Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

"Rand Simberg" wrote
But there have been some recent articles about Sweden thinking that
they've taken things too far.

Ya, the NeoKKKon press is running out of things to lie about.

"Rand Simberg" wrote
Actually, they haven't. The average Swedish standard of living is
equivalent to the poorest of the states in the US.

Ahahahahahahahaha.... You pathetic Libertarian Liar.

"Whata Fool" wrote
I have met a lot of socialists and a few communists, and my
impression is that all were bitter, mean, overly serious, vindictive,
vulgar and even vicious.

You know, a friend of mine just spent some time in the U.S. and made a
similar observation about the people there, and on the radio two days
earlier one host was complaining that U.S. civility was at such a low point
that when he waved to thank someone for allowing him to merge with highway
traffic the guy who let him in flew into a violent rage at the insulting
wave.

I suppose this violent vindictiveness and vulgarity partly explains why
the AmeriKKKan people are responsible for the murder of 1 million Iraqi's
over the last 6 years.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Bill Ward wrote:


: . . . which is why climate is still chaotic.
:
:BTW, how do you keep "climate cells" from interacting?
:

You don't have to. They're relatively insensitive.

They are? Why would you assume something so plainly silly?



You've demonstrated that you are both ignorant on the subject and
steadfastly intend to stay that way.

Oh, really?

You're not fooling anybody worth fooling.

"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 8, 2:38 pm, wrote:

snip

I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be so sure you are
right and so completely unable to explain how or why.

The point is energy production needs to change to more efficient
cleaner processes, with region specific renewable sources used where
possible. Now given today's technology, cleaner alternatives are
necessary as not all renewables can meet the world's energy supply but
we need to be better and smarter when it comes to environmental
responsibility.

And so in your mind this all adds up to rationale for the pretend science
that underlies AGW hoax.

Now all sources of energy have their unique or
individual flaws, or technology gaps required to make the changes and
reduce emissions of green house gases,

Propaganda.

and aerosols from energy
production. New ideas such as the micro-hydro provide small regions
with access to water, world wide with the ability provide their own
power, while still making the necessary changes required in our energy
production that reduce emissions, and environmental effects.

All the more reason to focus finite public funds on real problems and not on
phoney notions. The only effect increased atmospheric CO2 can possibly have
is to make plants grow easier. There is no thermal effect on atmosphere.
That notion is absurd.

Trust me, I'm a *real* scientist.

tom


http://www.microhydropower.net/
When is hydropower micro?
The definition of micro hydropower varies in different countries and
can even include systems with a capacity of a few megawatts. One of
the many definitions for micro hydropower is: hydro systems up till a
rated capacity of approximately 300 kW capacity. The limit is set to
300 kW because this is about the maximum size for most stand alone
hydro systems not connected to the grid, and suitable for "run-of-the-
river" installations.

claud wrote" Trust me, I'm a *real* scientist."

I read this line, started laughing then I realized you probably do
take your self seriously. Sorry but I don't, so let me read that line
again, ok i got it now. First you have not earned any trust, i don't
think your real (ie your a joke), and i don't care what you call
yourself. But im sure you're used to turning off your monitor at
staring at the screen conversing with yourself, as you're probably the
only person who cares what you say.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:25:43 -0700, Einar wrote:

Even so, the concern by some, for their grandchildren is
not warranted.

So you are revealed as an optimist.

Cheers, Einar

I definitely am not a socialist, they all seem to be
pessimists who criticize everything and everybody.

The good thing about free enterprise is that the inefficient
businesses fail, and new ones take their place. Of all the energy
programs that received a lot of funding from the government, very few
were able to sustain production of those products.

Having hope is a part of being optimistic, and being free to
do the things that seem right or needed allows hopes to become results.

On Aug 8, 9:45 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
claud wrote" Trust me, I'm a *real* scientist."

I read this line, started laughing then I realized you probably do
take your self seriously. Sorry but I don't, so let me read that line
again, ok i got it now. First you have not earned any trust, i don't
think your real (ie your a joke), and i don't care what you call
yourself. But im sure you're used to turning off your monitor at
staring at the screen conversing with yourself, as you're probably the
only person who cares what you say.

Real scientist pursue truth for truths sake. Propaganda never enters
into the equation. And then there's yourself. You have
propagandistic goals. Political goals. Science is a means to an
end. And so you only discuss the aspects of the science that support
that end. This is why you refuse to acknowledge the questions you
couldn't answer. All you could do is pretend they didn't exist. My
goal was to expose your pretense to the readers of this newsgroup.
Thank you for your participation.

