Comment by marlow — June 3, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

DreamCrusher’s impersonation of Nancy is accurate. Honestly, for her Greenland was a nature retreat. She already knew what to expect before she went there since her response represents the standard programming that Carbon Taxers are trained to parrot. Consider her new position on the troops. War creates ample amounts of green house gasses not to mention the depleted uranium contamination. All of the ships, aircraft, tanks and hummers burn it up.

I could be wrong (I think the number is higher during wartime) but don’t US Naval Battle Groups consume 6 million barrels of oil a day. We have two battle groups there and more around the globe. Look at the video clip I posted at #80 on this thread. Notice that home she has (she has a few more) there and consider how fair the carbon tax would be to the poor. Look at what she drives and consider that she needs a security detachment.

If she decided to side with the majority (of voters) the troops would be on their way home now. This congress is just as screwed up as the 109th. The bottom line is no matter what happens, Congress Persons and the other governmental big wigs are all protecting themselves, since both sides want the same oil in i-Wreck.

Consider that if you pay the additional $12.00 as is the choice on my electric bill now where does this “green power” come from? It doesn’t come from any place that I can see. Same old coal plants, same old oil plants, same old natural gas plants and the same old nuclear reactors. The whole thing is based on fear (of global warming) and guilt (for not admitting it is your fault) so the non believers can be converted and if not labeled as eco-terrorists.

Consider how we die for a moment. You have to be buried or cremated. Someone usually gets stuck with a $5,000.00 funeral bill too. So the body is embalmed and the casket is placed in a liner. None of the goo that is you makes it back to the environment that you barrowed it from. People’s remains need to be composted and even then the food supply will be too tight.

You can’t make any car at all without steel, aluminum, plastic and other synthetics and there is no way around that reality. Making a car (even a hybrid) requires thousands of barrels of oil. Making all of the machines that make the cars requires even more energy. All of this technology requires mucho energy. That is the cost of an industrialized world. Backpacks that can power your laptop are a slap in the face when you realize exactly how not green they really are.

Laptops require many barrels of oil to build (pay attention). Computers all have a processor like mine here has an AMD. Processors are a marvel when you consider how miniaturized they are. Processors have to be “mass produced” to be affordable. Intel could not make only a few processors since the R&D alone requires the entire power of Intel.

PLASTIC 101: The plastic manufacturing process begins by heating the hydrocarbons in a “cracking process.” Here, in the presence of a catalyst, larger molecules are broken down into smaller ones such as ethylene (ethane) C2H4, propylene (propane) C3H6, and butane C4H8 and other hydrocarbons. The yield of ethylene is controlled by the cracking temperature and is more than 30% at 850°C and such products as styrene and vinyl chloride can be produced in subsequent reactions. These are then the starting materials for several other types of plastics. Therefore, this process results in the conversion of the natural gas or crude oil components into monomers such as ethylene, propylene, butane and styrene.
Those laptops require oil and natural gas for the plastic components and to mine iron ore and to make aluminum and to make processors. The scale of the material and energy demand is fantastic. I didn’t even mention the materials to make the actual back pack.

Can someone here topic aside explain what is going on with the posts. I post on lots of blogs and message boards and this is the first time that I have run into strangeness like this. What gives?

Comment by DreamCrusher — June 3, 2007 @ 8:13 am

I love astronomy. There are people that want me to believe that Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon. Imagine that, people insist the Neil Armstrong is nothing but a second rate actor. For me it would be impossible to accept those claims and assertions that the lunar landing was faked since the so called proof supplied by NASA debunkers is a hoax and theatrics.

A few posts ago I mentioned SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) that was launched on December 2, 1995. It began sending images in 1996 and is still very much in operation today. Over time short term trends can be detected that give us information about the Sun and its direct effects in the solar system. Images like this one showing activity over time…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/tricomp_prev.jpg
and this one showing a CME…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/suncombo1_prev.jpg
and this one snowing another CME…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/c2eitcomp_prev.jpg
and this one showing yet another CME…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/images/large/agueit_prev.jpg
then there are videos like this one showing a CFE…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Movies/Lightbulb/eit195.mpg
and this one comparing of solar activity in 1996 to 1999 activity…
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/Movies/EIT_9699/EIT_9699.mpg
Images and films like these show that the Sun is not just a static object that we can take for granted. It is the driving force of life on Earth. Clearly posters can understand that the more active the Sun becomes the more radiation of various types bombards us each and every day. The opposite is true when Sun is less active.

