Hard News: A voice of reason and authority
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
OUR part in HUMAN-induced global warming?
back atcha, badger.. -
Yes.
And this non-conversation is now ended. -
Yes.
And this non-conversation is now ended.so read your mail Islander. It's exciting. :)
-
back atcha, badger..
Sometimes a little P is not enough.
-
Amanita muscaria! And badgers! And - o goodness! I've just had a peek!
-
That's actually kind of debatable; they may have evolved photosynthesis as late as just before we see the transition to an O2 atmosphere in the geological record, rather than having been around for two billion years. Regardless, they're responsible for some ridiculous proportion of photosynthetic production today, besides having several times the mass of our entire species. I'd say they still have that crown.
On the other hand, from memory, in terms of energy usage, we utterly pwn everything else.
-
3410,
Badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers!
-
WE have badgers of authority, yes we do, bedda believe it, yessiree.
-
authoritay and futurama ...retires for a goodall 'Mercan 'toon fix...
-
But the government's latest statement adds to signs that some specific emissions goals may be included in the country's next five-year development plan starting from 2011.
Better be careful linking to a five year plan round here Cindy, the self appointed NZ minister of education might start calling you a racist.
-
careful linking to a five year plan round here
Aye :)
-
Surely a fossil-carbon tax used to subsidise the construction of alternative infrastructure (which all had to compete on it's own merits from then on) was the way to go?
Sure, you want to fiddle with the methane and other emissions if someone can figure out an equitable way of distributing the costs without burdensome red tape, and probably just ban plasma screen TVs, but the problem is fossil fuels, and there are workable alternatives.
Yes, they end up using precious water and arable land, but so does doing nothing, and the increased cost results in real and rapid reductions that trade systems can't manage.
Cap and trade's a joke, a political game to save the entrenched positions of polluters from extinction, but the alternative isn't to do nothing. You make the problem pay for the solution right now, and the economy settles at whatever the new balance point will be: more public transport, trains, and coastal shipping, less SUVs and new motorways. Duh.
-
So slight diversion, an Otago psychologist, David O'Hare, ripped into the govt's cellphone ban exclusion on hands free headsets.
"Why do we do research? I mean, there's 15 or 20 years of science that show that the problem with cellphones is the conversation."
This from a guy who pulls in millions of dollars from NASA to study pilot decision making, and strategies to prevent errors. -
O shit. O dear.
In the face of that kind of statement, I cant even be lucid- -
Another quick gw link.
http://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/nevil-gibson/no-worries-climate-change-debate-goes-nowhere-fast
There are 3 separate issues to consider, is agw true? If agw is true will it lead to the dooms day scenarios some predict? And lastly regardless of your views on the first 2 questions, is any kind of collective action going to happen to address agw by reducing co2 emissions?
A year ago I would have said that the chances of a cap and trade type scheme coming into reality in the US and in a lot of countries were quite high, even without China's participation (whether it would be effective is another question entirely).
What a difference a year and global financial meltdown makes. I think one thing we can say for sure is that we will find out whether the agw and its negative consequences theories are true because cap and trade/emt et al is dead and mankind is going to keep putting bucket loads of CO2 into the atmosphere for as long as any of us are around and for a long time after that.
Not exactly being a believer in the religion of agw, that prospect doesn't concern me in the least. What does concern me is the crap that coal fired anything puts into the atmosphere: particulate matter, SOx, NOx, various heavy metals such as Mercury etc. To me the greatest need is for scrubbing technology to reduce these emissions at the thousands of coal fired plants around the world and especially in China and India. Improved coal emissions cleaning technology would make a real difference to the environment. The sooner we can get over this agw bs circle jerk, the sooner we can spend resources on real problems.
Danielle, thank you for your question on the healthcare debate over here. I am short of time right now but will write a post to answer your question. Very short take is that the system over here needs reform, just not most of the ideas that are on the table at the moment from the Dems. The last thing healthcare over here needs is more direct govt involvement with a public option, there are very good and viable ways of helping those who need med insurance but can’t afford it without actual govt involvement in the marketplace.
Regardless of one’s position on the content of the debate, Obama has fucked it up spectacularly. Letting the House write a bill? Is he crazy? Pelosi et al made a dogs’ breakfast of the Stimulus bill and he wanted a repeat performance on healthcare, his signature issue, his number one priority? It is nuts, it could never have a good result. He should have his own program that he can explain in a compelling fashion to the public and work with the House and Senate to write the final bill along the lines he laid out. Obama is really showing the fact that he is a person with no substantial accomplishments and achievements in his career to date (except winning elections, which is a means to an end, not the end in itself). Perhaps he needs to change his name to Obumbler, not Obama. If he screws up healtcare, which he is well on the way to doing, his credibility, and therefore his ability to get anything done, will be greatly reduced.
-
the China-bashing was a specific campaign by Bush, Howard and the oil industry who, as the climate science began to firm up considerably in the late 90's, began pointing the finger at China as the [future] problem [and ignoring historical emissions].
Very true, and not only is China on board, it increasingly owns the ship
If green energy is the new industrial revolution, Beijing will be grabbing many of the jobs of tomorrow. That will likely hasten the day when China becomes the world’s No. 1 economic power.
“China sees [green technology] as an enormous market that is not claimed or controlled by any one nation, and there is an opportunity for them to do it,” says Carberry. “The combination of urgency; the enormous needs; a focused, systematic planned government; an army of engineers; and access to capital may define China as the platform for the green- technology industry globally.”
