Twisted agenda

This is a discussion on Twisted agenda within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...ya.UN.Mercury/ Interesting. Didn't the United States just issue a future ban on old light bulbs in favor of newer bulbs ...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,598

    Twisted agenda

    http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...ya.UN.Mercury/

    Interesting. Didn't the United States just issue a future ban on old light bulbs in favor of newer bulbs requiring less energy? However those newer light bulbs have enough mercury in them to warrant an EPA cleanup in your house should a few break open.

    Seems to me that someone somewhere in government or the EPA is very confused about their own agenda.

    From the EPA:
    http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/w...mps/faqs.htm#6
    http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#whatnever


    And many of you have probably heard the recent news article about warming accelerating. Convenient play since we have just had severe storms recently in the U.S (which is nothing new in February/March time frame), Australian fires (which are more and more pointing to arson), and odd weather events in Vegas.
    http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver...-alarming-rate

    Yet the founder of the Weather Channel does not quite agree:
    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38609397.html

    But then again he is probably being funded by Big Oil.
    But since Opec just had to cut world production by 50% to make a profit perhaps these 'deniers' aren't making much money anymore if they are funded by oil big wigs which I doubt seriously that they are. Horrible argument that every time someone gets evidence contrary to warming that somehow they are involved in some huge oil conspiracy to hide the truth. Utterly absurd.

    The whole scam seems to be falling apart. Now they are recanting calling it climate change or warming but not necessarily man made. Hogwash. The entire movement stated they believed in man made global warming caused by an increase in CO2 and yet now they change their story when it becomes inconvenient.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-16-2009 at 07:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Registered User NeonBlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    435
    I did not know that the United States banned them, but I knew that the EU recently placed a ban on incandescents, which I am strongly against. (The ban, that is)
    Flourescents last a long time, but not forever. They burn out infrequently enough that most people will not bother recycling them, but if every household is using them, a significant number will end up in landfills, leaking mercury (and a few other nasties in smaller amounts).

    I am sick of this global warming alarmism. We are willing to pollute our water to reduce our "carbon footprint" (I hate that term) and MW-h of energy per year.
    I copied it from the last program in which I passed a parameter, which would have been pre-1989 I guess. - esbo

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    I don't understand.

    The epa recommends CFLs in part because the energy they save means a reduction in mercury emissions from power plants, making an overall reduction in mercury in the environment (according to your first epa link). So how is the agenda confusing? (Note: this pdf indicates that using an incandescent bulb leads to over 3 times as much mercury in the environment as a CFL, assuming that CFL is not recycled.)

    >> And many of you have probably heard the recent news article about warming accelerating. Convenient play since we have just had severe storms recently... <<
    You're inferring conspiracy where none exists. When would it have been appropriate for an amateur meteorologist to write an article about a press release from Feb 14 coinciding with the presentation of findings by a scientist at a symposium that same day?

    As for the rest of your post, you use the term "they" a lot. Who are "they"?
    Last edited by Daved; 02-16-2009 at 10:57 PM.

  4. #4
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Ah, another Bubba conspiracy rant. It has been awhile since the last one hasn't it?

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,913
    I played with mercury as a kid. I'm fine.

  6. #6
    Kernel hacker
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Farncombe, Surrey, England
    Posts
    15,677
    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    I played with mercury as a kid. I'm fine.
    Yes, metallic (liquid) mercury is RELATIVELY harmless - it will accumulate in your body and your brain will be damaged eventually. But organic mercury compounds is really what you need to watch out for - they are HIGHLY dangerous and much quicker to get into cells and do damage than metallic mercury. That is what happens if you have organic compounds, mercury and high temperature in the same place at the same time - such as burning mercury based products.

    The same, by the way, applies to lead. Metallic lead is relatively harmless [unless it comes flying at you from a gun], but organic lead compounds are definitely bad news - this is what happens when you burn leaded fuel in a car engine, for example.

    --
    Mats
    Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
    Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,598
    When would it have been appropriate for an amateur meteorologist to write an article about a press release from Feb 14 coinciding with the presentation of findings by a scientist at a symposium that same day?
    I'm afraid I don't follow. Who is the amateur meteorologist here? The scientific finding was not scientific at all.

    Ah, another Bubba conspiracy rant. It has been awhile since the last one hasn't it?
    Only because another report was issues stating that warming is accelerating even amidst several reports that many feel that warming has completely stopped.