The period that the Sun is in, is coined “The Solar Max” and we are at the tail end of this period according to the images and video. That being said there is nothing to prevent a long term activity increase or a long term decline. The fact that SOHO has only been transmitting data for ten years give or take is a limiting factor to long term trends and observations.

Scientists and bloggers have numerous views about all sorts of things. Here is an excerpt from a BBC article…
Belgian scientists have identified a hitherto unsuspected benefit of global warming – more time for all of us. They say increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth’s rotation. This will make every day a little longer than it is already. But for the next century the increase will be so small that if you blink, you’ll miss it.
The scientists, from Belgium’s Royal Observatory and the Catholic University of Louvain, report their work in this month’s issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters. They used computer models to analyze the effect of adding 1% more CO2 to the atmosphere annually. This would mean a doubling of the CO2 concentration after 70 years. The researchers say this rate of increase is a common scenario on the basis of current human activity.
No contrast that statement to this one in an excerpt from Donald L. Hamilton, author of “The MIND of Mankind” …
It is well known that the rotation of planet Earth is gradually slowing. For four and one half billion years, its entire lifetime, its rate of rotation has been gradually slowing. As the Earth loses its kinetic energy due to all forms of friction acting on it; tides, galactic space dust, solar wind, space weather, geomagnetic storms, etc., like any flywheel, it will slow down. (The space surrounding the planet is far from empty).

What we have here is like talking about what came first the chicken or the egg. Both articles agree that the Earth is slowing down and that though it is small change from our point of view, the length of a day is increasing. The first article states that global warming is slowing the Earth and the second states that this is a normal process based on physics. The second article does include the Earth’s atmosphere as a relevant factor. A point to note is that given the physics of the rotation of bodies in space CME’s from the Sun also create friction that ultimately slows the rotation of the Earth.

The first article tends to blame the slowing rotation of the Earth on pollution from humans. We have only been in the “industrial age” for about 150 years compared to the billions of years that the Earth has been rotating. If we go 4.6 billion years to the rear an Earth day would be only 14 hours long and the climate then was completely different then it is now. The second article calls the loss of rotation velocity inevitable.

Now if we want to talk about our situation we had better bring all of the facts to the table. It is a fact that the Sun is in a Solar Max state and we can’t hope to change that. It is a fact that the Earth’s spin is developing a case of arthritis and both of those articles tend to support that there is no getting around the fact. Both of those articles support the claim that less spin velocity causes more emissions. That assertion is the most problematic. It implies that humans will have to adapt physically or perish since no matter what we do the Earth will slow down.

There are many issues we face that like it or not are beyond our ability to change. To believe that the moon has no effect on the tidal action of the Earth would be unreasonable and to believe that the moon is static in orbit is also unreasonable since the distance to the moon is on the increase. Tidal action is on the decrease and that effect is to be expected as the moon moves further and further out of orbit. This lunar observation supports the statement that all bodies in space are subject to the same arthritic condition of grinding down.

I tend to think of life like this Police song called “When the world is running down”
When I feel lonely here
Don’t waste my time with tears
I run ‘Deep Throat’ again
It ran for years and years
Don’t like the food I eat
The cans are running out
Same food for years and years
I hate the food I eat

When the world is running down
You make the best of what’s still around
When the world is running down
You make the best of what’s still around

Well I want to say that humans are going to devolve like it or not. I think the insanity of paying a carbon tax demonstrates that humans are tilting back to superstitious thinking. The same thinking caused the Aztec’s to resort to human sacrifice and cannibalism. The carpetbaggers want your heart sacrifices and it helps them to retain their status. In the end fear is always the motivation behind any mass solution.

Facts like the increase of solar activity, decrease in the Earth’s rotation velocity, increase in the distance to the moon and the Earth changing shape are all factors that influence global systems like weather and ocean currents. We have bigger problems than global weather. Global stupidity (I assume this is part of de-evolution) in operation allows people to think that switching from a Hummer to a Prius is going to change anything.

Hummers and Priuses come from the same places. Big factories! The materials to make these machines (cars) with, comes from the same old place. The Earth! There is no strip mining without strip mining. That is to say that you can’t mine material without a mine. So the thinking that the solution to global warming is being Green is nothing but the same old stuff like mining and factories with the addition of a Carbon Tax, given time that would devolve to actual human sacrifices.

