npts2020

There are insane individuals throughout the world. Nowhere has a monopoly on them.

""What differentiates man from other animals is perhaps feeling rather than reason. I have seen a cat reason more often than laugh or weep. Perhaps it laughs or weeps within itself-but then perhaps within itself a crab solves equations of the second degree." Miguel De Unamuno

Obviously that issue won't be solved by technology. Technology has already solved it, only narrowly defined self interest of a relative few keep the issue from being resolved, hence my disappointment in progress. Also I am not sure what you mean by "green technology propaganda" but nobody has yet sustained a continuous fusion reaction at a level useful for power generation so building generation facilities seem like a few years away at best.

May I cherish even if I don't fully grok? Where is Mr. Valentine?

"Ants are so much like human beings as to be an embarrassment. They farm fungi, raise aphids as livestock, capture slaves, launch armies into war, engage in child labor, exchange information ceaselessly. They do everything but watch television." Lewis Thomas; American doctor, poet and science writer

Jackson33; I fully understand the reasons of most nonbelievers of the "global warming is an urgent problem" doctrine for doing so and it seems sometimes like the only way we ever know for sure is when has happened. The problem is that when you oppose "spending gadzillions of dollars" on that account, you pretty much rule out doing basically the same things for probably much more quantifiable reasons, like; our trade deficit which will make it increasingly untenable to do any real modernization, coal is dirty despite the notion of "clean coal", nearly the whole national road system is in need of repairs or expansion (not to mention 40,000 deaths, millions of injuries and hundreds of billions of dollars in property damage on them), tens of millions of unemployed people who could be employed doing modernizing work, our electric production and distribution systems are little better than they were when Thomas Edison first fired up his power plant on Pearl street in 1882, we need to manage water better, the petrodollar is what has kept our economy afloat (what happens when oil traders switch to another currency because of a weak dollar?), we are supposedly the only superpower in the world and ought to lead by example, and I am sure I could come up with more. I could also expand on any of these reasons as well but am not trying to write a book with this post. Suffice it to say that we are not going to change each other's minds soon about global warming but I am curious as to what kind of numbers you think it would be worth spending on any or all of the above, most of which would be addressed by a massive changeover of infrastructure, some now in private hands?

I am with Genecks and Bascule on the transportation front. It seems like a system that has 40,000 deaths and $200 billion+ every year in America would be worth a little attention, especially since we now have the technology to actually do something about it. The other thing that is disappointing to me is the lack of progress on making warfare between nations and/or societies and the profiteers associated with it obsolete.

The bringing of the world on the back of a turtle is a part of South Sea (Polynesian?) mythology, I merely embellished a little with the turtle soup.

Jackson33; I am likely to be one of those people you refer to wanting to change society because of my advocacy for bringing our transportation system into the 21st century by automating it and using wind and solar energy to power the whole thing. In addition, I advocate stringing a new power grid and other utilities in the same system. Global climate change is only one of the many good reasons to do this and is only briefly mentioned and never given serious discussion in the tens of thousands of words I have written when presenting arguments in favor of my projects. I have never been shy about admitting that all of this requires a "political agenda" but saying things like that gets us no closer to the right or wrong way of thinking about any given topic. My biggest questions to those who think that spending any money to try preventing climate change is a waste are; What is the worst thing that can happen if they are right and it just ends up being an expensive insurance policy? and What is the worst thing that can happen if they are wrong and the worst climate change scenarios end up actually playing out? and Which one is worse?

All of that seems plausible to me but that is still a long way from actually being possible.

Of course they speak in likelihoods and probabilities, human nature is being talked about. Two humans will frequently do opposite things when presented identical situations. That makes any statement like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" patently false because it only applies generally and not in every case. The authors, in fact, talk about exceptions to the rule where the perception of not having or being deserving of power acts as a restraint but I see nowhere that this is claimed to be the only factor. Perhaps my reading comprehension is faulty but I could not see the "proof" for such a broad, all-encompassing statement. The greater factor IMHO is that it is far easier to obtain power by being corrupt and corrupt individuals are usually the ones to seek it.

This article simply states the obvious; that power can corrupt and that the greater the power the greater the corruption. However, it comes nowhere near stating this as an absolute, in fact, it doesn't even try to quantify much other than to say this or that is more likely to occur. If we assume that corruption=hypocrisy, as is done in this article, then it can be overcome in an open and democratic society, if it is unacceptable to the populace. Even if the statement about corruption from power applies to a substantial majority of people, an observant public can keep those who are not corrupted in power. Now all we need to do is find somewhere that has an open and democratic society with an observant public.

Jackson33; One thing you have mentioned at least twice now that nobody seems to have addressed is that humans grow plants for their own use and you claim that it helps sequester CO2, which is true. However, nearly anywhere we grow plants for our own use there would be some growing there anyway, without any human input. Unless you are claiming that the plants we grow for agriculture are better at sequestering CO2 than the ones that would grow there naturally, there should be little difference. I don't think I am going too far out on a limb to say if there is a difference, it should be the other way around. Plants that grow naturally are rarely killed by harvesting or other cause before they die naturally after a full life cycle. I will look for the source but IIRC agricultural land is rarely as efficient a CO2 sink as it would be if left fallow. Sorry if it seems like I am "piling on" but I think this point is important Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA recent reference for what I am talking about.

I can't believe any list of the past decade doesn't have something about computers or nanotechnology.

Water vapor from burning hydrogen is easily condensed.

Maybe we could trade for some good drugs.

Two points. Firstly, in most places you don't even have to have an ID to register to vote. It can be done by mail. Secondly, is that it would be surprising if ACORN did not register predominately Democrats, considering the areas and demographic groups targeted for registration

Thanks for the links iNow, definitely some fat to chew on. Seems like there are so many CFR's is because somebody already tried something like what I suggested above.

Doggonit, always someone a step ahead of me. The point of that outburst was exactly what constitutes having coverage? Can I get a plan that costs a small fraction of whatever penalty is going to be imposed, even if it is crappy and won't really cover anything or is there some minimum standard?

Nationalized health care would solve the problem of tort reform since any medical expenses from a resulting injury will already be covered. As for the percentages, take whatever figure you are using and divide it into the $2 trillion we spend every year on health care (let me know what your result is). This $2 trillion figure is more than double what any other nation on Earth spends per capita. All that money for a system that ranks near the bottom of the developed world by any measure you care to use. iNow; Thanks for the graph & info in post #54. Let me know when your premiums start going down.

I wonder if the same thing was done to lawyers or accountants in this country, how many of them would be giving confidential advice to their clients to get around the law by questionable means as well?

Also global warming lags behind the carbon dioxide increases.

If you don't use a liquid similar in viscosity to water, how are you going to get it to flow back together when the laser burns a hole through it? How much added weight to the missile are you going to have? Even if you could find your magical substance, it seems highly unlikely to me that it could be used in the manner you are proposing because of weight and aerodynamic considerations.

Cheer up, there are only 24 Greek letters.

C'mon now, since when do we ever let facts get in the way of a good lynchin'?