    I really don't care one way or the other as long as we don't pass expensive policies to curb something that isn't a problem. I would agree that chemical pollution is definitely something we must stop however stopping the emissions of a trace gas that also occurs naturally in the atmosphere is not something I can buy into.

    And there is a conspiracy when one side says the debate is over when in science the debate is never over nor does a consensus mean anything. There is a conspiracy when language such as denier and believer are used for issues that are supposed to be scientific. That doesn't sound like science to me.

    Let's hope Obama's supposed 'green jobs' work even if we do not have the economy for it nor the technology to replace a third of the energy produced by current methods.

    And besides I'm just happy that I am actually talking about something other than code. It means there is hope for me to actually have a life. A very small hope but it's there.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 02-17-2009 at 06:40 PM.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    >> I'm afraid I don't follow. <<

    Your implication is that the linked article from the "Denver Weather Examiner" is part of a larger conspiracy to convince people that climate change is real, man-made, and needs to be addressed. If this is not what you meant, please explain what you meant by the statement I quoted.

    Here are the reasons that I disagree with that implication:

    1. An article was written by an amateur meteorologist from Denver, Tony Hake. (I hesitate to call it an article, it seems more like a blog, but either way I'll continue.) How is this relevant? Why does this random article by someone who appears to be a nobody matter? Is this person important? Is that site widely read? Is the same article repeated many other places?

    2. That article appears to be based on the press release it refers to at the bottom. That press release was dated February 14. It refers to a presentation at the annual meeting of AAAS on February 14 by IPCC scientist Chris Field of Stanford University and the Carnegie Institution for Science. Your inference was that the timing of the article might have been meant to coincide with some incidents of extreme weather to take advantage of the possible link. But it would seem obvious that the article was posted based on the press release, and that press release was published based on the presentation, and that presentation was timed based on the timing of the annual meeting. So I have no idea why anybody would think that anything about the timing of any of it was suspect.

    3. You have twice misstated the content of the article. It does not state that warming is accelerating. It states that the level of gases that cause global warming is increasing.


    >> Only because another report was issues stating that warming is accelerating even amidst several reports that many feel that warming has completely stopped. <<

    But why is the report that says that the level of greenhouse gases has increased the one that makes you think conspiracy? Is it not just as likely that the reports that warming has completely stopped are part of a conspiracy? BTW, what reports are those? Do you have links or references?
    Last edited by Daved; 02-17-2009 at 07:17 PM.

  9. #9
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,274
    (Wherein I ramble and eventually do some math...)

    I'm not sure why people argue about this.

    It is an undergraduate level calculation to determine the change in the thermal energy of Earth's surface given a certain change in CO2 concentration.

    Okay, that's one piece of evidence. Now correlate the changes in atmospheric CO2 with the changes in mean surface temperature over the last 150 years. You get a pretty high correlation coefficient.

    The only piece of the puzzle remaining is to determine if humans are responsible for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Personally, I don't see the point in bothering to find the answer, when there are simple things I can do which reduce my total CO2 output and actually save me money. It's bizarre that so many people are willing to literally burn up the Earth's natural resources.

    Okay, so what if we could burn all the oil in all the reservoirs in the world, and not cause climate impacts? What will we do when we run out of that energy source? We could do an awful lot with nuclear. So let's suppose we have an infinite amount of nuclear energy. How do we get this energy into vehicles? Okay, battery-powered cars are already here. We know they work.

    What about battery powered airplanes? How exactly are we going to continue air travel if we run out of petroleum? Shall we put nuclear reactors on airplanes, which are known to crash? Shall we invent a battery-powered airplane?

    Okay, let's look at what it would take to make a battery-powered airplane. Your loaded 747 will take off at about 850,000 pounds. It takes off at 180 miles per hour. It takes about 20 seconds to accelerate and leave the runway.

    850,000 pounds moving 180 miles per hour is about 1.25 gigajoules. This energy is expended in 20 seconds, for an average takeoff power of 62.4 megawatts.

    And we're just talking about the energy to accelerate, not generate lift. At 850,000 pounds, a 747 requires 1.15 megajoules for each FOOT it climbs. Suppose you climb 500 feet per minute. That's 9.6 megawatts required to climb.

    So we'll need to build batteries which can not only sustain flight for a 12 hour period but are capable of delivering peak power of about 60 megawatts.

