Comments for Anthonares http://www.anthonares.net Chronicling and Commenting on Human Progress Sat, 05 Jul 2008 01:34:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 Comment on Windpower: Where Some Greens Go Bad by Ben http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35129 Ben Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:42:25 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/06/windpower-where-some-greens-goes-bad.html#comment-35129 Strange that the whole argument WILL be made to proceed in addressing THE demands that HUMANS put on the Earth's resoures for their OWN (individual) survival/convenience. ANY realistic, BALANCED energy debate must, surely (!?) factor in :'POPULATION PEAK'(even for 'projected calculation purposes' eg: how many wind farms in 2090?).....or are we going to allow ourselves to be blinkered with the 'Gaia Hypothesis'for yet another decade..? The Chinese, projected as they are, to become the greatest polluters of earth's environment in the immediate future at least (pro-)aggressively ADDRESS the IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SPECIES-overpopulation issue!!! Air movement results from geographic atm.press differences....which result from...(inter alia)yes! 'predictable heating and cooling weather/climate patterns'....which, yes, you guessed it...is what 'we' have detected as THE definitive sign of HUMAN-OVER-HARVESTING ('quality-of-life' as well as 'absolute mass of demanding HUMANS'-> & their unilaterally established, never challenged: 'RIGHTS-of-existence' ) of easy-to-grab resources ['economic growth', civilised world &c]. All wind-power harvesting systems appear to make 'THE' assumption that each individual wind-farm will have a guaranteed 'feedstock' of air movement....'INDEFINTELY'...????There appears to be a loss of THINKING at 'common sense level': you cannot have something for nothing - regardless of how 'economically powerful' you are -if there ISN'T ANYTHING LEFT [ask anyone enduring the 'Winter Hunger of 1944/5', by way of example within recent recall....]. Look forward to a plot of energy consumption by HUMANS, per person, per year and then work out whether 'we' would 'EVER' catch up with 'peak energy needs'. EXPONENTIAL mean more to you???????? Strange that the whole argument WILL be made to proceed in addressing THE demands that HUMANS put on the Earth’s resoures for their OWN (individual) survival/convenience. ANY realistic, BALANCED energy debate must, surely (!?) factor in :’POPULATION PEAK’(even for ‘projected calculation purposes’ eg: how many wind farms in 2090?)…..or are we going to allow ourselves to be blinkered with the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’for yet another decade..?
The Chinese, projected as they are, to become the greatest polluters of earth’s environment in the immediate future at least (pro-)aggressively ADDRESS the IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF HUMAN SPECIES-overpopulation issue!!!
Air movement results from geographic atm.press differences….which result from…(inter alia)yes! ‘predictable heating and cooling weather/climate patterns’….which, yes, you guessed it…is what ‘we’ have detected as THE definitive sign of HUMAN-OVER-HARVESTING (’quality-of-life’ as well as ‘absolute mass of demanding HUMANS’-> & their unilaterally established, never challenged: ‘RIGHTS-of-existence’ ) of easy-to-grab resources [’economic growth’, civilised world &c]. All wind-power harvesting systems appear to make ‘THE’ assumption that each individual wind-farm will have a guaranteed ‘feedstock’ of air movement….’INDEFINTELY’…????There appears to be a loss of THINKING at ‘common sense level’: you cannot have something for nothing - regardless of how ‘economically powerful’ you are -if there ISN’T ANYTHING LEFT [ask anyone enduring the ‘Winter Hunger of 1944/5′, by way of example within recent recall….].
Look forward to a plot of energy consumption by HUMANS, per person, per year and then work out whether ‘we’ would ‘EVER’ catch up with ‘peak energy needs’. EXPONENTIAL mean more to you????????

