Then we have those dam aliens living among us just waiting for the right moment.
Don't you forget about them either! Be sure to watch the following at least 3 times to prepare:
The arrival (love this movie!)
Predator (great movie)
Battlefield earth (btw, the book is amazing!)
Earth Final Conflict (heard it was a good Sci-fi series)
Outer Limits "Aliens Among Us" and other episodes
They Live (great Sci-fi classic)
Independence Day (keep in mind how to disable their shields, it might come in useful)
Play these games:
MDK2(this game owns!)
Halo: will give you a good idea of the alien technology and get you proficient with their weapons, since your going to need to know how to use them sooner or later.
Starcraft: Amazing game! You'll learn how to defeat swarms of aliens (the zerg), or advanced alien technology (the protoss).
Area 51: (awesome arcade game)
Read these books:
Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard(awesome book!)
Area 51 (series) by Robert Doherty (great quick read)
Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein (great classic SF)
Just remember that with hard work, and perseverance you'll be an alien killing machine in no time!
[url=/forum-topic/motorcycles-and-large-scooters/587-my-kz750-electric-motorcycle-project]KZ750 Motorcycle Conversion[/url]
[url=/forum-topic/motorcycles-and-large-scooters/588-fixing-my-chinese-scooter]900 watt scooter[/url]
Pic from http://www.electri
Have I mentioned that I'm building my own flying disk? It's powered be cinnamon and candy canes.
It's an eGrav thing... you wouldn't understand. ;)
<table border="0" style="border:1px solid #999999; padding:10px;"><tr><td>
And so, all this faith people have in scientist telling us this and that took a big blow. Or at least I would hope most people would not treat scientist like they were some sort of god and knee down before them.
First they had you guys believing that a asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs.
"Opps, our computer model was a little off, no big deal, people will swallow anything we tell them". "After much research, computer modeling, lots of coffee and boxes of donuts, we can now tell you that insects wiped the dinosaurs out 65,000,000 years ago".
Oh, and if you guys do not keep up on this stuff, it turns out that they are now saying the warming in the Atlantic is not caused by GW, it's a natural cycle. "Alright, who tripped over the power cord to the Climate Change computer"?
Deron, I think there's a better way to think about this...
The practice of science is continual discovery based on exploring theories. That means a scientist is rarely absolutely certain, but instead they have current models, current theories, and they are testing ideas and the progress of science is most often incremental improvement ...
Unfortunately journalists often misreport this process. For instance journalists misreporting scientific studies of dietary research is what leads to food fads ... one year the problem is fat, the next year the problem is sugar, another year the problem is milk, ...etc... It's really that scientists incrementally study diet etc and each study shows what the scientist studied which may or may not have connection to what the other scientists studied the year before.
- David Herron, The Long Tail Pipe, davidherron.com, 7gen.com, What is Reiki
- Electrified Electra To
You hit the nail on the head. Pop media is the one to blaim here! Proper publication of science needs the thorough scrutiny of academic publishers and the scientific community before the AP (or worse like Fox News) get ahold of it. That just doesn't happen anymore. People demand instant breakthrough news. So, if you get your science from the pop media, be prepared for the roller coaster ride. I recommend a publication like Science News to keep abreast of current research and findings...and treat like what they are: current data that needs to be combined with the larger body of academic evidence.
...and I also recommend trying to stear away from phrases like "scientists say..." as the media likes to use. One study released by one professor trying desparately to hang onto tenure does not constitute a change in scientific thinking.
No people shouldn't. Science is the process of making and testing hypothesis. The dinosaur extinction that you reference is a good example. If a meteor large enough to cause a mass extinction hit the earth then traces of it should be findable. Since nickle-iron meteors are rich in iridium we should see a 65 million year old iridium layer everywhere we look. And indeed we do. The more hypotheses that check out the better accepted the science is. While science never reaches Truth (with a capital T) theories that stand the test of time tend to become accepted as fact. The Yucatan meteor impact of 65 million years ago is still widely accepted as causing a global extinction.
The best science makes predictions about future events that can be tested. In this manner the theory of gravity is regarded as very close to fact while string theory is interesting speculation, but has yet to come up with a single testable hypothesis. We don't understand much about quantum mechanics, but we do understand enough to build electric computers and a host of other useful gadgets. Quantum mechanics may not be true in the philosophical sense, but it is hard to argue with a thermoelectric cooler. You don't have to bow down to a scientist to accept quantum mechanics; just turn on your portable fridge.