    Good luck with that...
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    7,344
    >> Australian fires (which are more and more pointing to arson)

    BTW, I ran across this blog entry when reading another discussion of global warming. It attempts to address the question of what impact (if any) climate change had on the fires in Australia: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...s-and-climate/

    Consider reading it with an open mind and an assumption that the author is not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

  11. #11
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Well if we run out of jet fuel, we could always start flying in blimps.
    I can just see it now. An entire Air Force made of blimps...
    "I am probably the laziest programmer on the planet, a fact with which anyone who has ever seen my code will agree." - esbo, 11/15/2008

    "the internet is a scary place to be thats why i dont use it much." - billet, 03/17/2010

  12. #12
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    f the puzzle remaining is to determine if humans are responsible for the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Personally, I don't see the point in bothering to find the answer, when there are simple things I can do which reduce my total CO2 output and actually save me money. It's bizarre that so many people are willing to literally burn up the Earth's natural resources.
    I generally stand on the "humans don't represent a dramatic impact in the weather patterns" side of the argument. Mainly because there is plenty of evidence that this is, in fact, cyclical. Two, because the two large components in the global warming debate are the two "hockey stick" graphs that have been mainly disproved (one has, anyway) and are both no longer recognized by the IPCC or the WMO or most other major weather authorities. Finally, three because plenty of scientific data show the carbon rise following the temperature rise... anyway, this is just random data I'm throwing off the top of my head.

    That said, I switched to CFL bulbs years ago, have driven a fairly low-emission vehicle for years, and have genuinely looked into private solar power. There are plenty of people on this side of the table who have done that same... the issue is not being more environmentally friendly, it's the cost at which we do it. There has been plenty of attempts to pull budgeting from what I believe is more important components of the national budget, such as homeland defense and veteran pensions. Naturally, the original terms of the Kyoto protocol would have hurt industry and forced much industry to pull production to India and China that were exempt from the bill. Unfortunately, not all things that push us towards environmental friendliness are cost-effective. The analogy is I like to make is that the global warming people are trying to fix a leak in the roof when there is still two walls that need to be put up. It's less of a question of "should be be environmentally friendly" than a question of "how far can we afford to be environmentally friendly."

    Just my two cents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daved View Post
    Consider reading it with an open mind and an assumption that the author is not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.
    Open-mind, sure... but I wouldn't ever suggest that someone assumes they aren't being screwed by someone. After all, I think an open-mind is one that considers the possibility that what they're being told is possibly untrue.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 02-17-2009 at 11:16 PM.
    Sent from my iPadŽ

  13. #13
    In my head happyclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    I generally stand on the "humans don't represent a dramatic impact in the weather patterns" side of the argument. Mainly because there is plenty of evidence that this is, in fact, cyclical.
    Historically, weather patterns(planet warming) have been cyclical, and will remain so if nature is left to run it's own course.

    But humans have been injected into the equation. This is a first instance of artificial emissions on this planet, so the impact has not cyclical.

    natural weather patterns(cyclical) + increasing artifical emissions(first instance) = ?

    An analogy is a perfectly balanced scale. Then a bird lands on one side, and tips the balance.

    Without an identically weighted bird on the other side(in our case, 100% reduction in what we emit(impossible)), the scale will tilt, but how much, and how fast?.

  14. #14
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by sean View Post
    I played with mercury as a kid. I'm fine.
    Yeah me too, I used to roll it around in my hand. I also used to eat after shooting guns (lead), ride my bike with no helmet (my first near death experience was from a bike accident), run with sharp sticks, tease the neighbors german shephard, jump the railroad tracks when a train was coming, go swimming after eating, wore white after labor day, enlist in the Army when Desert Storm was brewing, fax laser guided missile designs and uranium refinement techniques to arab embassies (yes part of the patriot act was written specifically for me), grow marijuana in my apartment, tell the FBI to go ........ themselves, turn down an offer you can't refuse, teach my computer to kill people, and ....

    I wrote an artificial intelligence to destabilize the world economy through distributed micro-transaction sequences. The butterfly effect FTL.

    Just wait for the big finale, its gonna be awesomely awesome
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  15. #15
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    And there is a conspiracy when one side says the debate is over when in science the debate is never over nor does a consensus mean anything. There is a conspiracy when language such as denier and believer are used for issues that are supposed to be scientific. That doesn't sound like science to me.
    There comes a point when meaningful debate is over, e.g.

    1. The Earth is Round vs The Earth is Flat
    2. Creation vs Evolution
    3. Hole Flow vs Electron Flow

    There will always remain a few 'true believers' that insist the debate is not over yet, simply because they refuse to accept that the debate is over but not in their favor.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21