[jhowelb]

Read this,

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanieph...ing-scam.thtml

Best wishes,

Martin

Yeah, Martin! .....that "rag"! You know that tactic, don't you? If you don't like the message......KILL the messenger! Or at lest impale his character, and run down his family. And anyone who may have provide the pen or paper!

In the end it makes no difference what evidence you bring forward, you won't make a dent. It is pointless!

[xyzdonna]

Let's see: +2 points for the reasonable opening observations, -3 points for the obligatory shopworn insult at the closing and +1/2 point for the triple alliteration in said insult. Given your obsession with expressing contempt for the likes of me I won't bother answering the coherent opening portion to the likes of you. Good questions though.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Overall score of only a minus 1/2. I'm coming up in the world!
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Well I have been a goooood boy for a while and not posted. And the tone does not seem to have improved. Perhaps I was not the cause of all the nonsense. That is a relief.

Welcome back Geof,
You've been missed. jhowelb is running amuck again. BTW, what's your considered opinion of what this increase in CO2 from 284 to 384 ppmv would probably bring to the planet? I saw a thing on TV the other night and that atmosphere is loaded with CO2 and it's hot as hell on Venus.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[fizzissist]

I saw a thing on TV the other night and .......
xyzdonna

Did your thing on TV the other night explain why the polar ice caps on Mars are receding?? What about the signs of warming on other planetary moons?

[Mariss Freimanis]

Ever hear of the inverse square law? Venus is 67 million miles from the sun while we are 93 million miles away. 1 / (S1 / S2)^2 or, 1 / (67 X 10^6 / 93 X 10^6)^2 = 1.927. Venus gets nearly twice (1.927) the solar radiation the earth does. That may have a little to do with how Venus evolved as well, seeing as how the absence of liquid water couldn't fix carbon into carbonates.:-)

Mariss

[jhowelb]

David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
An election-season essay
by David Mamet
March 11th, 2008 12:00 AM

<snip>

I wrote a play about politics . And as part of the "writing process," as I believe it's called, I started thinking about politics. This comment is not actually as jejune as it might seem. Porgy and Bess is a buncha good songs but has nothing to do with race relations, which is the flag of convenience under which it sailed.

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

<snip>

The rest of the article in pdf.

[jhowelb]

Did your thing on TV the other night explain why the polar ice caps on Mars are receding?? What about the signs of warming on other planetary moons?

Anything that does not conform to the preferred conclusion is rejected, ignored and discarded!

[One of Many]

Well I have been a goooood boy for a while and not posted. And the tone does not seem to have improved. Perhaps I was not the cause of all the nonsense. That is a relief.

You are only part of the problem when you nitpick a posting for puritanical rectifications. Although those may be well intentioned in your view. The poster may not appreciate the rebuke. Other than that, you are harmless and very informative!

I think remaining a moderate, you can see both the good and bad of either side.

The pattern is still the same. Return of the uncivilized, brings out the incivility in defense.

DC

[jhowelb]

[

CENTER]U.S. Army to Turn Piles of Trash Into Power in Iraq
Wednesday, March 12, 2008[/CENTER]

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. —
The water bottles, plastic foam plates and other trash discarded by American troops in Iraq's mess halls may soon be serving double-duty — as an unlikely power source to illuminate barracks and power up laptops.

The Army is preparing to deploy to Iraq two 4-ton biomass refineries designed to turn piles of trash into electricity.

Each can run for 20 hours on a ton of trash, producing enough power to light a small village.

The novel machines were built by defense contractors and Purdue University scientists as part of the Army's push to reduce troops' diesel fuel use in Iraq, where convoys are frequently targeted by insurgents.

Army planners say cutting the fuel needs of the generators that power military encampments will mean fewer trips into harm's way for soldiers who drive tanker trucks. It will also free up more fuel for tanks, Humvees and other military equipment.

But first the machines, dubbed "tactical biorefineries" by the military, must perform well during their six-month test in a combat zone.

They'll face windblown dust and grit, 120-degree temperatures and the risk of breakdowns when they arrive in the Baghdad area in early May.

"We want to put them under those kinds of stresses and see how they do. We want commanders to say, 'This thing is really worth looking at,"' said Jerry Warner, CEO of chief contractor Defense Life Sciences LLC of McLean, Va.

In 2006, the Army commissioned Defense Life Sciences, Purdue biomass experts and three other companies to build a prototype refinery.

An updated version completed last year at a cost of about $1 million now sits in an unheated warehouse on Purdue's West Lafayette campus awaiting a final shakedown before deployment.

The same team is currently building the second unit.

Nate Mosier, an assistant professor of agricultural and biological engineering who is overseeing the work at Purdue, said the refineries are unique in their ability to burn multiple fuels at once. They're also portable, designed to fit snugly into a standard shipping container.

