|
|
Poll: What is Your Position on Global Warming? - RF Cafe Forums
|
What is Your Position
on Global Warming?
|
We have doomed ourselves irreparably |
|
2% |
[ 3 ] |
Drastic measures are needed immediately |
|
7% |
[ 10 ] |
Reduce emissions where possible
now without panic, while aggressively pursuing replacement
technologies |
|
28% |
[ 38 ] |
Mandate lower emission levels
with a reasonable time limit, and make no exceptions |
|
7% |
[ 9 ] |
First, ban all use of private
jets and luxury boats, then I will scrap my SUV |
|
10% |
[ 14 ] |
It is all a hoax; I had to scrape
another 3" of global warming off my car windshield
again this morning |
|
45% |
[ 61 ] |
|
Total votes
: 135 |
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject: What is Your Position on Global Warming?
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:52 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003
2:02 pm Posts: 451 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings: OK, so the blockbuster International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global
warming is out now and the conclusion is that mankind
has in 100 years destroyed the planet so much so
that even if we stop all emissions of greenhouse
gasses today, the Earth would still heat by about
5 degree Celsius by the end of the century. The
technical term is anthropogenic warming (human-caused).
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The study bases its authority on being a consensus
of leading scientists, most of whom are not climatologists.
The evidence is largely based on the correlation
of rising temperatures and an increase in carbon
dioxide in the upper atmosphere. There is no denying
that mankind has introduced higher levels on CO2
into the air, and that CO2 can cause the well-known
greenhouse effect, but as one article I read points
out, “correlation is not proof of causation.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am fully behind efforts
to reduce carbon emissions. I would love to see
the reemergence of nuclear power stations and the
construction of windmill farms off the coasts, but
I vehemently oppose the politicization of science
for purposes of coercion. If it can be done with
one issue, it can be done with other. Consider how
some cities like NYC have outlawed the serving of
fast foods with transfatty acids. I long for the
day when a method is discovered to efficiently break
down the cellulose fibers of grasses and corn stalks
(not just the kernels) to have biofuels completely
supplant petroleum fuels. These things always
bring to mind the old Woody Allen movie, “Sleeper.”
In it, he awakens after a couple centuries of sleep
and discovers a world full of healthful, energetic,
young-looking people who he is told are so well
off because it had been discovered that smoking
cigarettes, eating chocolate, and scarfing down
cream pies was actually good for you after all.
Yeah, far-fetched, but an interesting concept none-the-less.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/
What is your opinion on the man-made global
warming issue?
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
kpainter |
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:09 pm
|
|
|
General |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003
11:47 am Posts: 84 Location: Santa Barbara,
CA |
I remember when all these same "Scientists" were
threatening doom with another ice age. That didn't
happen either.
|
|
|
|
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:31 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003
2:02 pm Posts: 451 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings kpainter:
Yeah, there's lots of
money to be made in hacking for a doomsday cause.
Research grants to universities and private corporations,
contracts to pollution cleaner-uppers and promotional
firms on Madison Avenue, unaudited cash to the U.N.,
the creation of new government bureaucracies, all
result from the scare tactics. Those groups definitely
have embraced the "New Paradigm" business model
of "creating a need, and then filling it." It's
akin to what many of that movement's most religious
believers accuse the Government Military Complex
of doing when they say that wars are created to
pad the pockets of defense contractors.
Always
the optimist, I think that as with most things,
the two sides tend to keep each other in check.
Both good and bad results come from the actions
of both sides. It's the curse we live under.
Take care.
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
kpainter |
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:17 pm
|
|
|
General |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003
11:47 am Posts: 84 Location: Santa Barbara,
CA |
Hi Kirt, I think it is only natural as humans
that we have
to have something to be afraid of. This is just
the latest "boogyman". When you talk of money to
be made, you hit it on the head! Read this article:
'Doomsday vault'
to resist global warming effects
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/070209000818.zc6pxovb.html
These people are just plain nuts.
These are the like the weird relatives that you
have to hide all the knives from when they come
over (Ok, maybe that is just my family
but you know what I mean). We're all DOOMED!
DOOMED I say!
|
|
|
|
|
npeerebo |
Post subject: Wrong question. Why not develop a proper mitigation plan?
