Moved to the Religion Thread...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So if the earth warms up, dont we get more rain? Doesnt CO 2 make plants grow ? And what happened to all those big storms we were supposed to get down south ? And where is my flying car we were all supposed to have by now?

---

You cannot believe both in science and evolution and the Bible. They are mutually exclusive.

Read "The human phenomenon" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest and paleontologist, finder of the "Peking Man".
Tullio

WOW ! What a profile ! So where is my flying car ?

---

You cannot believe both in science and evolution and the Bible. They are mutually exclusive.

This is untrue. While there is a philosophical question to be answered here, it all returns to epistemology.

Frankly, the reason I don't really discuss this stuff with Bill is that he seems to understand that there is a difference between "faith" and "reason." While I don't want to get into a discussion that belongs in the Religion thread, there is no problem with faith, per se. Most simply, faith is just an utterly unfounded belief that has no logical proof or experimental material evidence behind it.

Believe in Jeebus, The Mohammadinator, Crystal Skulls, Nessie, Niburu, Telekinesis, whatever you wish--they're all based on faith, nothing more. As long as one realizes that, there's no real problem

However, often those that profess to have faith, really don't. They seek actual physical evidence or proof--which is where the dichotomy comes in. Either you have faith, or you don't. If you actually have faith, you don't need proof, and your religious beliefs are pure. If you don't have faith, and you need actual proof, then you are denying your very beliefs. At some level you realize that the universe works a bit differently than you'd like, and you seek the proof to justify your belief.

But that ain't what (insert oh most blessed holy deity of choice here) commanded you to do. It told you to have faith, and by cracky you better do it, the (oh most blessed holy deity of choice) ordered you to.

Yeah, I noticed that he is difficult to reason with. But he was in the Navy, so you cant expect much. Crystal Skulls ? Humm

---

You cannot believe both in science and evolution and the Bible. They are mutually exclusive.

Read "The human phenomenon" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest and paleontologist, finder of the "Peking Man".
Tullio

WOW ! What a profile ! So where is my flying car ?

Don't know about flying cars. But you might read "The appearance of man", Collins, London,1965, to get an idea of the scientific work done by its author.
Tullio

---

And where is my flying car we were all supposed to have by now?

It is here http://www.moller.com/. It should be commercially available in about 1 year for about $100,000.00US. They are negotiating with the FAA about flight paths etc. now.

---

And where is my flying car we were all supposed to have by now?

It is here http://www.moller.com/. It should be commercially available in about 1 year for about $100,000.00US. They are negotiating with the FAA about flight paths etc. now.

Flight paths ? If I get a flying car I ain't gonna use no stinking flight paths !~ Humm Maybe I should think about this one...

---

And where is my flying car we were all supposed to have by now?

It is here http://www.moller.com/. It should be commercially available in about 1 year for about $100,000.00US. They are negotiating with the FAA about flight paths etc. now.

Flight paths ? If I get a flying car I ain't gonna use no stinking flight paths !~ Humm Maybe I should think about this one...

You'll have to settle for a jet pack instead.

---

Reality Internet Personality

And where is my flying car we were all supposed to have by now?

It is here http://www.moller.com/. It should be commercially available in about 1 year for about $100,000.00US. They are negotiating with the FAA about flight paths etc. now.

Flight paths ? If I get a flying car I ain't gonna use no stinking flight paths !~ Humm Maybe I should think about this one...

You'll have to settle for a jet pack instead.

I was just kinda thinking of about 20 weather ballons and a lawn chair. Oh, and 2 6-packs

---

There is money to be made out of Climate Change. Greenpeace have identified some opportunities as Israel takes "a significant step today towards becoming a solar-leader”;

February 21, 2007, Tel Aviv, Israel – Greenpeace welcomes the announcement today from the Ministry of Infrastructure that the proposed solar power plant in Eshalim, originally proposed in 2001, will finally be put out to tender to private contractors.

Greenpeace Mediterranean has led the campaign for renewable energy power plants to be constructed in the region. In 2005, the organization submitted a report to the Ministry of Infrastructure, which proved that the construction of solar power stations would generate a profit of NIS 810 million annually, would create 5,000 new jobs, and would turn Israel into a world leader in the export of renewable technology to help combat climate change. The decision today is a good first step in this direction.

“Greenpeace welcomes this positive announcement by the Ministry of Infrastructure, to finally build a first solar plant. Israel has taken a significant step forwards today in becoming a world leader in solar power,” said Nili Grossman, Greenpeace Mediterranean Energy Campaigner.
“Israel has immense potential to create a lucrative market in the export of renewable energy and free itself from its dependence on oil and coal.”

Concentrated Solar Thermal Power Plants can play an important part in the Middle East and on the Global level. The recently launched report:
‘Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook’, produced by Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), is a practical blueprint for how to cut global CO2 emissions by almost 50% by 2050, whilst providing a secure and affordable energy supply and, critically, maintaining steady worldwide economic development.

Notably, the plan takes into account rapid economic growth areas such as China, India and Africa, and highlights the economic advantages of the energy revolution scenario. It concludes that renewable energies will represent the backbone of the world’s economy. The energy blueprint for the Middle East concludes, that 36% of the region’s electricity needs in the year 2050 could be produced by solar thermal power plants, while on the global level 9% of the required electricity would be produced by this technology.

