So i rant about a lot of crap, one of which is how rigged agianst the commoner our economy is. Read my buddies plight about his crackberry going nuclear on him.
Now is the time to contact el prezidente and congress with your suggestions. Do it now!
Do it now! Scroll down to the zip code section. Tell Pres you want a victory garden at the White House!
While you're at it, here's a list:
Carbon Tax instead of crap and trade bullshit carbon ponzi credits to be sold to the highest bidder. Then who gets to be industrial, the ones who can get the credits!
Keep our health products healthy, Europe already has supplements that are useless.
health freedom.org
Stop giving money to banks, nuclear plants, "clean" coal, and highways that long haul trucks are just going to demolish again in 10 years. Build rail depots and then charge the long haul trucks for the amount of damage they actually cause to our interstate highways.
Having a garden for herbs, veggies and fruit is a great thing. Victory Gardens! It's getting popular in England again too. check out one of their little pieces of pop culture garden style.
Here's a little recycled wind turbine action
Oregon style! Wind turbines have a second life once they are re-furbished and put back on the range. Go recycled wind turbines!
Just a little something, thanks
Monday, January 26, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Railroad Solidarity
If you really want to see rail stay ahead of the game then write your senator and let them know you don't want any price controls for a few years at least, and then give them the idea i spoke of earlier about county owned, fed built regional freight depots that can handle (off load/on load )rail freight efficiently. This will give trains the opportunity to play their most efficient role in transportation logistics. Read an WSJ article here that exposes the fixed pricing agenda. Contact your congress reps here and be sure mention railroads' important role in increasing shipping efficiency by using less fuel and causing no harm on our federal highways system. Also remind them that train industry has to build it's own roads and will need to upgrade in coming years. A study by the Surface Transportation Board supports railroads' price increases, only 6% on average. Please do something to help our country, contact your representatives. Thanks
Saturday, January 3, 2009
How many geeks does it take?
Here is a little caveat; I speak here of geeks in the best possible ways, we need geeks to study how to get things done. I have a bit of geek in me and trust in data and analysis for most of my answers in life. Thanks you.
Recently a newspaper in London, The Independent asked the world's leading climate scientists whether we should prepare a 'Plan B' to curb the worst effects of global warming. The only one that really hit it on the nose follows, but other folks semi agreed with his theory.
Some actually posited that geo-engineering some "global cooling" scheme is a potential solution. Um, has anyone read up on the sobering news that our so called "global warming" has potentially staved off the next cycle of ice age? national geographic article
Here's an article about the sun spot theory relating to cooling cyles article 1
and another about the potential of de-salinization in regards to quick climate change. Sounds like a movie to me...
How about the effects of so called areosal seeding in the atpmosphere, it coulod worsen the scene. pan evaporation study analysis
Here again is the smart answer to the question posed by the Independent:
Kevin Trenberth, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Who makes the decision on behalf of all humanity and other residents of planet earth to change the climate deliberately?
Climate change is not necessarily bad. The climate has always varied to some degree, and changes have occurred over decades and millennia. Humans and other creatures have evolved and adapted to the changes, or perished. It is a part of evolution. Changes projected with increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may have some aspects that could be regarded as bad: increased heat waves and wild fires in summer, increased and more intense droughts, heavier rains and risk of flooding, stronger storms and hurricanes, decreases in air quality, increases in bugs and disease, and so on, are all likely threats. But in some areas climates improve, high latitude continents become more equable, growing seasons are longer, and so on.
There are winners and losers and it is possible to adapt to such changes – at least if the changes occur slowly enough to allow this to happen. In other words, a key issue is the rate of change, perhaps more so than the nature of the change? This obviously also depends of how long such changes continue for. In that sense, it is the "change" part of climate change that might be argued as being bad.
But given that there is no universal condemnation of the climate change, how can anyone justify deliberately acting to change the climate to benefit some group, and perhaps even a majority? It is argued here that the ethical questions arising from this loom so large that some forms of geo-engineering are simply unacceptable. The forms that are acceptable include those that reduce emissions and mitigate the rates of change, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Forms that propose to block the sun in some fashion, perhaps to emulate a volcanic eruption, change the hydrological cycle and weather patterns in ways that would be simply unacceptable, even if they were doable. The cost of any such proposals and their viability are other major issues, but, in my view, they are overwhelmed by the ethical considerations.
Look here for complete list of answers to this puzzling question good luck buttercup.
Recently a newspaper in London, The Independent asked the world's leading climate scientists whether we should prepare a 'Plan B' to curb the worst effects of global warming. The only one that really hit it on the nose follows, but other folks semi agreed with his theory.
Some actually posited that geo-engineering some "global cooling" scheme is a potential solution. Um, has anyone read up on the sobering news that our so called "global warming" has potentially staved off the next cycle of ice age? national geographic article
Here's an article about the sun spot theory relating to cooling cyles article 1
and another about the potential of de-salinization in regards to quick climate change. Sounds like a movie to me...
How about the effects of so called areosal seeding in the atpmosphere, it coulod worsen the scene. pan evaporation study analysis
Here again is the smart answer to the question posed by the Independent:
Kevin Trenberth, US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
Who makes the decision on behalf of all humanity and other residents of planet earth to change the climate deliberately?
Climate change is not necessarily bad. The climate has always varied to some degree, and changes have occurred over decades and millennia. Humans and other creatures have evolved and adapted to the changes, or perished. It is a part of evolution. Changes projected with increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may have some aspects that could be regarded as bad: increased heat waves and wild fires in summer, increased and more intense droughts, heavier rains and risk of flooding, stronger storms and hurricanes, decreases in air quality, increases in bugs and disease, and so on, are all likely threats. But in some areas climates improve, high latitude continents become more equable, growing seasons are longer, and so on.
There are winners and losers and it is possible to adapt to such changes – at least if the changes occur slowly enough to allow this to happen. In other words, a key issue is the rate of change, perhaps more so than the nature of the change? This obviously also depends of how long such changes continue for. In that sense, it is the "change" part of climate change that might be argued as being bad.
But given that there is no universal condemnation of the climate change, how can anyone justify deliberately acting to change the climate to benefit some group, and perhaps even a majority? It is argued here that the ethical questions arising from this loom so large that some forms of geo-engineering are simply unacceptable. The forms that are acceptable include those that reduce emissions and mitigate the rates of change, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Forms that propose to block the sun in some fashion, perhaps to emulate a volcanic eruption, change the hydrological cycle and weather patterns in ways that would be simply unacceptable, even if they were doable. The cost of any such proposals and their viability are other major issues, but, in my view, they are overwhelmed by the ethical considerations.
Look here for complete list of answers to this puzzling question good luck buttercup.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