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:31 pm
|
|
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007
10:38 pm Posts: 3 Location: Oregon
|
Our position on man-made global warming? The question
should be re-framed because the question is divisive
in the USA. Some people still claim that there is
a chance that what we are seeing is not global climate
change but a "natural" bump in the weather. Others
claim that much of the last few decades of weather
patterns - especially in the arctic and antarctic
regions - is due to CO2 and various other greenhouse
gases.
And most of us will agree that it
doesn't matter what causes the increased global
mean temperature. The long-term result (40-100 years)
is the same if we do nothing: warmer in most places,
much warmer in the polar regions, and a potential
for average sea level rise up to six or seven meters
(20 feet). We generally all agree that such changes
are disasterous for many places around the world.
Again, we agree: almost everyone on either
side of the debate re: man-made global warming believes
that there is some potential for unwanted climate
change.
So why not start developing a proper
mitigation plan? Global society and industry is
***NOT*** ready to go green for another 40-50 years.
We are just staring to think about catching the
gigatonnes of annual CO2 issuing from smokestacks.
It will be another 20+ years before we figure out
what to do with caught CO2 cost-effectively (I like
the idea of fixing it into magnesium carbonate,
a useful industrial material). And another 20+ years
before carbon fixing is deployed cost-effectively.
Many more nuclear power plants can greatly
reduce CO2 emissions a lot in the 50 years that
we must wait before viable fusion reactors.
Wind power and solar power help in remote areas
but both cost a great deal to maintain (even without
batteries) and become completely unavailable when
the wind is slow or when there is no sun.
That leaves us with 40-50 years of climate change
before we can go green. To mitigate and halt climate
change in the next decade I propose a macro-engineering
program to evaluate techniques to slightly reduce
the solar energy that enters the Earth's ecosystem.
One electromagnetic technique is to use
atomic gold nanowire dipoles (optical wavelengths)
in the stratosphere or in orbit. The dipoles are
optical chaff and efficiently scatter optical photons
away from the Earth. If there are no hidden problems,
such a system would consume less than 5% of the
world annual gold production and after 14 years
the insolation would be attenuated by one percent.
Cost: ten billion dollars, including the gold (at
maximum market price for 2006) + manufacturing +
launch + deployment.
Such a mitigation program
would stabilize the Earth's climate by reducing
average temperature by some carefully managed amount,
typically one or two degrees C.
Similar
macro-engineering programs have been considered
at (for example) Lawrence Livermore National Labs
(ref: Bala Govindasamy's models).
There
is no funding now for mitigation schemes - even
though most people want to avoid climate change.
Most supercomputer models that I have seen show
that we cannot avoid climate change without a macro-engineering
project to reduce the suns's energy entering the
tropospher by one or two percent.
Instead,
the available green public monies are going to subsidies,
tax write-offs and various commerical schemes that
look nice on paper (see - we are doing something)
but don't help the overall problem: expensive wind
power, solar power etc.
Most of us will
agree that it doesn't matter what causes the increased
global mean temperature. Instead of trying to figure
out who is to blame (those darn lawyers) , I propose
a constructive direction: carefully managed reduced
insolation.
I hope mitigation schemes based
on reduced solar insolation get more attention and
funding. Other schemes right now (like carbon sequester)
are too little too late. We need reduced insolation
to give us the four or five decades that industry
needs to develop and deploy *cost-effective* green
technologies like fission (then) fusion power, fuel
cells for vehicles, quantum dot solar cells, and
proper carbon sequester schemes.
_________________ Milou
|
|
|
|
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:25 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003
2:02 pm Posts: 451 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings Milou:
Thanks for the thoughtful
response. I also like the concept of an active mitigation
solution to offset what may
or may not
be human-caused warming. The caveat is that
whatever is done would have to be reversible. I
find the gold nanoparticle solution a little risky
from the standpoint of what phenomena such as solar
wind storms and the resulting auorae would manage
to do to such perfect conductors. Imagine the project
team's dismay as they watched 99% of their thermal
shield spiral down to one of the earth's poles and
contaminate the entire area with gold particles.
Has anyone calculated the amount of pollutants that
would be added to the atmosphere in lifting all
those heavy gold particles into orbit?
