toastywombel

Very good points, I was just trying to get across the point that it is not too expensive. Maybe we are just screwed as far as energy goes.

First, When I mentioned that a engine designed around using salt-water could be devised, I was in no way inferring that it should be a perpetual-motion device, so I do not know where you got that from. I am aware that electricity that goes into electric cars, and the energy to extract hydrogen for hydrogen fuel-cell cars would require power plants. However, you are assuming that it would have to be done by coal power-plants. If we did not use coal power-plants that would be a non-issue. So lets go to the power plant issue: "Better get your environmentalist buddies to stop blocking them, then." I actually do not have any buddies who are environmentalists attempting to block wind-farms. Furthermore, that seems like somewhat of a personal attack and a rather unnecessary comment. Please do not make assumptions about my personal life, and I wont make assumptions about yours thank you . "They kill birds." This is a very weak argument, So do planes, and windows on tall buildings. "They also eat money. Power from windmills cost considerably more than that from nuclear plants, which in turn costs more than power using existing hydrocarbon technologies." Really now, I would like you to prove that statement you just made. "Maybe, but once again, this is completely unproven technology at the scope needed to replace our existing power plant base. And like batteries, these are a pile of toxic waste." On the contrary, I live in New Mexico, we have solar panels on our home and we actually sell some of our electricity back to the electric company. Also we can attempt to contain waste created by batteries and nuclear waste, there is no viable way of containing the toxins and CO2 released by coal factories. You are absolutely correct on nuclear power though, it is very expensive and it is a heavy task to build a nuclear power-plant. It costs 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars to construct a nuclear power-plant. One nuclear power plant could generate around 1 million kilowatts, a typical house uses around 10 kilowatts of power at any given time. That means a nuclear power-plant could generate around 100,000 houses. According to census.gov there are 105,842,000 household in the United States. So if we build 1,059 nuclear power plants, at the cost of 500,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 dollars that would cost us somewhere around $529,500,000,000 to $1,059,000,000,000. Interestingly enough the cost of the Targeted Asset Relief Program falls within that range quite nicely doesn't it? So we can afford to give money out through TARP, money that has not been tracked nearly at all, and cannot really be accounted for. BUT! We cannot afford to invest the same amount of money to build nuclear power-plants in our country? Furthermore, imagine the amount of jobs that would be created by a project like that. So I will accept that building nuclear power-plants would be expensive, but so expensive we could not pay for it, I don't think so. Sources: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071209213547AA11On3 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#electricity_use_home http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp#nuclear_generation

I did a little resizing and I liked it more so here is the slightly revised version: Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Sorry, I am not quite sure of what you just said.

Here is a little something I made on gimp. . .

I am glad to provide you with some free laughs . Hope you enjoyed the blog, yeah CTD (the author of that thread) ended up getting banned so no more of him.

Great thread, I will try to view look at all of them.

I wasn't harping, in-fact, I think the progression of topics have progressed quite well in our short discussion. 1st: I asked if you believe in global warming, you said you don't believe in global warming and that "believe" is a word that belongs in the realm of religion 2nd: I was pointing out that the word believe is not a word that belongs simply in the realm of religion and has many uses, and I posed the question again. Then you reverted me back to your previous posts. 3rd: You stated that you do not believe that CO2 has a big effect on the climate and that the emails were did not help the environmentalist cause. Then you stated that an 80% reduction is an extraordinary claim. I, then attempted to explain why the amount of CO2 we release effects the climate and that it causes a build up. I also tried to explain that reducing our CO2 emissions would not be an impossible task because it seemed to me you were implying that it was. I also put in parenthesis after the video link that I saw that this had been posted before. I added that in an edit at 6:48, you may have already been in the process of replying to that before the edit though. I don't mean to be harping I am just trying to reason with you about the effects of CO2 on our climate. I was also just trying to point out that the emails really should have no effect one whether you believe in global warming. Scientific studies, research, and peer-reviewed papers on the subject should be the determining factor on whether CO2 effects the climate. And the vast majority of studies in this field say for the most part that CO2 emissions have, do, and will effect our climate. Hope this cleared up the mis-understanding and I wont harp any more on the "CO2 emissions effecting our climate" topic.

Well I explained why the amount of CO2 we release is just enough to tip the scale, as opposed to more CO2 being absorbed than emitted now more CO2 is emitted than absorbed. That is why that small amount of CO2 we emit effects the climate. Also the emails don't really show anything about mass fraud or anything to that nature, it was blown out of proportion. I suggest you watch this . (just noticed that this video has already been posted) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFurthermore, reducing our CO2 by 80% is a very do-able process over a 10-15 year time-span. The internal-combustion engine can be replaced by hydrogen-cell, electric, As for other energy needs such as home/office needs: wind-mills, solar panels (on-homes, and solar farms), and nuclear power-plants can all take the place of coal power-plants, which over half of our electricity comes from (in the United States). Also these energy sources, once the infrastructure was put in, would be much cheaper than drilling for oil and mining for coal. With exception to nuclear power-plants of-course which are very expensive, but even with nuclear power-plants it is possible to recycle the uranium, France does it right now. You cannot recycle coal as far as I know, and you cannot recycle gasoline or oil.

