The Urge to Explore

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:49:40 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Schilling" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As I said, that's a subjective judgement. I personally think that
Bill Moyers has had some awful opinions. Including his (mistaken)
opinions about James Watt, for which he ended up apologizing.

He was misled there, of course, as was the OP of this subthread, and
apologized when it was brought to his attention. I find little to
criticize
there.

I agree that, having apologized, we can remove that particular black
mark from his long record.

Yes, I understand he also oten uses vague innuendo against people he
disapproves of.

Shawn Wilson said:

"Jordan" wrote in message

Unrestrained global warming, past a point, would be definitely BAD for
the ecosystem, as this could lead to a Venus-like runaway which would
render the Earth uninhabitable.

And the Earth is going to be magically transported 30 million miles closer
to the Sun how?

The extent to which Venus is hotter than the Earth is not primarily
caused by its closer orbit. It is primarily caused by Venus' dense,
carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. If Venus orbited where Earth does, and
vice versa, but had the same atmospheres that they do today, Venus
would still be by far the hotter world.

Since our purpose in building powerplants is _not_ to increase the CO2
in the Earth's atmosphere, though, I think that we should avoid doing
so if economically possible. Which is _one_ of the reasons I'm
pro-nuclear.

God forbid we should work to make the planet lusher, greener and more
fertile...

If that were the only effect of increased global temperatures I'd view
global warming as a good spinoff of fossil fuel burning. But increased
global temperatures can also make deserts of formerly fertile lands,
drown rich coastlands, and (in some theories) set off the chain of
events that produces a new Ice Age.

Climatology is _not_ a mature science by any means, and when we alter
the Earth's climate on a large scale the results are unpredictable.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Shawn Wilson said:

"Jordan" wrote in message

Unrestrained global warming, past a point, would be definitely BAD for
the ecosystem, as this could lead to a Venus-like runaway which would
render the Earth uninhabitable.

And the Earth is going to be magically transported 30 million miles closer
to the Sun how?

The extent to which Venus is hotter than the Earth is not primarily
caused by its closer orbit. It is primarily caused by Venus' dense,
carbon dioxide rich atmosphere. If Venus orbited where Earth does, and
vice versa, but had the same atmospheres that they do today, Venus
would still be by far the hotter world.

In fact, Venus is hotter than Mercury, since Venus has an atmosphere that
traps heat and Mercury does not.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:49:40 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Schilling" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

As I said, that's a subjective judgement. I personally think that
Bill Moyers has had some awful opinions. Including his (mistaken)
opinions about James Watt, for which he ended up apologizing.

He was misled there, of course, as was the OP of this subthread, and
apologized when it was brought to his attention. I find little to criticize
there.

I agree that, having apologized, we can remove that particular black
mark from his long record.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:15:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

He wasn't convicted.

Nor tried; he accepted a plea bargain.


Exactly. Not tried, not convicted. Sometimes people plea bargain
because it's easier than the expense of a trial,

Often guilty people plea-bargain if they believe the punishment will be
less severe.

Yes, they often do. But innocent or guilty, it's not conviction, at
least on the original charge, and one can't necessarily infer either
guilt or innocence from it for that charge.

Richard Morris wrote:
horseshoe7 wrote:

Read Michael Chricton's STATE OF FEAR... it is fairly entertaining, and
certainly eye-opening in regards to the press and general public's
buying into the Global Warming HYSTERIA.

Did you do your research on atmospheric physics in Mr. Chricton's book?
Or on public attitudes toward Global Warming? It's a *novel*! That
means it isn't true.

He provides references for ALL of the sources he cites... BTW, he
doesn't entirely dismiss Global Warming... and, it is a decent book -
as long as you can stomach what finally happens to the Martin
Sheen-like character at the end shudder.

- Stewart

David Johnston opined

On 23 Jun 2005 21:42:44 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

Paul F. Dietz opined

wrote:

The number of windmills she was calling for would result
in -- climate change.

Just listening to the radio this morning, there was a story
about protests on a proposed wind farm in Wisconsin -- located
right next to a wildlife refuge with large numbers of birds.

And they're finding Appalachian wind farms are killing large
numbers of migrating bats, too.

It's becoming increasingly clear that nuclear (of some kind)
is the way to go for baseload electricity.

I can't wait for the Audobon Society to use the endangered Spedies Act to
shut down most of the US wind mills.

Most of the U.S. is not the habitat of an endangered species.

If you look hard enough, you can always mak^H^H^Hfind an endangered species.



-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

David Johnston wrote:
On 23 Jun 2005 21:42:44 -0500, "Ash Wyllie" wrote:

Paul F. Dietz opined

wrote:

The number of windmills she was calling for would result
in -- climate change.

Just listening to the radio this morning, there was a story
about protests on a proposed wind farm in Wisconsin -- located
right next to a wildlife refuge with large numbers of birds.

And they're finding Appalachian wind farms are killing large
numbers of migrating bats, too.

It's becoming increasingly clear that nuclear (of some kind)
is the way to go for baseload electricity.

I can't wait for the Audobon Society to use the endangered Spedies Act to shut
down most of the US wind mills.

Most of the U.S. is not the habitat of an endangered species.

How would it be an endangered species if...

(I can think of a couple of answers courtesy of Warner Bros...)

wrote:

That was called "After the Warming", though it was slightly
misnamed as it described the warming process itself.

Not to come to its defense, since some of the political stuff it
proposed was pretty silly, but it was titled _After the Warming_ because
the program was "set" in 2050, after the claimed global warming
effects had already become profound. Walking through the timeline was a
"virtual reality" stunt to celebrate the history of the Planetary
Management Authority, responsible for controlling global warming, in
2050 as an anniversary.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Nobody's interested in sweetness and light.
-- Hedda Hopper

In article ,
Dean White wrote:
... here in western Oklahoma and the Texas panhandle
they are starting to put up large wind farms.
[ ... ]
As for the climate it's already being changed, this
year we had no tornadoes in May which has not happened
since they started keeping records.

Ooo... Nice. It's going to be tough for the environmentalists
to get any traction arguing the downside of that.

(Yeah, I know, correlation does not imply causality.
It may be pure coincidence. But if not...)

--
Infamy is like a pair of tight leather pants in | Mike Van Pelt
the Amazon. It might LOOK cool, but after just | mvp at calweb.com
a couple of hours it chafes, and that's just | KE6BVH
the start of your problems. -- Howard Tayler