Another
option offered is to blow dust into the air ala
the Icelandic Laki volcanic eruption in the 18th
century and the Krakatoa eruption of the 19th century
that measurably cooled the earth. The problem with
that of course is the resulting particulate fallout
and the fouling of aircraft engines. Still, it would
be interesting to have a contemporary equivalent
occur naturally (so we would not have to blame ourselves
for the results) to record the effect.
I
have no fool-proof solution to offer, but am highly
dubious about a lot of the proposals that I have
read mainly because of the potential for disaster.
In the instance of a purposeful significant altering
of our environment, the road to hell being paved
with good intentions could literally be borne out.
World progress depends on the availability of
cheap and abundant transportation and energy. Emerging
economies like that of China and India, with their
massive populations are absolutely dependent on
international trade for their survival. That trade
requires transportation to move the raw materials
to the factories, the finished goods to market,
and from the market to the consumers. Those consumers
must feel good about themselves and the state of
the world to be motivated to spend their hard-earned
money rather than sock it away for emergency purposes.
The same goes for tourism, which is thriving and
cannot exist without transportation. All this requires,
at the moment, fossil fuels. It is both a blessing
and accurse that we are good at collecting and distributing
it.
China has been mentioned often as a looming
threat to the greenhouse gas issue because it is
rushing full speed into being a heavy manufacturing
economy, and is already famous for its atrocious
level of pollution. The air in the bigger cities
and some of the outlying smaller ones is reminiscent
of the early to mid 20th century American and European
cities with the smog so bad that the visibility
on a good day is maybe a mile. China’s only interest
in controlling the situation is the threats it receives
from its trading partners. Predictions have it ranking
at the top of the polluting country list within
a decade. So in the end, our cheap goods at Wal-Mart
and Target come with a very high price – much more
pollution is generated in the little-regulated manufacturing
industry of China and the necessary long-distance
transportation of goods, and as a bonus we help
fund their military ambitions. What a deal!
Footnote: Most such "emerging economies" are
given significant relief for compliance in the Kyoto
plan while mandating strict adherence by established
countries.
Until a plausible solution can
be found for replacement energy technologies, the
greatest action that most people can take is to
reduce the amount of unnecessary traveling they
do, and keep the thermostats in their homes set
a little lower in the winter and higher in the summer.
The travel budget where I work (for a major RF semiconductor
manufacturer) is about $1.5 million per year. That’s
a LOT of flying all over the world to meet with
customers, suppliers, and manufacturers. Maybe I
am naïve, but I cannot understand why more of this
interfacing can't be accomplished with video conferencing.
Sure, you need face-to-face interaction sometimes
to achieve your goals, but it is hard to believe
that half the business done after riding on an airplane
for 8 hours cannot be done with streaming video
and audio. The overall inconvenience factor would
be not very great.
Lastly, I for one am tired
of being preached to by hypocrites like Al Gore
who are responsible for dumping untold amounts of
CO2 into the air while jetting all around the world
telling me to ride my bike to work, and then having
the audacity to talk on television about his carbon-neutral
house. The same goes for the Hollywierd types making
similar claims. Some starlet gets photographed putting
3 gallons of gasoline into her Prius to prove how
much she cares about the environment, while out
of the picture is the 8,000 pound, armored limousine
that escorted her to the pump. Unfortunately, the
majority of the people seem to fall for it.
How many ices ages has the earth been through?
5? 8? What caused them and what warming mechanism
ended them? Were SUVs and coal-burning power plants
around for those? Maybe the aliens are responsible
for those periods. Maybe we are doomed.
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
wb9jtk |
Post subject:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:42 pm
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006
5:39 pm Posts: 21 |
There was a show on Nova last fall. Some guy was
studying atmospheric pollutants and global warming.
On September 11, 2001 and the next few days he had
a great opprotunity to measure lots of stuff due
to the lack of high-altitude clouds caused by condensation
trails. He concluded that a big part of global warming
(if caused by humans) is due to the reduction of
aeresols from fossil fule burning power plant emissions.
My huge question is "why did the hole in the
ozone layer go away" ? We were told that Freon(tm)
lasts 50,000 years in the atmosphere and would cause
total loss of the ozone layer. They did not study
this 'hole' for even 1/2 of a solar cycle and then
concluded it was refrigerants causing it?