]]> Comment on On Rejecting the Work of Scientists by Wolfgang http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-35119 Wolfgang Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:34:29 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-35119 Dear Mr. Kendall, thank you for your interesting and valuable contribution. In my opinion, the debate about whether human activities are responsible for global warming or not, is absolete and doesn't help us to recon where the real problem is, namely, that finite sources can't support a steady growth. Pollution is an ovious side-effect and nobody will deny its harmful impact on our environment - except politicians with obvious interests in money and power. What we have to change is our habits and the approach, that all of earths resources are infinite. Talking about nuclear power as an alternative to oil shows the inability of the "experts" to get this right. We must overcome the childish idea of an ever-growing economy. We've already reached the point where the growth rate isn't maintainable and there is still some "experts" talking about further growth. No matter how big the ship and fishing-nets would be, when there is no fish, you can't catch any. For too long natural capital (air, water, trees, soil, etc.) has been confused with artificial capital (money). It's time to change this view. The solutions will come anyway. If we don't want to choose our options, nature will choose hers. Dear Mr. Kendall,
thank you for your interesting and valuable contribution. In my opinion, the debate about whether human activities are responsible for global warming or not, is absolete and doesn’t help us to recon where the real problem is, namely, that finite sources can’t support a steady growth.
Pollution is an ovious side-effect and nobody will deny its harmful impact on our environment - except politicians with obvious interests in money and power.
What we have to change is our habits and the approach, that all of earths resources are infinite. Talking about nuclear power as an alternative to oil shows the inability of the “experts” to get this right.
We must overcome the childish idea of an ever-growing economy. We’ve already reached the point where the growth rate isn’t maintainable and there is still some “experts” talking about further growth.
No matter how big the ship and fishing-nets would be, when there is no fish, you can’t catch any. For too long natural capital (air, water, trees, soil, etc.) has been confused with artificial capital (money). It’s time to change this view. The solutions will come anyway. If we don’t want to choose our options, nature will choose hers.

]]> Comment on The Scientifically Incorrect Guide to Politics: Tom Bethell’s Propaganda Piece by Fabio http://www.anthonares.net/2005/12/scientifically-incorrect-guide-to.html#comment-35008 Fabio Mon, 19 May 2008 15:52:49 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2005/12/scientifically-incorrect-guide-to.html#comment-35008 Well I hope you do every review with this method. Or do you do it only with mavericks? Which is propaganda? So I understand from your review that everything is false there? I bet you are kidding. Or paid? Well I hope you do every review with this method. Or do you do it only with mavericks? Which is propaganda? So I understand from your review that everything is false there? I bet you are kidding. Or paid?

]]> Comment on Nuclear Fusion Energy: Where are We Now? by Driving Blind http://www.anthonares.net/2006/01/nuclear-fusion-energy-where-are-we-now.html#comment-34975 Driving Blind Sun, 11 May 2008 23:28:20 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/01/nuclear-fusion-energy-where-are-we-now.html#comment-34975 The process of Fusion reactions using the isotope of Helium known as Helium 3 is doable. It is not a mad mans dream to mine the moons supplies of Helium 3 for use a Fusion fuel here on Earth. it is not impossible it is merely difficult. How difficult will it be to pay for this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq? How diificult will it be cleaning up the debris from all the massive high energy storms produced by global warming. That is to say if we are able to clean it up since we all be under water or burried in ice The process of Fusion reactions using the isotope of Helium known as Helium 3 is doable. It is not a mad mans dream to mine the moons supplies of Helium 3 for use a Fusion fuel here on Earth. it is not impossible it is merely difficult. How difficult will it be to pay for this ridiculous endeavor in Iraq? How diificult will it be cleaning up the debris from all the massive high energy storms produced by global warming. That is to say if we are able to clean it up since we all be under water or burried in ice