Well thank you clarifying that for me insane_alien. I really had no idea what white gold powder was, when sha31 mentioned it. Also when I mentioned that the super-heavy element discovered maybe the philosopher's stone I was just joking, I hope you know. Sha31 seemed to believe I actually was being serious and hoping it was the philosopher's stone and so I guess he cited the white gold powder as being the philosopher's stone. Now that you clarified it and I read the posts swansont linked it does seem like hooey. And the rare-earth metals thing is ridiculous, if what that person says claims to be true was, I don't think it would be possible to grow anything in any soil.

Maybe you are un-aware of this, but the philosopher's stone is suppose to be a substance that turns any base metals it touches (mainly referring to lead) it touches into gold. It is not white powder gold. Hope I helped clear up your misunderstanding .

thank you, I was wondering if anyone would notice:eyebrow:

I did read the other post but then again i say your assumption that beliefs refer to the realm of religion is incorrect. Furthermore, lets break down how much CO2 is in the earth's atmosphere. According to wikipedia, Earth's atmosphere is made up of 5,000,000 gigatonnes of gasses, aerosols and other chemicals. About 0.04% of that is CO2. This means that 2000 gigatonnes of CO2 is currently in the Earth's atmosphere. Of that 2000 gigatonnes 95% is created by natural causes. However, there is a natural balance of CO2 emitted every year, there is also a natural absorption process of CO2 every year. The emission of the 27 gigatonnes of CO2 that is emitted every year by humans through artificial means, tips the balance of CO2 emission to CO2 absorption in favor of CO2 emission. This means about 10 gigatonnes of CO2 is emitted every year that will not be absorbed, which was not the case before the mid-1800's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Beliefs are not part of the realm of religion, it is a rather simple word. Believe: -accept as true; take to be true; accept as being an accurate description of real events; "I believed his report"; "We didn't believe his stories from the War"; "She believes in spirits" -think: judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior" -be confident about something; "I believe that he will come back from the war" -follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer; "When you hear his sermons, you will be able to believe, too" -credit with veracity; "You cannot believe this man"; "Should we believe a publication like the National Enquirer?" It describes to believe is to accept as true, or as accepting something to be an accurate description of real events. Hopefully I cleared up your misunderstanding on the definition of the word believe. So I revert to the original question I asked you. Do you believe in the idea of Global Warming? Global Warming, referring to the mass release of CO2 into the atmosphere being the major factor contributing to the current warming trend of the Earth's climate.

DH do you not believe in global warming?

I am wondering if the recent Russian Missile tests are a response to the United States' recent agreements with Poland to station Patriot Missiles in Polish territory.

Theory- -a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. -hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a -scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" (notice: hypothesis is included on the google definition of theory) Hypothesis- -a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations -a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory" I agree Bignose that it is important to define words accurately however, the difference between hypothesis and theory is simply the fact that a theory has been tested and has held up through testing. This is an important difference, but to point that out in this thread is very distracting from the original topic. Furthermore, according to the above definition should we refer to "string theory" as the "string hypothesis" from now on because it has never been tested? Of course not, it would be audaciously ridiculous. It is quite easy for the reader to understand what the initial post is about without he/she having to pick apart the semantics, such as whether it is a hypothesis or a theory. I think it is time to bring focus back to the op. You can debate whether this should be a theory or hypothesis in a different post perhaps, instead we should provide insight and constructive thought into the Gravitation and Electromagnetism: THEORY OF INFORMATONS by Antoine Acke.

I wonder if they have a football team? Looks like a nice campus though <laughs>, this is a picture from 2006. You have to give them credit though, if Jesus had build a university during his time, minus the power-lines, this is probably what it would have looked like.

The Magical Mystery Model?

I want to go to Disney World! Just joshin' ya. But congratulations, do well, do good.

The pea plant is one of the fastest germinating plants.

To find out what are the nastiest chemicals I think it would be important for everyone to have a sound definition of nastiness nasty- offensive or even (of persons) malicious; "in a nasty mood"; "a nasty accident"; "a nasty shock"; "a nasty smell"; "a nasty trick to pull"; "Will ... exasperatingly difficult to handle or circumvent; "a nasty problem"; "a good man to have on your side in a tight situation" cruddy: characterized by obscenity; "had a filthy mouth"; "foul language"; "smutty jokes" filthy: disgustingly dirty; filled or smeared with offensive matter; "as filthy as a pigsty"; "a foul pond"; "a nasty pigsty of a room" filth: a state characterized by foul or disgusting dirt and refuse cattiness: malevolence by virtue of being malicious or spiteful or nasty the quality of being unpleasant; "I flinched at the nastiness of his wound" This is a rather fun post, but I think nasty is a rather opinionated term to judge chemicals by. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere are some other nasty chemicals you might want to consider, some of these might have been previously listed. -cadaverene -putrescene -thioglycolic acid -VX gas -botulinum -dihydrogen monoxide

Does anyone know of any?

I think we can all agree that Hovind is wrong and that evolution is a sound theory? Again?

No problem, just glad I helped. And your right! I actually planned for you to become offended, most people do when others try to help clarify things for them but your maturity and opened mindedness surprised me and is quite refreshing. PS: reputations points are always appreciated