-
the China-bashing was a specific campaign by Bush, Howard and the oil industry who, as the climate science began to firm up considerably in the late 90's, began pointing the finger at China as the [future] problem [and ignoring historical emissions].
Of course, it had to be the evilchimpybushhitler's fault, everything is isn't it? How about considering the fact that China is now the world's largest emitter of CO2? Maybe, just maybe that is a relevant fact to discussion around any cap and trade or emt scheme meant to save us all from impending doom.
Interesting article on China's energy related activities. Good for China for working on clean coal and coal gasification technologies, these technologies will make a real and very positive difference to the world as opposed to the Kyoto and Copenhagen circle jerks.
Wind and solar generation will never be as big as so many people seem to think (never more than single digits of energy produced) due to inconsistency and energy density. Sometimes the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine so you can't rely on it for base load use, and wind and solar energy is very diffuse, meaning it takes massive amounts of wind and solar generators to generate much power.
Wind and solar are bit of a great leap backwards anyway. Mankind's progress has been achieved by riding the increased energy density curve. Simply put that means that coal has more energy per unit than wood. Oil has more energy per unit that coal and nuclear has much more energy per unit that oil. As far as mobility is concerned, coal (steam engines) has more energy per unit that carbohydrates (grass and hay consumed by horses) and oil (cars truck and planes) has more energy per unit than coal. So expecting very diffuse wind and solar to be transformational in any way is a pipe dream. A useful addition, but that is as far as it goes.
Plug in hybrids will be a big deal (charged by coal burning power stations, which brings us back to clean coal tech again) but the biggest positive technological change for the environment and our lives will be safe small local nuclear power stations, if the environmentalists let it happen!!
A couple of very interesting books on energy that are well worth a read:
-
One more point on so called "green tech" jobs that are going to be so wonderful. A study in Spain found that for every one "green job" created, 2.2 other jobs were destroyed. Maybe not after all.
Important to sort out the bs from reality.
-
The last thing healthcare over here needs is more direct govt involvement with a public option, there are very good and viable ways of helping those who need med insurance but can’t afford it without actual govt involvement in the marketplace.
The framing of the debate in this country is literally sickening.
They don't need "med insurance". They need HEALTH CARE. Med insurance is just a mechanism - a failed, expensive[*], disgusting mechanism - for possibly achieving health care if you're lucky enough.
[*] Some numbers, for those back in the old country: my health insurance costs somewhat north of 7k/year. It imposes copays on absolutely everything, at varying rates. For one example, my ongoing prescription costs $300-350/month, of which my copay is $40. New Zealand, via Pharmac, pays a bit over $53 all up for the same thing. (All prices in USD). This is Blue Cross/Blue Shield, mind - it insures an order of magnitude more people than the population of New Zealand. Private companies are more efficient? Pfft.Nonetheless, you'd better believe that I am one of the lucky ones. Until I get sick and my insurance company boots me, anyway.
-
Oh, and you know how in NZ having lots of prescription costs in one year means you qualify for a special lower rate? In the US, it means that you exhaust your "prescription drug benefit" and have to pay the full price for everything until the end of the financial year.
-
Cell-phone use by drivers -
So slight diversion, an Otago psychologist, David O'Hare, ripped into the govt's cellphone ban exclusion on hands free headsets.
"Why do we do research? I mean, there's 15 or 20 years of science that show that the problem with cellphones is the conversation."Only a diversion back on-topic. Prof. O'Hare's classic piece of binary thinking "Either you are going to pay attention to what the science shows you or you are not" is an excellent illustration of Gluckman's emphasis that the scientists' role is to do good science and make it known, to inform policy, not to make policy.
A ban on use of hands-free cell-phones while driving would be about as enforceable as a ban on thinking of sex while driving.
-
"Why do we do research? I mean, there's 15 or 20 years of science that show that the problem with cellphones is the conversation."
This from a guy who pulls in millions of dollars from NASA to study pilot decision making, and strategies to prevent errors.So why doesn't Professor O'Hare resign from academia, enter Parliament and get in a position where he can directly influence government policy and legislation? Scientists aren't exactly an occupational group that is grossly over-represented in the legislature.
I also hope he's already drafting his submission to the relevant piece of legislation.
-
Med insurance is just a mechanism - a failed, expensive[*], disgusting mechanism - for possibly achieving health care if you're lucky enough.
The cost of which has nearly doubled since 2001, and will double again in the next ten years, while incomes have remained stagnant.
-
The last thing healthcare over here needs is more direct govt involvement with a public option, there are very good and viable ways of helping those who need med insurance but can’t afford it without actual govt involvement in the marketplace.
Really? You're from New Zealand, with universal healthcare, based on 'government involvement', and it's a cheaper better system by every measure, like all universal healthcare systems in western countries compared to the USA, and... that's your answer.
Oh come *on*, James! Give me a glimmer of something non-talking-pointy! Prove to me you aren't a pod person! Just once! :)
-
The cost of which has nearly doubled since 2001, and will double again in the next ten years, while incomes have remained stagnant.
I forgot to say: the worst statistic I've read during this whole debacle is that of the million people per year in the USA who go bankrupt because of huge medical bills, seven out of ten of them *already had health insurance*. GAH!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.