CAGW articles.
That’s the political situation in the sciences at the moment. So to see the peer-reviewed anti-CAGW articles, you will have to read papers that are published outside the CAGW controlled literature. Sadly, you will have to explore more than “skepticalscience.com” and “realclimate.org”.
This is not a journey that I can walk for you. You will have to do the analysis yourself. I could point out some articles for you but I doubt you’ll read them. But the tide is definitely turning in that anti-CAGW articles are now being published on neutral ground. Oh, what the heck. Here’s a recent article from the prestigious journal Science, “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum” by Schmittner, Urban, Shakun, Mahowald, Clark, Bartlein, Mix and Rosell-Melé: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract I’m at a university and so I’m not sure if this is behind a paywall so here’s another link for the same article: http://www.princeton.edu/~nurban/pubs/lgm-cs-uvic.pdf
Picking up a diatribe from Roland Doucet: .....
Thousands of the best, most educated scientists on the planet agree to the tune of 97% that the global temperature is going up (simple measurement!), that it's because increased CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, and that the increased temperature causes climate change, including an increase in extreme weather events—again, simple measurement and counting! Give it up and embrace integrity.