As the sun approached the minimum (which is
now) the ozone returned.
Well, now there
is no hole in the ozone layer.
Will the
hole begin to return in a few years as solar cycle
24 gets more active ?
|
|
|
|
|
npeerebo |
Post subject: Insolation reduction
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:11 pm
|
|
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007
10:38 pm Posts: 3 Location: Oregon
|
Hi Kirt,
Right! I agree with your comments
regarding unforeseen consequences of any climate
macro-engineering program. Jumping headlong into
full scale deployment of the proposed programs (gold
nanowire dipole or sulphate crystals or iron-doping
the oceans etc) is very risky, we want to reduce
climate risk. In practice the techniques need to
be prototyped and developed in a series of 18 (?)
month trials: lab trials, small scale trials, medium-scale
trials, large-scale trials etc before starting full-scale
testing. Development time of about ten years is
needed before full scale deployment could begin.
We make enough time to check the risks. Magnetic
capture of the gold dipoles by the magnetic poles
might happen depending on the orbit, but would not
happen in the stratosphere. Gold is a very eco-friendly
material (its a noble metal), so maybe ecological
impact of precipitating gold would be small - needs
study at all scales of course.
International
support and public oversight would be needed as
climate macro-engineering crosses all national boundaries.
The early success of the Montreal protocol
(ozne depleting chemical ban) gives me hope that
such large scale international cooperation is possible.
Right now the atmospheric sulphates in Europe
from heavy industry help keep temperatures about
two degrees C cooler than they would be if the air
were clean. Euro summers will get that much warmer
on average in the next few years as the new emissions
controls come into force. Unforeseen consequences...
Right now $4B annually is being spent on measuring
global climate measurements and modelling. A 1%
solar shield can potentially solve the problem for
$10B a year over 14 years of full scale production.
The idea might be completely wrong - but we have
NO fallback position. Why not make ourselves a fallback
position by starting to study macro-engineering
techniques? Why not start testing the idea in the
lab (i.e., fabricate the gold nanowire dipoles and
test them). Other techniques are available, all
such ideas need to be seriously evaluated. No one
wants serious climate change. The data that I have
seen seem to indicate we cannot possibly conserve
enough to hold back the greenhouse effect - and
the chance of nonlinear "tipping effects". Why not
put 10M dollars annually into the public study of
each macro-engineering possibility?
Amount
of pollutants from the launch of the solar shield:
need 50-70 launches per year of the Zenit 2-SLB
medium / heavy launch vehicle. These new models
are using new eco-friendly propellants with ecofriendly
reaction products. I can send links to the manufacturer
if you like.
Again, I think engineers should
speak out: let's reduce the risk of climate change
by developing mitigation models at least in the
small scale. Greenland ice cores show show that
drastic climate changes in the past are generally
sudden (nonlinear!), happening in about ten years
or less. While we might never need to fully deploy
a macro-engineering solution, I say it is prident
to be ready with carefully studied options in case
micro-energy conservation fails to address the macro-climate
problem.
Re: Kyoto protocol: you are right.
China and other developing countries are getting
away with lax- or no carbon budgets. But Kyoto targets
get updated every few years and the country classifications
will change as the situation evolves. Kyoto may
become obsolete in the next decade as we get more
complete climate data.
The Amsterdam Accord
(2000?) recognized the Earth's surface as a homeostatic
self-regulating simple feedback climate system with
built-in carbon storage. The mean climate has been
the same for billions of years with some exceptions
(snowball earth). The ice ages of the last 2M years
seem to be a recent response of the homeostatic
system to the continuous increase in solar output
power (the sun is a main sequence star and over
the last few billion years the solar "constant"
has been increasing monotonically. That explains
the snowball 2B years ago (it was colder). And it
explains the iceages now: the input energy is 20-30%
greater and the homeostatic system is looking for
a new steady state equilibrium.
I don't
think we are doomed, but there is significant engineering
risk in the future of the (admittedly flawed) modern
societythe nations. I think we can reduce the risk
of massive social disruption and large scale famine
and war by making small scale prototypes of macro-engineering
ideas. Let's publically check out all our options,
maybe there is a cost-effective delaying tactic.