]]> Comment on On Rejecting the Work of Scientists by luis http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-34896 luis Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:22:09 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-34896 I have to agree with the last posters. When you make models that emulate variables that were obtained from other models that emulate variables that were obtained... etc, the prospect for error is astounding, and yet, GW is considered a "theory", when I see nothing but a fancy computer game for extremely geek people. I am stretching here, but to consider GW a "closed deal", you would have to have empirical data. And when GW theory doesn't even explain last century's temperature data, one begins to get skeptical to its real power of explaining the next. The problem here is that even if GW is real, the true cost of taking out CO2 of the global economy is simply forbidding. 7 billion people would be put on poverty again. Riots. Anger. Wars would restart. Famine would kill millions. But hey, we would have prevented the world to have warmed half a degree, we should cheer that while we have a good dinner of cold roots! 40 years ago we had a shot, by building nukes. But alas, the greenistas found it was easier to mob the nuke scientists and accept the "alternatives" being the big alternative chosen thereafter named with a "C" and ending with "OAL", what a shot in the foot! Now deal with it. Personally speaking I even think that we're in for another little ice age, which, hahum, will be considerably worse than global warming. But hey, that's just me. And if you check Holocene's timeline, we're due to the next impending true ice age. All things considered, I find it good a little warming. I have to agree with the last posters. When you make models that emulate variables that were obtained from other models that emulate variables that were obtained… etc, the prospect for error is astounding, and yet, GW is considered a “theory”, when I see nothing but a fancy computer game for extremely geek people. I am stretching here, but to consider GW a “closed deal”, you would have to have empirical data. And when GW theory doesn’t even explain last century’s temperature data, one begins to get skeptical to its real power of explaining the next.

The problem here is that even if GW is real, the true cost of taking out CO2 of the global economy is simply forbidding. 7 billion people would be put on poverty again. Riots. Anger. Wars would restart. Famine would kill millions.

But hey, we would have prevented the world to have warmed half a degree, we should cheer that while we have a good dinner of cold roots!

40 years ago we had a shot, by building nukes. But alas, the greenistas found it was easier to mob the nuke scientists and accept the “alternatives” being the big alternative chosen thereafter named with a “C” and ending with “OAL”, what a shot in the foot!

Now deal with it. Personally speaking I even think that we’re in for another little ice age, which, hahum, will be considerably worse than global warming. But hey, that’s just me. And if you check Holocene’s timeline, we’re due to the next impending true ice age. All things considered, I find it good a little warming.

]]> Comment on Published Research Synopsis: Toxic Potential of Nanotechnology by Paul http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/published-research-synopsis-toxic-potential-of-nanotechnology.html#comment-34894 Paul Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:08:13 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/published-research-synopsis-toxic-potential-of-nanotechnology.html#comment-34894 Layman alert!! Could someone enlighten me as to the scale of the "molecular machine" in relation to a human hair etc. Much appreciated. Layman alert!!

Could someone enlighten me as to the scale of the “molecular machine” in relation to a human hair etc.

Much appreciated.

]]> Comment on Published Research Synopsis: Links in the Biomass Products Chain by Al Fin http://www.anthonares.net/2006/01/published-research-synopsis-links-in.html#comment-34641 Al Fin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:17:30 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/01/published-research-synopsis-links-in.html#comment-34641 One of my favourite topics. Thanks for the resource! One of my favourite topics. Thanks for the resource!

]]> Comment on On Rejecting the Work of Scientists by Al Fin http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-34640 Al Fin Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:06:44 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2007/07/on-rejecting-the-work-of-scientists.html#comment-34640 I am happy to find a blog so devoted to renewable energies. Personally, I place high hopes on the prospects of renewables to decentralise the economics of energy, and hopefully economics in general. Placing more emphasis on the local, and less on the global. As for consensus warming theory, current trends are in fact going in exactly the opposite direction as what you imply in your posting. It is easier to be a believer in an orthodoxy such as consensus warming orthodoxy, than a heretic. A heretic risks much by distancing himself from the mass of believers. In numbers there is protection and strength. On your own, you risk loss of funding, denial of tenure, being demonised by your intellectual inferiors who are raking in the grants, etc. etc. As a believer, one must nor actually know anything about the topic other than the authority upon which one places his trust. For almost all believers, belief is a subconscious appeal to authority. It is the lazy man's approach to knowledge. Let someone else do your thinking for you. I am not saying this is your approach, by any means. Perhaps you know more than what your are saying, about the scientific basis of climate? Appeal to authority is working less and less well these days. I am happy to find a blog so devoted to renewable energies. Personally, I place high hopes on the prospects of renewables to decentralise the economics of energy, and hopefully economics in general. Placing more emphasis on the local, and less on the global.