The trash-to-energy process begins when unfiltered garbage is fed into a chute, falling into a grinder that chews the trash into small pieces.

Organic food waste heads to a bioreactor where an industrial fermenting process produces ethanol. In another chamber, plastic, cardboard and other trash items are heated to create low-grade propane or methane.

Those gases and the ethanol are then combusted in the refinery's modified diesel engine, which powers a 60-kilowatt generator.

About 10 percent of the electricity the refineries produce are used for the machines' power needs, but the remaining 90 percent would be available for the troops.

Beyond the military applications, the refineries could provide temporary power after natural disasters. Mosier said they could be set up near hospitals or shelters to supply power and light, while feeding off the trash those locations produce.

If they work well, a fleet of them could be built and sent to Iraq, Afghanistan or other combat zones, said Dan Nolan, who works on a program overseen by the Office of the Secretary of Defense that's trying to reduce the military's use of fossil fuels.

"This is probably the most ambitious program we've done. We think there's a high probability of success. But until we put it out there, and into the operational vacuum, we won't really know," Nolan said.

But even if they do work, the refineries will only save the military a drop in its fuel bucket. Each of the refineries should save about 115 gallons of diesel fuel a day, Nolan said. The U.S. military brings 1.29 million gallons of fuel to Iraq each day.

Another effort to reduce fuel consumption is a 5-kilowatt hybrid electric power station being tested by a contractor in California. It uses a conventional generator paired with wind turbines, solar collectors and battery storage capacity.

The biomass refineries are the first portable refineries of their kind, said John Scahill, a project manager with the Department of Energy's field office in Golden, Colo., which works on biomass projects like those that are part of the refineries.

He said that if the demonstration in Iraq is a success, it could catch the eye of private investors looking for ways to hold down their costs amid rising energy prices.

"This type of technology is going to find many more opportunities," Scahill said. "Businesses that generate some biomass waste stream have the ability to take that and convert it into something useful."

And now the question, "will the 'Idiot in Chief' also get credit for something "good'?"

[xyzdonna]

Ever hear of the inverse square law? Venus is 67 million miles from the sun while we are 93 million miles away. 1 / (S1 / S2)^2 or, 1 / (67 X 10^6 / 93 X 10^6)^2 = 1.927. Venus gets nearly twice (1.927) the solar radiation the earth does. That may have a little to do with how Venus evolved as well, seeing as how the absence of liquid water couldn't fix carbon into carbonates.:-)

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Yep, knew about the inverse sq. law just didn't know that Venus was that much closer to the sun than the earth was. Point taken, but I'm sure the atmospheric CO2 helps trap more of the suns rays. That and the sulfuric acid in the clouds.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Did your thing on TV the other night explain why the polar ice caps on Mars are receding?? What about the signs of warming on other planetary moons?

Hi fizzissist,
No, this was just about Venus. I wonder what's up on Mars? They don't have much of an atmosphere there, why would the ice caps be receding?
Take care,
xyzdonna

[Mariss Freimanis]

One of Many,


I would have liked to be known as neither liberal, moderate or conservative. Rather, I would have preferred to keep my views private about those matters. That worked OK until the fulminating and vituperative XY burst upon the scene spewing political invective. It was XY who pointed out the error of my stance; nature abhors a vacuum so something always fills it and if you stay silent it implies you agree.

The endless robotic repetition of "idiot-in-chief" and other thoughtful liberal insights regarding conservatives has a purpose. Repetition, left unanswered, brings familiarity and eventually acceptance of what is being repeated. It is a common propaganda technique. If no one challenges it, good people look around and think they are alone with their unvoiced reservations. They eventually think maybe they are the ones out of step so they get with the program.

It baffled me why XY has such a dogged determination with the GW-algae-sludge thing. How does someone find the time to come up with 3 or more "personally researched" articles a day? It is baffling until you see the tie-in with the political insult thing. It is a complete package, religion and dogma. Since zealots tend to band together, I tend to believe XY gets some organized help with a directed purpose and goal.

What we get is an essentially dishonest exchange because what is represented is not what it actually is. If you think plucky little XY slaves all day by herself to come up with this stuff then I have a bridge I can sell you real cheap. Caveat emptor.

Mariss

[fizzissist]

Hi fizzissist,
No, this was just about Venus. I wonder what's up on Mars? They don't have much of an atmosphere there, why would the ice caps be receding?
Take care,
xyzdonna

Why would the ice caps on distant planets be receding??
Hmmmmmm....don't think it's SUVs, .....don't think it's coal plants.....don't think it's EvilBigOil......
....
Lemme think here for a minit....Oohhhh, Ooohhh...I know!!
It's something that Earth AND the other planets have in common!!

Naw....couldn't be the sun.