I have a proposal document for the solar
shield using gold nanowire, should you would like
to review it. I know there are many possible approaches
to macro-engineering, I chose gold nanowires because
I have an EM background.
_________________ Milou
|
|
|
|
|
Kirt Blattenberger
|
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:34 am
|
|
|
Site Admin |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003
2:02 pm Posts: 451 Location: Erie, PA
|
Greetings: Here is a timely article that
appeared today.
Offshore Wind Farms
Could Power Entire East Coast
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251979,00.html
Who are the biggest opponents of such a plan?
The fabulously wealthy of Cape Code, Long Island,
and other well-known prime seaboard areas (including
pontificating politicians and relatives of politicians
who claim to be amongst the greenest citizens).
They simply do not want their pristine vistas upset
by the windmills - the "not in my back yard" phenomenon.
_________________ - Kirt Blattenberger
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster
|
|
|
|
|
npeerebo |
Post subject: Wind farms -
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:03 pm
|
|
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007
10:38 pm Posts: 3 Location: Oregon
|
Proponents of windpower claim the harvested power
is cheap, I want to believe it. But I am unconvinced.
I want to see publicly audited reports on the capital
and operational cost of our largest modern wind
farms - without the benefit of public subsidies
and grants. Can you direct me to audited reports?
I believe Germany was the first country to build
significant wind farms (on land) for the public
grid. In the last decade, Denmark followed with
billions of dollars of capital invested in wind
farms on land and in the shallow sea waters.
My understanding is that Denmark has found their
large scale wind energy cost (a function of capital
funding cost plus maintenance cost) is significantly
greater than the cost of electricity from the conventional
sources: coal, gas/oil, nuclear, hydro etc. Even
though the littoral environment has great wind availability,
the salty ocean and the salt fogs and spray are
especially harsh on the high speed moving parts
of the wind turbine.
I am no expert in wind
power, but reading ecologist James Lovelock and
eco-reporter Fred Pearce's material suggests caution
before committing much of our LIMITED public tax
credits and commercial incentives to wind farms.
Substantial reliance on "free" wind energy may be
too good to be true. As we build larger wind farms
we need to avoid increasing the cost of our electricity
and becoming (more) industrially uncompetitive with
China and India - reporting on the real costs would
be helpful.
Larger and larger wind farms
over a significant portion of the eastern seabiord
(or anywhere else) will tend to change weather patterns.
In the great Atlantic bight around Cape Cod significant
wind farming might change weather patterns downwind
- perhaps in western Europe I don't know. I expect
Europe would be unhappy if American wind farms somehow
reduced the rainfall in southern Europe.
Large wind farms disrupt migatory bird populations.
When I lived in New Mexico the big wind turbines
there were knocking down flying birds (some endangered
ones too) because the birds were unaware of the
virtually invisible high speed thin blades.
Like wind farms, unbridled enthusiasm for ethanol
farms needs to be curbed with research in a controlled
ramp up of capability. Ethanol reduces our dependence
on foreign oil and that's great. But large existing
farms and significant new farms would mean loss
of much of the remaining wetlands to monocultures
and some TBD impact on the environment. We still
need the same farmland for food production, so the
extra land for ethanol comes from a small amount
of available land.
_________________ Milou
|
|
|
|
|
tk |
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:05 pm
|
|
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006
11:34 am Posts: 2 |
“Global Warming”
has come to mean, “human
caused” to many people with the United States
as the main culprit. The
fanatical environmentalist
never takes into account natural cyclical
mechanisms that may be at the root of any potential
temperature change.
They claim that there
is a “Consensus” among scientist that the data points
to Man Caused climate change. Two points to that;
first, Consensus is not science. It’s an amalgam
of opinion. Albeit an educated opinion, it is still
an opinion. Second, if the data is indisputable
then why is the “Pro Man Made Global Warming Camp”
trying to shut down the debate and shut up the opposition.
When I have the data on my side of an argument I
love to debate.
If In truth the Global Warming
is not a political, social, and finical issue. Then
can all you fanatical
environmentalist answer this question?