On Aug 8, 11:05 pm, wrote:
On Aug 8, 9:45 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
claud wrote" Trust me, I'm a *real* scientist."

I read this line, started laughing then I realized you probably do
take your self seriously. Sorry but I don't, so let me read that line
again, ok i got it now. First you have not earned any trust, i don't
think your real (ie your a joke), and i don't care what you call
yourself. But im sure you're used to turning off your monitor at
staring at the screen conversing with yourself, as you're probably the
only person who cares what you say.

Real scientist pursue truth for truths sake. Propaganda never enters
into the equation. And then there's yourself. You have
propagandistic goals. Political goals. Science is a means to an
end. And so you only discuss the aspects of the science that support
that end. This is why you refuse to acknowledge the questions you
couldn't answer. All you could do is pretend they didn't exist. My
goal was to expose your pretense to the readers of this newsgroup.
Thank you for your participation.

You stated "The only effect increased atmospheric CO2 can possibly
have is to make plants grow easier."

Next time to try some science and don't forget to include valid
credible sources when you post your propaganda, and oh yeah you might
want to brush up on the thermodynamic properties of our physical
universe as you might find it a little easier to understand were you
are wrong a little faster next time.

Now here is some more information on wind generated power, and new
turbine technologies


http://www.nrel.gov/wind/
Wind is a clean, inexhaustible, indigenous energy resource that can
generate enough electricity to power millions of homes and businesses.
Wind energy is one of the fastest-growing forms of electricity
generation in the world. The United States can currently generate more
than 10,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the wind, which is
enough to power 2.5 million average American homes. Industry experts
predict that, with proper development, wind energy could provide 20%
of this nation's energy needs.
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/39537.pdf

Advanced Wind Technology: New Challenges for a New Century
R. Thresher and A. Laxson
Presented at the European Wind Energy Conference
Athens, Greece
February 27-March 2, 2006
Page 1
Summary
Wind Energy demonstrated phenomenal growth and improvement in the
later three decades of the 20th century. From small niche markets for
pumping water and charging batteries, wind became an important
supplier of grid tied electricity. These improvements saw modern
commercial wind electrical generators grow from simple 50-kilowatt
(kW) units to sophisticated multimegawatt (MW) machines capable of
generating millions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. The technical
advances in wind energy in this time frame were not revolutionary.
Scaling to larger size was the primary approach used to improve the
cost effectiveness; and improved design methods to properly size
turbines for their operating wind environment. Advances in generators,
gearboxes, blade designs, blade materials, controls, and computers
using improved design codes allowed machines to improve in performance
and grow in size until the average modern wind turbine is now more
than 1 MW in rating. But as with any maturing technology, most of the
easier improvements have already been implemented.
Page 9
Summary
From a distance, the wind turbine of 2015 will not look much different
from the large-scale commercial machine of today. The difference in
size will be most evident change, with rotor diameters and tower
heights dwarfing older machines. But besides the obvious difference in
size, machines of the past and machines of 2015 will differ
drastically in ways unseen; in the materials of construction, the
means of manufacturer, the design of controls and power conversion,
advanced smaller and lighter generators, internal blade structure, and
many other improvements yet to be quantified. But even upon
dissection, the improved techniques, knowledge, and tools used to
design these machines will be undetectable except in the lower cost of
energy, higher reliability, and reduced cost."

On Aug 8, 11:37 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 8, 11:05 pm, wrote:

Real scientist pursue truth for truths sake. Propaganda never enters
into the equation. And then there's yourself. You have
propagandistic goals. Political goals. Science is a means to an
end. And so you only discuss the aspects of the science that support
that end. This is why you refuse to acknowledge the questions you
couldn't answer. All you could do is pretend they didn't exist. My
goal was to expose your pretense to the readers of this newsgroup.
Thank you for your participation.

You stated "The only effect increased atmospheric CO2 can possibly
have is to make plants grow easier."

Next time to try some science and don't forget to include valid
credible sources when you post your propaganda, and oh yeah you might
want to brush up on the thermodynamic properties of our physical
universe as you might find it a little easier to understand were you
are wrong a little faster next time.

My goal was to expose your pretense to the readers of this newsgroup.
This is another perfect example of it. Science whackos always talk
big about science in general but are incapable of addressing details.
Thank you for your participation.