Man-caused global warming has produced enough testable hypotheses to be considered close to fact. You don't have to believe every single avenue of research, but it is difficult to discount them all. Science News has new articles every week. You can check them out online. The biggest remaining question is why global warming appears to be happening faster than the models predicted. There are still some feedback loops such as the amount of methane that is released as the permafrost melts that we are still trying to get a handle on. You might use this as evidence that "science got it wrong", but what it means is that the pessimistic predictions popularized in Gore's film were probably way too conservative.
If you are looking for an instance where atmospheric modeling has proved absolutely correct look no further than the arctic ozone holes. The models suggested that CFCs were the largest contributor to the holes and that phasing them out would cure the problem in a few decades. CFCs have been banned world wide and the holes are shrinking at roughly the predicted rate. This success was only possible because switching gasses inside air conditioning units is relatively easy. Had we asked the world to give up on air conditioners I'm sure we would still be arguing about whether CFCs degraded ozone.
"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"
Well I did it.
I started to take you guys seriously and went down and rented Al Gore's hit movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" II and III were there too so I grabbed them. I was kinda surprised too, I did not know II and III were already out, must of flopped at the box office. Well after sitting down and watching I, sleeping through II and only watching about half of III, I could see why II and III were a flop.
Getting back to what I did. Big Al was so convincing in this "Movie" that I just did it, I still can not believe it myself, but I just got up off my butt, walked out the front door, down the street, up the canyon and off into the woods. I'm totally naked right now, freezing my behind off and digging for some grubs, I hope you guys are happy, I'm not, but I felt I had to be a leader in this fight against GW/CC thingy. I have actually run into a few hippies out here, they think I crazy as hell and are totally ignorant about the impending doom. But they are growing some killer stuff.
Anyways, I threw some bushes on and popped into this internet cafe to get the word out.
People have to stop driving their cars, using electricity, heating their houses, eating fatty foods...
Who among us, is so sure that we are going down the road to doom, but yet, they themselves refuse to give up their precious comforts.
Living in a cave is not so bad, at least you will not be able to blame GW/CC on me.
Just having a little fun and pointing out that not many people take what these scientist say about GW/CC seriously.
I mean can anyone point to anything that they have done that "drastically" reduces their carbon footprint? It is a serious problem, right? Then why are most people going about their business as usual? If you believe these scientist then you would think that the nation needs to make "huge" cuts in carbon emissions. All I hear is "talk, talk, talk" GW this CC that, but when I ask them what changes they have made in their lives, it just the opposite, they are consuming more energy.
Me, and I have not done this because I'm someone else's stooge, have probably a smaller carbon footprint then 99.999% of the people in the good ol' USA (no fair counting hippies and homeless people). I heat my water with solar, heat my house with a solar "active system", take a bike, Pedelec or moped pretty much everywhere, carpool, buy almost everything used, recycle my water, fix things instead of buying new or replacing them. Putting together a Photo voltaic system right now. This is all because I'm so dam cheap and refuse to part with dime one.
Talk is cheap, if you believe GW/CC is as big of a problem as they say, then lose the car, stop heating the house, turn off the computer... All those luxuries have to go, you do want to save the Planet, or is it just all talk?
See - I knew you were a good guy really ;-). But I think you overstate the message of "An Inconvenient Truth". You portray it as a "chicken little" style "the sky is falling". I don't see it as quite so dire. You also seem to overstate what actions need to be taken to help improve the situation. AFAIK, no one is saying "don't heat the house" they're mostly saying "insulate your house better and turn the thermostat down a few degrees and, if you're cold then where a sweater indoors in the winter" (c'mon how hard can that be?)
Equally they're not saying "lose the car" they're saying "don't buy a honkin' great SUV when you don't need one".
So, by exaggerating the requests you feed the fear - even if you're just doing it for fun. There are plenty of folks out there willing to give up before they started because "ugh, we have to live in the freezing cold and walk everywhere? No way!". It's all an example of FUD tactics (spread fear, uncertainty and doubt and you can pretty much derail anything).
