Starship Asterisk*

Chris Peterson wrote:... The point being, extinctions happen when species are stressed, and it can be very difficult to point to any one stress and call that the "cause". Certainly this fungus seems to be the most important threat to many amphibian species, but that doesn't mean other man made problems aren't also contributing.

The fact is, many species are at risk today- we appear to be undergoing a mass extinction process on a scale as large as ever seen, and this extinction is almost certainly caused by humans. So far, climate change has not been the primary stress, but if current trends continue, it is bound to become a bigger part of the problem.

And

BMAONE23 wrote: But since some fungi thrive in warm moist environs, couldn't current warming trends have provided the environment for this particular fungus to thrive long enough to attack the amphibian in question?

Do humans cause extinctions? Darn right we do, the displacement of species by six or seven billion people on the planet will do that.

Chis Peterson writes, "Certainly this fungus seems to be the most important threat ..."

No, it doesn't seem to be, it is!

And BMAONE23 writes, "couldn't current warming trends have provided the environment for this particular fungus to thrive long enough..."

Oh yes let's figure out some way in the face of the obvious facts to blame it on "Global Warming".

For Chris and BMAONE23 and others that beat the drum for "Global Warming" and beat it you do, are you ready to sacrifice in its name? You know, regulations on what you eat, regulations on travel, regulations on personal living space? Well really, where are the politicians who are pushing this issue going with it? You really need to give it some thought!

StACase wrote:For Chris and BMAONE23 and others that beat the drum for "Global Warming" and beat it you do, are you ready to sacrifice in its name? You know, regulations on what you eat, regulations on travel, regulations on personal living space?

Speaking for myself, absolutely. I already do (and you know, it really isn't such a sacrifice as some would believe). However, the regulations you propose aren't really the solution, and I doubt we'll see such regulations- at least not to any significant degree.

Chris Peterson wrote:

StACase wrote:For Chris and BMAONE23 and others that beat the drum for "Global Warming" and beat it you do, are you ready to sacrifice in its name? You know, regulations on what you eat, regulations on travel, regulations on personal living space?

Speaking for myself, absolutely. I already do (and you know, it really isn't such a sacrifice as some would believe). However, the regulations you propose aren't really the solution, and I doubt we'll see such regulations- at least not to any significant degree.

I too am also doing all that I can afford to. I sold my 2000+ sq' home and bought one that is just over 1200'. I replaced all the single pane glass with dual pane. I have cut down on my meat consumption. I grow a fair ammount of my own produce. The next car I buy will be the most efficient available at that time.

What are you doing???

BMAONE23 wrote:What are you doing???

I'm providing my mailing address so anyone who has too much money that would normally be spent on superfluities which contribute to global warming can send me that too much money so I can spend it wisely, like on a Ferrari-powered moped.
Seriously folks, with the U.S., China and India each building 300 coal fired generating stations as we speak .. there ain't a lot we can do except clear our own individual slate. I'm going to paddle my canoe slower to reduce heat created from friction.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Seriously folks, with the U.S., China and India each building 300 coal fired generating stations as we speak .. there ain't a lot we can do except clear our own individual slate. I'm going to paddle my canoe slower to reduce heat created from friction.

Yes, is it reasonable to expect that the six or seven billion people in this world are going to subscribe and adhere to draconian regulations to reduce their personal carbon footprints by double digit percentage points? So far they are not as a'exile points out. Indeed, that's the reason the United States Senate in 1997 advised the President to not sign Kyoto, and they did so on a unanimous 95-0 vote. As they say in New York, you can look it up.

The average mile driven mile on a US roads is at 17 MPG - note: not average vehicle MPG but vehicle MPG/miles driven (short trips, stop and go traffic ...). With no new technology, better/smarter vehicle selection and better/smarter driving habits, the US could realistically cut it's oil consumption in half. EIA states that the 390 million gallons per day could be cut to under 200 million g/day.
Alas, in the US (e.g. global warming) a problem isn't a problem until it's a crisis.

Dr. Skeptic wrote:... and better/smarter driving habits ...

Re-education camps and travel permits, I can hardly wait!