If Global Warming is
the greatest threat to mankind’s existence as Vice
President Al Gore Contends, then why are the worlds
greatest polluters China, India, etc, exempt from
the Kyoto Accords?
IF man causes Global Warming,
then why is Mars currently undergoing global warming?
Are there too many rovers on mars?
When viewed through the spectrum of other mechanisms
operating on the earth’s environment and the scale
of their impact, such as the earths wobble on its
axis, varying solar intensity, tectonic activity
and magma vents heating the worlds oceans, etc,
it seems ridiculous to compare mans activity as
the main culprit to climate change. When historical
and geological records are looked at we see that
the CO2 levels have been higher and lower than todays
level and that the earth has both been warmer and
cooler than it is today. Remember the various ice
ages?
In fact, current CO2 levels now exceed
400 parts per million (ppm), please note that paleological
records show that
every time
CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there
has been an ice age. Every time — without exception.
tk
|
|
|
|
|
FL Techie |
Post subject: Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:43 am
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004
1:51 pm Posts: 19 |
Here's a report on Algore's own carbon footprint
for his mansion (the one in the report, anyway).
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/art ... cle_id=367
He goes on TV and claims he's "carbon neutral"
but that just means he has enough money from selling
his bogus book to pay for "offsets" that allow him
to claim carbon neutrality. He wants you to think
he actually personally creates less CO2 than you
or me. Let's face it, the guy flys all over
the world, all year long, on private jets, rides
in motorcades of heavily armored (5 mpg) vehicles,
and has feel-good meetings with like-minded people
all year long. He's like the starlett Kirt mentions
in his posting. Who among you will defend
Algore's claims for his own carbon neutrality? He's
a @$%@^ hypocrite!
|
|
|
|
|
kpainter |
Post subject:
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:04 pm
|
|
|
General |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003
11:47 am Posts: 84 Location: Santa Barbara,
CA |
Awwww, come on and give him a break. If it weren't
for his internet,
you wouldn't even be able to criticize him!
I don't know if he is CO2 neutral or not but
he sure isn't Methane neutral.
|
|
|
|
|
FL Techie |
Post subject: An Algore Diet
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:16 pm
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004
1:51 pm Posts: 19 |
I see Algore must be on the Algore Diet since his
face gets plumper every time I see his picture.
The Algore Diet works like this:
Al needs
to loose weight so he finds someone else he can
pay to eat less, while he himself continues to stuff
his own face.
It's just like the carbon credits
he pays for to "offset" his lardbutt energy consumption.
Someone else gets less so he can have more. Ah,
the Marxist elites are consistent, I'll give 'em
that much.
|
|
|
|
|
tbone |
Post subject: Walk'n the walk, not just talk'n the talk
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:10 am
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003
6:42 pm Posts: 9 |
Got to chime in here guys:
Published on Sunday,
April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune Bush Loves
Ecology -- At Home by Rob Sullivan
The
4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental
rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in
a central closet circulate water through pipes buried
300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature
is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house
in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems
such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling
use about 25% of the electricity that traditional
heating and cooling systems utilize.
A 25,000-gallon
underground cistern collects rainwater gathered
from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and
showers goes into underground purifying tanks and
is also funneled into the cistern. The water from
the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping
surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers
native to the high prairie area blend the structure
into the surrounding ecosystem.
No, this
is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak
trying to shame his fellow citizens into following
the pristineness of his self-righteous example.
And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the
Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council,
a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.
This is President George W. Bush's "Texas
White House" outside the small town of Crawford.
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Zappa |
Post subject:
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:35 pm
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003
6:43 pm Posts: 12 Location: U.K.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Milan |
Post subject:
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:51 am
|
|
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003
10:13 am Posts: 11 |
Ralph Zappa wrote:
(apologies if the picture does not appear)
Too bad the pic doesn't appear. I pasted
the link into Firefox and it would have been a good
funny one to go with the story. What's with
these "official" nutjobs? How do they get into office
in the first place is what I want to know?
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
tbone |
Post subject:
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:55 am
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003
6:42 pm Posts: 9 |
|
|
|
|
FL Techie |
Post subject: Gotta love it
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:16 am
|
|
|
Captain |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004
1:51 pm Posts: 19 |
|
Posted 11/12/2012
|
|
|