That's all I'm saying. I'd also hazard a guess that most people don't take the GW/CC things seriously because most people don't have the time, energy or inclination to think about it closely. Instead they listen to what the media portrays and media portrayal of science is flawed. Mostly because the scientific process is boring to most folks - they just want the answer. And there is no answer yet (on either side of the aisle).
For my part I hope to replace my gas car with an EV conversion in the next couple of years. I've started with an XM2000 and I'm now converting a CB750. Next up is probably a car conversion - unfortunately 2 wheels don't work for me because I have to take 3 kids to school (one mine, two of the neighbors - we carpool for convenience but it also helps emissions). With better alternatives offered by those who know how to make cars and can mass produce them cheaply then I have to think MOST two car families could replace the second car. I still fully believe that Ford could make an all electric Focus that would do 100 miles a charge and sell it for $20K (which is a major premium over what they sell the gas model for). Instead they spread FUD because they are more invested in the status quo than change. The same is true for Toyota as well - they're doling out the technology advancements slowly (a Prius that can do 25miles on a charge? woo freakin' hoo!). Oh well, we can't force them.
BTW, we will still be keeping our station wagon which we use for our regular 250 mile trips "up North" - oops, that will make davew disappointed. (sorry dave - I really liked your "circles" post from way back - I just think if everyone did something then we wouldn't need to restrict our movements quite so much).
I guess my point is that if people approach this rationally and everyone does a little it can start to add up. Would it be too little too late? Maybe, but surely that's better instead of "fiddling while Rome burns"?
John H. Founder of Current Motor Company - opinions on this site belong to me; not to my employerRemember: " 'lectric for local. diesel for distance" - JTH, Amp Bros || "No Gas.
The only problem with not doing anything drastic is it will not be enough.
You are forgetting to:
1) Count the six million people that get added to the planet every month. More energy users.
2) Take China into account, they are turning into huge consumers, using way more energy then ever, with no end in sight.
3) Allow for people of other countries that would love to improve their living conditions. We can not expect other people to live in poverty conditions just so we can enjoy our luxuries.
4) Allow for the chance that the Sun or natural conditions on the planet could accelerate GW/CC. We need to include a fudge factor to be on the safe side.
5) Allow for the chance that the scientist could have underestimated the GW/CC problem.
6) Allow for the cheaters, you know there will be plenty of them out there.
7) Allow for the people that get exemptions. The handicapped, sick, old...
8) Allow for the people that can afford to buy credits. They get to, so someone else has to cut.
It gets real complicated real fast.
Burning less gas in the car does not mean that gas does not get used by someone else. It's like what they do here in San Diego, they get people to conserve water, but the amount of water used goes up every year. The only thing conserving water does, is it allows builders to build more houses so more people can move into this "coastal desert". Of course they do not tell you that. They realize that people will pretty much swallow anything they tell them, as long as they put the right spin on it.
you seemingly identified the root of the problem: people. No matter how hard one tries to conserve, they are still using resources and contributing to the overall problem. In other words, it is still much better for the planet if you never existed in the first place. Its kind of a humbling thought.
But, there's just one problem with that realization taken to an ultimate level. I'm still here. You're still here. Billions of others are still here. What do we do? We're human. We're not perfect, and we can't guarantee anything. All our efforts might very well be totally in vain. But we've just have to try anyway, because there isn't much else to do.
Even if we slow down the process of royally screwing over the planet, maybe that will buy us much needed time. Even if we don't slow it down, but slow down the rate at which it is increasing than that is still significant. And more people offers one unique resource: intelligence. Why has technology advanced so quickly recently? One could argue that having 6 billion people is big contributing factor. How fast will technology advance with 12 billion people on the planet. How long can we sustain our delicate system without disrupting one natural process on the planet that could set off a chain of events? Would it help if we had just a few more years? Maybe.
The only problem with not doing anything drastic is it will not be enough.
You are forgetting to:
1) Count the six million people that get added to the planet every month. More energy users.
The only problem with not doing anything drastic is it will not be enough.
I agree strongly on both accounts. The USA has more than one car per adult. China and India have one car per hundreds of people. Saying to westerners that switching from an SUV to a Honda Accord is "good enough" isn't even close to good enough not as the rest of the world acquires our lifestyle. I usually don't say this first because people use it as an excuse. "I can' t give up my car so I'm not going to do anything." Getting people to switch from SUVs to more reasonable cars is a good first step, but only a first step.