Would absolutely HAVE to be something that constitutes POINT ZERO THREE EIGHT PERCENT of our atmosphere, and only that portion that man contributes. Right?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Science isn't liberal. Science isn't conservative. Science isn't consensus either. Consensus is politics, consensus is religion.

[xyzdonna]

One of Many,


I would have liked to be known as neither liberal, moderate or conservative. Rather, I would have preferred to keep my views private about those matters. That worked OK until the fulminating and vituperative XY burst upon the scene spewing political invective. It was XY who pointed out the error of my stance; nature abhors a vacuum so something always fills it and if you stay silent it implies you agree.

The endless robotic repetition of "idiot-in-chief" and other thoughtful liberal insights regarding conservatives has a purpose. Repetition, left unanswered, brings familiarity and eventually acceptance of what is being repeated. It is a common propaganda technique. If no one challenges it, good people look around and think they are alone with their unvoiced reservations. They eventually think maybe they are the ones out of step so they get with the program.

It baffled me why XY has such a dogged determination with the GW-algae-sludge thing. How does someone find the time to come up with 3 or more "personally researched" articles a day? It is baffling until you see the tie-in with the political insult thing. It is a complete package, religion and dogma. Since zealots tend to band together, I tend to believe XY gets some organized help with a directed purpose and goal.

What we get is an essentially dishonest exchange because what is represented is not what it actually is. If you think plucky little XY slaves all day by herself to come up with this stuff then I have a bridge I can sell you real cheap. Caveat emptor.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
This cannot go unanswered, I have to address this.

Mariss: I would have liked to be known as neither liberal, moderate or conservative. Rather, I would have preferred to keep my views private about those matters. That worked OK until the fulminating and vituperative XY burst upon the scene spewing political invective. It was XY who pointed out the error of my stance; nature abhors a vacuum so something always fills it and if you stay silent it implies you agree.

Me: If you'll think back, that is quite correct, you hid your conservatism very well, so well that I was dumbfounded when I discovered that you were a conservative. Fulminating and vituperative? You forgot that you also called me an idiot. Would it surprise you that I would also agree with that characterization? I am a technological idiot. For instance, I would love to put those little emoticons in my dialog, but when I drag and drop, I end up with raw html, no emoticons. So perhaps the fulminating vituperativeness might not have been so bad if I could have made the little smiley faces work. For instance, I was surprised that you took me literally when I said that liberals relish separating the rich from their money. I was playing that for laughs, you actually believed it. Conservative paranoia I guess.

Mariss: The endless robotic repetition of "idiot-in-chief" and other thoughtful liberal insights regarding conservatives has a purpose. Repetition, left unanswered, brings familiarity and eventually acceptance of what is being repeated. It is a common propaganda technique. If no one challenges it, good people look around and think they are alone with their unvoiced reservations. They eventually think maybe they are the ones out of step so they get with the program.

Me: It may be that good people "look around and think they are alone" (insert little smiley face emoticon), but there aren't any good people on this discussion now are there? (insert another little smiley face emoticon) Look, what I actually mean is that there are no innocents here, everybody in this discussion is drop dead smart. IQ wise I'm probably the dumbest one here, as some of you have tried to point out. I'm holding a discussion with some really smart people, and that is what I like to do. That I'm holding my own is what I think you are a little unhappy about.

Mariss: It baffled me why XY has such a dogged determination with the GW-algae-sludge thing. How does someone find the time to come up with 3 or more "personally researched" articles a day? It is baffling until you see the tie-in with the political insult thing. It is a complete package, religion and dogma. Since zealots tend to band together, I tend to believe XY gets some organized help with a directed purpose and goal.

Me: Wrong! My friend John, remember, who I certified as a genius? He taught me how to do searches on the internet. I doesn't take long at all to find the articles, also I'm a speed reader, I go through them really fast. Secondly, I'm not spending a lot of time designing electronic circuits. I don't know how. No one is helping me, not even spouse. He says he's been very productive of late since ya'll have been baby sitting me. (insert yet another little smiley face emoticon)

Mariss: What we get is an essentially dishonest exchange because what is represented is not what it actually is. If you think plucky little XY slaves all day by herself to come up with this stuff then I have a bridge I can sell you real cheap. Caveat emptor.

Me: Don't anyone buy that bridge. The exchange is honest, it's just me, I promise. It doesn't take all day, far from it. I'm real good at research and amassing disparate facts into cohesive conclusions. I may not be all that smart, but some things I do really well.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[One of Many]

Why would the ice caps on distant planets be receding??
Hmmmmmm....don't think it's SUVs, .....don't think it's coal plants.....don't think it's EvilBigOil......
....
Lemme think here for a minit....Oohhhh, Ooohhh...I know!!
It's something that Earth AND the other planets have in common!!

Naw....couldn't be the sun.