We should just get it over with in my opinion. Full out global annihilation and let the better man win. The idea that my thoughts here are tin hat thinking proves that there are far too many cooks making the dinner. I can tell from the nasty attitudes that I’m catching here that the solution to global warming is the same as the one to peak oil and peak food and peak water and peak land and…

That solution is war, starvation, suffering and disease! This last part is my “opinion” but it looks like it is an option given the circumstances.

2 of my posts are gone. I point that out and then there are accusations and ridiculous comments. No tin hats and my views that you say are being posted are missing. Now I was reading other threads here and there are posts that are at least twice as long as any of mine so far. The nerve of “Comment by Vinnie — June 2, 2007 @ 8:11 pm ” for calling me a liar.
One post lists all of the other profane, rude and insulting remarks I could locate on this thread alone. I posted it and it was there and now it is gone. The other is a reply to “Comment by marlow — June 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm “. I posted them and then checked and they were listed at one point and now they are gone.

The only “urgency” that exists is the rush to tax the hell out of energy usage before the climate turns around on its own to debunk the Al Gore Orthodoxy.

Only on right-wing sites like redstate.com do they kick people off for their points of view. Think Progress believes in free speech and allows everyone to post their views. The site has proven so successful that it even attracts a number of right-wing posters like yourself.

Comment by marlow — June 2, 2007 @ 7:29 pm

Here I click submit/post and on the server my message enters a database. When I browse this page it uses a get and the page is refreshed.

Some of my posts are not showing up. What is up with that? It has nothing to do with you being smug enough to blame a pine tree for breaking your leg!

What is your point then?

Regarding the posts I seem to now be missing 2. If they aren’t getting deleted where are they then since you know everything? I mean are you telling me you can see

Secondly, I love how people POST here about how their posts are being deleted. Your lengthy post served to do nothing but pollute this thread. If you want to see posts being deleted go over to right-wing blog sites such as redstate.com and post something liberal. They will boot you off. TP is the site where politics can be openly discussed. Don’t you just love it? Sounds like you’re becoming a regular around here.

I don’t see the post I posted? No matter. It isn’t smug to want to save the Earth. It is unlikely that the Earth will be saved though. What is smug is that you skipped right over some big facts and then landed on your femur. Did you know that the UN wants to kill all of the cows? Think about that for a moment. Did you know that the UN wants sterilization for the masses? Then do searches on Google for “length of time in a day increases” since that is why you have your own computer that cost the world 12 barrels of oil like mine!

Comment by marlow — June 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

So now you want to tell me what I can talk about? Your femur broke because you are smug! Skiing is a diversion that causes damage to mountains and creates injuries. The pine tree or old age did not cause anything. You skiing did! The smugness creeps in with the nonsense analogy you made!

3) In the past, when the Earth was younger and spinning faster, the stronger angular momentum caused the Earth to assume a more pronounced oblate spheroid shape. (At the present time the planet Saturn is spinning much faster than the Earth and displays this more pronounced oblate spheroid shape.) When the Earth was spinning faster the bulge was much greater than the twenty-seven miles it is today. A 5% increase in the equatorial circumference of the Earth would produce approximately 1200 more miles of surface around the equatorial zone.

4) The SOHO (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) has produced pictures of the Sun that would amaze most people. Foe a number of years this Sun orbiting station has made it possible to determine that the Sun is at this time “extremely” active.

Soon someone will suggest killing all of the cows since they compete for water, land and grains and they release a green house gas called methane commonly found in FARTS. There are these nearly 7 with a B, Billion things called humans and they fart too.

I posed yesterday and mentioned the Sun activity and was told that that only represented 22% of the warming we see. I never mentioned that the length of a day is increasing (digital clocks replaced mechanical clocks) so this increases the exposure time of the Earth to the sun in a given area. What percentage increase do we get from that then if we are talking about a possible remaining 78%? Since the Earth is moving slower its shape is changing (pasted in above), how much does this shape change effect global weather since it does exist and must amount to some percentage of change?

The simple way to cut emissions would be to kill every 3 people that you see until you no longer see anyone. If we all do that and quickly bury them all I’ll bet green house emissions drop 25%. The best part will be the reduction in bull s*it emissions from listening to all of the hypocritical ratings of the Greenies who want global government and global carbon taxes then drive their hybrids that carry that big honkin battery.

When you are smug enough to believe that we can prevail over nature as though all it takes is a magic tax or cutting back a bit you are actually dooming billions of other people. Money can’t buy you love or hybrids if you have a blackout or if you turn off the power. Progress by the way for the individual is getting older and older and then dropping dead. Think about it!