The other larger point for preserving a decent quality of life for all people is the population. We need to figure out a way to start driving it down. China's tactics are sometimes draconian, but at least they recognized the problem a long time ago. It's about time the rest of the world woke up to the fact that having fewer children is an ethical and moral imperative.
[And, no. I don't get invited to dinner parties very often. Why do you ask? :-)]
Well these comments are all interesting...and of course one can suggest arguments on both sides, provide info to back up their assertions, etc...on and on and so forth.
Here's an absolute fact. Go into your backyard (if you have one) and change anything...in any way...clear a path where there was grass...plant grass where there wasn't any...destroy all the rodents cause they are eating your plants...just simply sit down and watch it rain. EVERYTHING that occurs "naturally" does so with some purpose. That's obvious. If you make changes to the natural surroundings certain often predictable (from observation and experience) and some unpredictable changes occur. Sometimes the changes are small...sometimes major...sometimes nowhere proportional as "small change makes small change or small change makes major change"....and on and on.
The idea that whatever humankind does on this planet is OK is absolutely ludicrous and it doesn't take a scientist to know that. The idea that pumping large amounts of whatever substances into the atmosphere doesn't bring changes is ludicrous. The question would be what kind of changes and in what proportions and in what kind of effects? One's good sense would certainly tell us simply from our own observation of the natural world around us that mankind has to be very careful in what we send into the atmosphere, bury in the ground, do physically to the landscape and waterways...and on and on. And anyone who disputes this notion lives in a world that doesn't exist in reality.
My 02. cents
Is man not a natural part of the planet?
Is what man does not natural?
Some suggest man is destroying the planet and should not be here, but every species shapes it's environment in some way, even plants change the condition of the air and soil.
Even the planet itself will shape certain parts of it through volcanoes, plate tectonics...
What man has done is extremely minor compared to what has happened to this planet in the past and will happen to it in the future.
Who's to say man kind was not supposed to wipe itself out? We may not be the right fit for this planet and things are just taking care of it's self through natural selection. Other species have come and gone, maybe it's our turn.
Maybe the cockroaches are supposed to rule.
I'm confused (that happens easily - I'm a natural blond), your first post seemed to be along the lines of "wow, isn't Al Gore's film a load of sh*t? It seems to suggest we should all go live in caves, but how come no one is doing that?".
Your reply to me now seems to suggest "only drastic action is enough" - which would seem to support the message that you took away from Al Gore's film.
That seems like a convenient 180 degrees in your argument?
I agree that switching from an SUV to a Honda Accord isn't enough. However, let's learn to walk before we run? Let's start off persuading people to make minor changes and then gain some momentum and make bigger changes.
And, only then can we all go and live in caves and become hunter gatherers in tune with our surroundings...
Sure...man is a natural part of the planet. And we happen to be the species that has specific cognitive abilities far beyond any other species. Therefore, we certainly have the potential of screwing things up far more by not following our "natural" good sense! You make my point in the biggest way!
Just because you can do something, realize it... doesn't mean it would be in your best interest to do it. Let's hope we use our natural good sense to really "think" about what we are doing. That's the other part of our uniqueness that is apparently part of the design...not just "thinking" but "smart/wise" thinking.
I'm just looking at it from the point of view that something has to be done.
First of all no one has told us what has to be done, how much has to be done to fix it and how much time we have to do it. Sure there are suggestions on doing this and doing that, but no real list of things that have to be done. Right now it is all speculation on what each individual person should do. Take for example the rationing of water here in San Diego (so they can build more houses for other people). By law you have to have a low flow toilet, some commercial business have to recycle their water, we get in the mail information on how to save water, I hear on the radio that you need to take shorter showers, there is a plan to put sewer water in our drinking water reservoirs... Where are the fliers in the mail and when are the news alerts on the radio telling us how to save this planet? I would think it would rate higher then why you should take a shorter shower.