Would absolutely HAVE to be something that constitutes POINT ZERO THREE EIGHT PERCENT of our atmosphere, and only that portion that man contributes. Right?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Science isn't liberal. Science isn't conservative. Science isn't consensus either. Consensus is politics, consensus is religion.

No, if you ask me, the question was another fabricated intentional blonde moment or short term memory loss. Kind of like a reporter I heard recently asking a mother; "How long have you known your child anyways?" Anyone that has done the slightest amount of research on global warming contributors would have known the Mars evidence by now. It has been mentioned here and several other threads, possibly the IPCC reports, blogs and several news articles.

There is no excuse for ignoring fairly old news with extraneous and subjective facts on either side of the conundrum. Once gazed upon, they can be vetted and cross checked to see how much water it holds without too much effort.

Moreover, the particulars in the character of the writer and their bias must also be taken into account....what you read, whom it comes from and how you comprehend what they have to offer, should not always be taken for granted, but kept in mind as pieces to the puzzle. Throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, may be the missing link to developing an informed conclusion.

What is puzzling is that there are many Biblical warnings on behaviors and the consequences that go with them, including the end to earth as we know it. These can be cast off as judgmental intrusive theological musings, but the strict moral code of fundamental environmentalisms must be followed lock step or doom will come. Not because they know, but because it's their faith in trustworthy prophets that says its so.

DC

[martinw]

Of course you've quoted this rag before Martin and it obviously has a conservative bias. :>)

xyzdonna

Dear Donna,

For a nanosecond I did not spot the gentle wind-up. LOL. No offence taken hereabouts.

Actually, the Spectator can hardly be accused of bias. It is a magazine that publishes articles . It does not pretend to report the NEWS (whatever that may be!!!!). It just publishes the opinions of those who send in articles, and meet with the editor's approval. Yes , lots are faintly "right-wing", but by no means all. Any reader knows they are getting opinions, and not news. I think that "bias" is unfair. OK, I'm splitting hairs...

Beautiful writing, and a pleasure to read, even if one disagrees.

Best wishes,

Martin

[xyzdonna]

Dear Donna,

For a nanosecond I did not spot the gentle wind-up. LOL. No offence taken hereabouts.

Actually, the Spectator can hardly be accused of bias. It is a magazine that publishes articles . It does not pretend to report the NEWS (whatever that may be!!!!). It just publishes the opinions of those who send in articles, and meet with the editor's approval. Yes , lots are faintly "right-wing", but by no means all. Any reader knows they are getting opinions, and not news. I think that "bias" is unfair. OK, I'm splitting hairs...

Beautiful writing, and a pleasure to read, even if one disagrees.

Best wishes,

Martin

Hi Martin,
Also, it is a pleasure to read your witticisms. I can't tell you how much I love the dry Brittish wit. So understated and to the point! Thanks for no offense taken, none intended. As always, I love your perspective.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Dear Donna,

For a nanosecond I did not spot the gentle wind-up. LOL. No offence taken hereabouts.

Actually, the Spectator can hardly be accused of bias. It is a magazine that publishes articles . It does not pretend to report the NEWS (whatever that may be!!!!). It just publishes the opinions of those who send in articles, and meet with the editor's approval. Yes , lots are faintly "right-wing", but by no means all. Any reader knows they are getting opinions, and not news. I think that "bias" is unfair. OK, I'm splitting hairs...

Beautiful writing, and a pleasure to read, even if one disagrees.

Best wishes,

Martin

The Spectator was founded and run for many years by that sweet Mr Buckley that she is so FOND of!!

[martinw]

The Spectator was founded and run for many years by that sweet Mr Buckley that she is so FOND of!!

Dear jhowelb,

Wires crossed here... You may well have a "rag" of the same name over on your side of the pond founded by Mr Buckley, but the one over here in the UK was founded in 1828 by Robert Stephen Rintoul.

Anyway, just to prove that I can be fallible also, here is what the UK rag said about its "bias". I just found it on their website...LOL

Guaranteed Biased Coverage
If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.

Best wishes,

Martin

[jhowelb]

Dear jhowelb,

Wires crossed here... You may well have a "rag" of the same name over on your side of the pond founded by Mr Buckley, but the one over here in the UK was founded in 1828 by Robert Stephen Rintoul.

Anyway, just to prove that I can be fallible also, here is what the UK rag said about its "bias". I just found it on their website...LOL

Guaranteed Biased Coverage
If you're looking for a balanced, objective view, you won't find it in The Spectator. The Magazine speaks from the heart to give voice to conviction and strong opinion. Our contributors - whether from the right or left - give you their views unfiltered and at cask strength. It's brilliant stuff, brilliantly written - but not to everyone's taste.

Best wishes,

Martin

http://www.spectator.org/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/

HEHE!