As for consensus warming theory, current trends are in fact going in exactly the opposite direction as what you imply in your posting.

It is easier to be a believer in an orthodoxy such as consensus warming orthodoxy, than a heretic. A heretic risks much by distancing himself from the mass of believers. In numbers there is protection and strength. On your own, you risk loss of funding, denial of tenure, being demonised by your intellectual inferiors who are raking in the grants, etc. etc.

As a believer, one must nor actually know anything about the topic other than the authority upon which one places his trust. For almost all believers, belief is a subconscious appeal to authority. It is the lazy man’s approach to knowledge. Let someone else do your thinking for you.

I am not saying this is your approach, by any means. Perhaps you know more than what your are saying, about the scientific basis of climate? Appeal to authority is working less and less well these days.

]]> Comment on Paper Critiques Space Elevator and Scientists Overstate Their Case by Steve H http://www.anthonares.net/2006/05/paper-critiques-space-elevator-and-scientists-overstate-their-case.html#comment-34601 Steve H Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:45:03 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/05/paper-critiques-space-elevator-and-scientists-overstate-their-case.html#comment-34601 Just a little doomsday thought here: IF one were to create a carbon ribbon through the ionosphere, there is a possibility that this would provide a short-circuit path to ground. Discharging the ionosphere would destroy the Earth's protection from solar wind and would probably make the planet uninhabitable very quickly. Most likely, if this short-circuit did in fact form, the ribbon would burn out quickly. But the potential to create an ionized plasma along the path of the ribbon exists. The result would be the mother of all lightning strikes. Even if the cable were an insulator such as Kevlar any contamination such as carbon or moisture would make it much more conductive than our atmosphere. Let's just say it would be a REALLY bad idea to try this on December 21, 2012. For safety, any attempt to build this thing should place an electrical meter at the end of the ribbon. If high voltage potentials are read, the project should be aborted while the line is still very far from ground. Just a little doomsday thought here:

IF one were to create a carbon ribbon through the ionosphere, there is a possibility that this would provide a short-circuit path to ground.

Discharging the ionosphere would destroy the Earth’s protection from solar wind and would probably make the planet uninhabitable very quickly.

Most likely, if this short-circuit did in fact form, the ribbon would burn out quickly. But the potential to create an ionized plasma along the path of the ribbon exists. The result would be the mother of all lightning strikes.

Even if the cable were an insulator such as Kevlar any contamination such as carbon or moisture would make it much more conductive than our atmosphere.

Let’s just say it would be a REALLY bad idea to try this on December 21, 2012.

For safety, any attempt to build this thing should place an electrical meter at the end of the ribbon. If high voltage potentials are read, the project should be aborted while the line is still very far from ground.

]]> Comment on Resource Scarcity and Asteroid Mining by Eric Heberling http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/resource-scarcity-and-asteroid-mining.html#comment-34558 Eric Heberling Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:28:13 +0000 http://www.anthonares.net/2006/02/resource-scarcity-and-asteroid-mining.html#comment-34558 In regard to living in space and the need to guard against excessive radiation, are there asteroids thought to contain lead, that, being such a heavy element, could be mined in the future to block it? Indeed, does the ISS use lead to block radiation? In regard to living in space and the need to guard against excessive radiation, are there asteroids thought to contain lead, that, being such a heavy element, could be mined in the future to block it?

Indeed, does the ISS use lead to block radiation?

]]>