With the planet in crisis, why is there no gas rationing (like they did in the Jimmy Carter days), why is there no mandatory carpooling, how come they do not fine people for wasting energy, why is there not a big added tax on gas guzzlers... There is a million things that can be done, but the only thing I can think of that they are doing is pushing for better gas mileage on cars ten years down the road, oh and some toxic lights that contain mercury. (Does anyone know the proper way of getting rid of the burnt out ones?)
Just trying to help out the people that want to do something about this crisis think this through. Me I think this is all just a bunch of Barbara Streisand.
The big wigs want the situation to continue as it is, because they've set up the game so they get lots of money if things remain as they are. Don't look to the government or industry to tell you what to do or to do very much to raise an alarum.
There was a piece on Democracy NOW this morning ... Study: Of Over 2,000 Sunday Talk Show Questions to Candidates, Only Three on Global Warming ... a study had been made of all the questions posed to the various and sundry presidential candidates. Of 2000+ questions scant few were about global warming. That is yet another symptom of the problem I just mentioned -- the corporate media isn't about to ask questions that would threaten the corporate agenda.
Candidates' Environmental Profiles
Um.. I think the problem is so broad and wide and all encompassing that each of us could feel motivated to do our own thing, and we each could easily choose different things to tackle.
Me? I feel motivated towards EV's and that motivation leads me (in part) to run this website. What do you feel motivated to do?
Remember, this is people that you are talking about.
The only thing they have on their mind is what type of pizza should I have for dinner and will I win American Idol this year. Not, how can I cut my energy consumption so I will have the smallest carbon foot print possible.
What do I feel motivated to do, the same as what motivates everyone, that is the cost of something. I just hate to disturb the moths in my wallet more then the next guy, a lot more! This causes me to have a smaller then normal carbon foot print. The only thing I can see that will cause most people to conserve energy is when the cost goes up.
There is a perfect answer to the GW/CC problem though, but the very people that are against it refuse to use it to save the planet. I bet you can guess what it is. They would rather burn in Hell then go back on something they been fighting so had to demonize. If they would not have killed it off for the most part, we would be running on pretty much an all electric society right now. They caused GW/CC.
I agree with all of you. That's why I'm probably one of the few, who even though it will impact me as well, wants the price of gasoline to continue to increase. I truly believe that is the only thing that will move folks away from ICE vehicles...period.
I just hate to disturb the moths in my wallet more then the next guy, a lot more! This causes me to have a smaller then normal carbon foot print. The only thing I can see that will cause most people to conserve energy is when the cost goes up.
This is just the point. Most people are motivated by money concerns only. (I know that you're saying, Deron, that saving money leads you to conservation, but it seems to lead most people towards wastefulness.) I agree with DH that in the near term it is mostly going to come down to what individuals do. In the long term, however, if we are going to have a soft landing on this current resource and warming crisis everyone is going to have to be dragged into this... kicking and screaming if necessary. (Remember that at least half the people are below average intelligence.) Money is the key. Incentives for good stuff like solar/wind energy, EVs, recycling. Jimmy Carter had some excellent tax credits for energy efficiency and solar that would be good to bring back on a national basis. I liked Ross Perot's gas tax. That would be an excellent source of revenue for investment in mass transit and alternative energy. It would warm my cockles to know that the SUV drivers would be contributing disproportionately to the solution. I would also like to see steep tariffs on raw materials like metal ores and the products made from them. Imagine how our altitude towards automobile recycling would change if virgin steel was twice the price of recycled steel? I know the Europeans tax a car based on engine displacement. I think we could come up with something similar.
What do I do?
- No car. No car trips. Well, actually, about once every other month.
- No long distance travel. I haven't been outside of Boulder county in over two years. It's a lovely place so I really don't feel stuck at all.
- Local entertainment only -- mostly at my house and my friends houses. I can't remember the last movie I saw in a theater. Lord of the Rings maybe? No, it was The Devil Wears Prada. We had guests visiting and they insisted.
- No air conditioner. It is really dumb to have one in a place that gets down to at least 70F every night even in the dead of summer.
- Minimal heat. Our thermostat is never above 65F in the day and 58F at night and the furnace is turned off on sunny days. This is a perk of having a fairly well designed house and having a willingness to wear lots of clothes.
There are currently 0 users online.
Support V is for Voltage
Disclosure: Monetized by Skimlinks
Communal learning about moving our butts around town without burning fossil fuels.