This is just depressing. I go away for a little while and BMAONE23, Chris, and Dr. Skeptic are at it again. So now we have Anthropogenic Amphibian Fungus. I know I didn't infect any frogs. I encourage the little peepers in my creek. The only problem is they've been absent on spring evenings (its spring in Central Texas) for a few years. Its been too dry. Fortunately, it looks like we're right on the verge of a change in the weather, long term cooling I mean. Caused by the only thing that really causes our weather, the sun. So anyway the peepers will be back happier than ever. Hey did you guys see where a team of Japanese climate scientists, including the Japanese head scientist for Arctic study concluded that AGW and related models etc. were " a hypothesis substituted for the truth" and that model pedictions were as accurate as "ancient astrology." Stings don't it? They must have read my post on the subject. I've always loved Japanese culture.AGW on the face of it is a pretty weak hypothesis. We are terrified by one unit of CO2 out of 100,000 being added each year? The treasurer of the United States said, " no more subsidies for oil co's because they contribute to global warming." I wouldn't know where to start the analysis of that statement so I will spare you. I am disappointed no one took me up on my bet. Also you guys could just walk, you could pay your rent with a pecentage of your crop to Lord Landlord. Theres really no need for travel or entertainment. when your not working just hold real still and exhale as little CO2 as possible. Does that sound like living or what. Move to Texas we'll probably still be able to grow foodhere. Bill
PS I drive a prius 50-52 mpg and comfortable, not for CO@ emmissions but for the economy.

bhrobards wrote:PS I drive a prius 50-52 mpg and comfortable, not for CO@ emmissions but for the economy.

Well that's a bit silly of you. It's been pretty clearly shown that a Prius will typically never pay for itself based on fuel cost savings.

CommentAuthorBMAONE23 CommentTimeApr 6th 2007 permalink
Weather or not the Steorn device can or does produce energy thru OU is still under question. But I think a better question is: If the Steorn device produces energy, does it produce useable energy? We utilize energy in two forms, either Constant Current DC measuerd in VOLTS or AC voltage measured in CYCLES per second (60CPS). Does the Steorn device work in this fashion, or will virtually every technology need to be altered to conform to the Steorn Power method?

Still under question? At least you managed to tie it in with the weather, maybe it has something to do with global warming? Good grief!

Redbone wrote:
How to detect a scientific hoax:

1) There is no detailed explanation or theory of how the device works.
2) There is no currently working model or prototype. Often there are excuses such as, it just doesn't seem to be working today, maybe it's the sunspots?
3) There is a conspiracy involved.

We might as well be discussing whether Elvis is still alive. Crackpots.

StACase wrote:

Dr. Skeptic wrote:... and better/smarter driving habits ...

Re-education camps and travel permits, I can hardly wait!

Those wouldn't be my solutions, vehicle taxation based on MPG and stop building/widening roads in congested areas to promote mass-transit would about do it.

An amusing thing about roads and traffic congestion... most people think that building new highways or widening them decreases traffic but it actually increases it. A long time ago ( came upon a website about the study of traffic that was very interesting. I wish I could remember where it was. It makes sense to me after reading it that traffic would only increase until its capacity infuriated the drivers enough that they would either not commute so far or use an alternative method. In that way, traffic congestion is self limiting. Anyway, wouldn't want to sidetrack from the ultimate important task of argument over global warming. I just have a strange affinity for traffic simulators.

StACase wrote:You know, regulations on what you eat, regulations on travel, regulations on personal living space?...
Re-education camps and travel permits, I can hardly wait!

And those whose opinions are formed by reading well reasoned scientific studies are the alarmists? I love the irony! <g>

Chris Peterson wrote:

bhrobards wrote:PS I drive a prius 50-52 mpg and comfortable, not for CO@ emmissions but for the economy.

Well that's a bit silly of you. It's been pretty clearly shown that a Prius will typically never pay for itself based on fuel cost savings.

Typically? If a person maintains and drives their vehicle properly it can last 50 years. How's 130 miles per gallon on my loaded moped compare? I rode it from Ottawa, Canada to Victoria B.C. (about 7,500 miles) and return, with my 200 pounds plus 150 pounds of camping gear. If you ever think of buying a moped, Tomos is the only one I can recommend. Mine's a two speed automatic .. Targa LX .. one tough machine .. with oil injection system so you don't have to mix oil and gas. Just don't forget to add oil every four or five fillups (about 600 miles).

Haha, I love the headgear, aristar.

StACase wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Seriously folks, with the U.S., China and India each building 300 coal fired generating stations as we speak .. there ain't a lot we can do except clear our own individual slate. I'm going to paddle my canoe slower to reduce heat created from friction.

Yes, is it reasonable to expect that the six or seven billion people in this world are going to subscribe and adhere to draconian regulations to reduce their personal carbon footprints by double digit percentage points? So far they are not as a'exile points out. Indeed, that's the reason the United States Senate in 1997 advised the President to not sign Kyoto, and they did so on a unanimous 95-0 vote. As they say in New York, you can look it up.

I guess that shows how cheaply a senate vote can be bought. "When in Rome ..."