“The decision from the Israeli Government comes as the world is crying out for a plan on how to tackle the dilemma of how to provide the power we need, without fueling climate change,” said Sven Teske, Climate & Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace International. “We welcome this project and urge all Governments of the "sunbelt regions" to invest in solar thermal power stations."

---

flaming balloons

Australia planning to ditch inefficient incandescent bulbs
Fluorescent lights may trim emissions

By Rohan Sullivan
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 21, 2007

SYDNEY, Australia – The Australian government announced plans yesterday to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country.

Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Australia produced almost 565 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2004, official figures show.

Prime Minister John Howard said the plan would help all Australians play a part in cutting harmful gas emissions: “Here's something practical that everybody will participate in.”

In incandescent light bulbs, which Thomas A. Edison perfected for mass use in the late 19th century, electricity flows through a filament to create light.

Much of the energy, however, is wasted in the form of heat.

Australia is not the only place looking to replace the bulbs with fluorescent lighting, which is more efficient and lasts longer.

Last month, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, said he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state.

And New Jersey Republican lawmaker Larry Chatzidakis has called for his state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings within three years.

Cuba's Fidel Castro launched a similar program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle blackouts around the island.

The idea was later embraced by Castro's friend and ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who announced his own program to save energy and in recent months has given away millions of fluorescent bulbs in neighborhoods across Venezuela.

Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy-efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale.

Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.

Fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs but use only about 20 percent of the power to produce the same amount of light and last longer, making them more competitive over time, advocates argue.

Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan but noted that the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions comes from industry.

They urged the government to set national targets for emission reductions and renewable energy.

“It is a good, positive step. But it is a very small step. It needs to be followed through with a lot of different measures,” Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Josh Meadows told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.

Howard has become a global warming convert, conceding in recent months that human activity is contributing to a rise in temperatures.

But he has steadfastly refused to bring Australia into line with most of the world and ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas reductions, arguing that doing so could damage Australia's coal-dependent economy.

---

me@rescam.org

Australia planning to ditch inefficient incandescent bulbs
Fluorescent lights may trim emissions

By Rohan Sullivan
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 21, 2007

The only problem I have with the fluorescent lights is that they all have mercury in them. Individually there is only a small amount of mercury in each tube, but if nearly all lamps use the fluorescent tubes we will need to have HASMAT disposal stations for all of the fluorescent tubes as they wear out because millions of small amounts add up. You do not want something that toxic getting into your ground water.

Australia planning to ditch inefficient incandescent bulbs
Fluorescent lights may trim emissions

By Rohan Sullivan
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 21, 2007

The only problem I have with the fluorescent lights is that they all have mercury in them. Individually there is only a small amount of mercury in each tube, but if nearly all lamps use the fluorescent tubes we will need to have HASMAT disposal stations for all of the fluorescent tubes as they wear out because millions of small amounts add up. You do not want something that toxic getting into your ground water.

I made this same observation awhile back, but the answer was that there is
just a very small amount of mercury in each bulb. But as observed, there are
millions of them disposed of each year, and guess where they all go...the land fills. Fluorescent lights are nothing new, but we'll be seeing more of them. No amount of mercury is good for any living creature, just like radiation, it builds up over time, either the effects or the concentration...not good.

---

Account frozen...

Humans' Beef With Livestock: A Warmer Planet

American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

Brad Knickerbocker
Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday, February 20, 2007

As Congress begins to tackle the causes and cures of global warming, the action focuses on gas-guzzling vehicles and coal-fired power plants, not on lowly bovines.

Yet livestock are a major emitter of greenhouse gases that cause climate change. And as meat becomes a growing mainstay of human diet around the world, changing what we eat may prove as hard as changing what we drive.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation.

The latter two gases are particularly troubling – even though they represent far smaller concentrations in atmosphere than CO2, which remains the main global warming culprit. But methane has 23 times the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2 and nitrous oxide has 296 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide.

Methane could become a greater problem if the permafrost in northern latitudes thaws with increasing temperatures, releasing the gas now trapped below decaying vegetation. What's more certain is that emissions of these gases can spike as humans consume more livestock products.

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year.

"It doesn't have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan," says Dr. Eshel, whose family raised beef cattle in Israel. "If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you've already made a substantial difference."

And they cost a Kazillion dollars each

---

Humans' Beef With Livestock: A Warmer Planet

[I]American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

Brad Knickerbocker

And as we all know, Americans are the only beef eaters on the planet.

Humans' Beef With Livestock: A Warmer Planet

[I]American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

Brad Knickerbocker

And as we all know, Americans are the only beef eaters on the planet.

And possums, squirrels, and racoons.

---

Humans' Beef With Livestock: A Warmer Planet

[I]American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.

Brad Knickerbocker

And as we all know, Americans are the only beef eaters on the planet.

And possums, squirrels, and racoons.

...and what about Jeffery Dahlmer?

---

Account frozen...

squirrels???? What about Atomic Red????

squirrels???? What about Atomic Red????

Because his name is Atomic, as soon as he is depleted we are going to have to put him in a proper container and store him in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Facility. Sorry Red, but our hands are tied.