Redbone wrote:We might as well be discussing whether Elvis is still alive. Crackpots.

Elvis was last sighted on Route 66 riding a moped and flashing a 'Peace' sign to all admirers.

geckzilla wrote:Haha, I love the headgear, aristar.

Thanks, Geck. The helmet's visar was, let us say, insubstantial. However, it gave me that 'Highway Patrolman' look so I left it on. Women love a man in uniform.

StACase wrote:

bystander wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Am I the only one who thinks human consumption and agriculture has caused many animals to go extinct and not climate change? Has it been proven that even one animal or plant has gone extinct because of climate change yet?

I think there have been some amphibian extinctions due to climate change or ozone depletion.

There is an amphibian extinction going on today, and the cause is a fungus, not "Global Warming".

Deadly fungus threatens mass extinction of frogs

Fungus indeed! Another coverup for mankind's poisoning of what was 'once upon a time' fresh water.

Redbone wrote:

CommentAuthorBMAONE23 CommentTimeApr 6th 2007 permalink
Weather or not the Steorn device can or does produce energy thru OU is still under question. But I think a better question is: If the Steorn device produces energy, does it produce useable energy? We utilize energy in two forms, either Constant Current DC measuerd in VOLTS or AC voltage measured in CYCLES per second (60CPS). Does the Steorn device work in this fashion, or will virtually every technology need to be altered to conform to the Steorn Power method?

Still under question? At least you managed to tie it in with the weather, maybe it has something to do with global warming? Good grief!

Redbone wrote:
How to detect a scientific hoax:

1) There is no detailed explanation or theory of how the device works.
2) There is no currently working model or prototype. Often there are excuses such as, it just doesn't seem to be working today, maybe it's the sunspots?
3) There is a conspiracy involved.

We might as well be discussing whether Elvis is still alive. Crackpots.

Just curious...why are you quoting from an unrelated post on an unrelated bulletinboard from an altogether different site and subject, on this board???????

aristarchusinexile wrote:There is an amphibian extinction going on today, and the cause is a fungus, not "Global Warming".
Fungus indeed! Another coverup for mankind's poisoning of what was 'once upon a time' fresh water.

Are humans part of the amphibian extinction that is going on? As they say, you can take that to the bank, it just isn't "Global Warming". Loss of habitat is the usual result of human activity, but in this case, the pet trade is doing an unbelievable amount of damage.

Chris Peterson wrote:

StACase wrote:You know, regulations on what you eat, regulations on travel, regulations on personal living space?...
Re-education camps and travel permits, I can hardly wait!

And those whose opinions are formed by reading well reasoned scientific studies are the alarmists? I love the irony! <g>

No, those opinions are formed by observing what politicians do. Afterall, "The Science is Done" just ask Al Gore and James Hansen, they will tell you, so it's up to the politicians to solve "The Problem". Problem is, there isn't any problem.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary - H.L. Mencken

StACase wrote:No, those opinions are formed by observing what politicians do. Afterall, "The Science is Done" just ask Al Gore and James Hansen, they will tell you, so it's up to the politicians to solve "The Problem".

Speak for yourself. I don't pay much attention to many politicians. I read refereed papers in journals like Nature and Science, and I have the scientific education to form my own opinions, based on the evidence and reasoning presented. As a scientist, I don't think "The Science is Done", although as a matter of public policy, I think that particular sound bite reasonably describes the consensus opinion that global warming has been demonstrated with sufficient evidence to warrant political action.

StACase wrote:Problem is, there isn't any problem.

If you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But to come out and state that there isn't any problem is bordering on criminal negligence. That kind of attitude is part of the problem. Do you also bury your head in the sand and pretend that no one can see you?

bystander wrote:

StACase wrote:Problem is, there isn't any problem.

If you don't wish to believe in all the AGW hype, that's all well and good with me. But to come out and state that there isn't any problem is bordering on criminal negligence. That kind of attitude is part of the problem. Do you also bury your head in the sand and pretend that no one can see you?

There are lots of lies about "Global Warming", we just discussed one; frogs are going extinct because of a fungus, not "Global Warming". The biggest lie that has been foisted on the human race by a worldwide propaganda machine, and it is all of that, is that "Global Warming" is a bad thing. "Global Cooling" would be a concern, but warming? Longer growing seasons, more rain, more vigorous crops, less ice and snow, lower heating bills, shorter flu season etc. it's a long list. The geologic and archeological records tell us that it has been warmer is the past and that those times were a benefit to human civilization, but Al Gore and James Hansen behave like Lewis Carroll's March Hare and Mad Hatter turning logic upside-down.