The rise of fascisim ...

I live in a pretty windy area... during the summer we have sustained winds of 40-60 miles an hour for several hours.. daily...

And it is sunny 80% of the year... today it was pretty darn warm...

maybe I should go to a city council meeting and propose a huge windmill. When I was in the midwest last Tornado season, I drove through several windmill farms.. i was told that the wind mills cost one million dollars a piece and generate about $1,000,000 of electricity every 4-5 years. WOW
 
you can buy smaller units, 1Kw, that will help with your power bill for sure. cost around $4-6,000. google wind power and check it out.

tomorrow i will post a link that i used to email my politicians about giving us tax credits for wind power. as it is currently you can only get tax credits for solar equipment (the Fed + State credits are actually pretty huge).
 
not a bad price on that! i mistakenly said 1kW earlier, you really want about 10kW for a residential house...sorry for the confusion.


you might have local ordinances about the height of structures allowed on your property. most of the time this only relates to antennas but you should check. wind mills require at least a 50 foot tower to be really efficient and get steady wind.



here's the link to tell politicians you want tax credits for wind power:
Bergey Windpower Co., the world's leading supplier of small wind turbines
 
As far as I can tell cancer seems to be mostly environmental....
there are also carcinogins (?sp) all over everyones home, the products just arnt labled as being carcinoginic (?sp)
-cancer doesnt seem to b linked to nuclear plants...
thx for makin my brain fart! lol!
Cheers!
 
As far as I can tell cancer seems to be mostly environmental....
there are also carcinogins (?sp) all over everyones home, the products just arnt labled as being carcinoginic (?sp)
-cancer doesnt seem to b linked to nuclear plants...
thx for makin my brain fart! lol!
Cheers!


glad you found out some good info. :) yeah, it's a biological minefield out there. even the blackened areas of meat, where it hits the grill for example, this contains confirmed carcinogenic material... your body creates a steady stream of carcinogens as it "digests" proteins, free-radicals occur all the time. just have to take good care of your body the best you can and use precautions when handling products that concern you. life is as life does. :)
 
nuclear waste.... what should be done with the waste?

This idea popped in my head las night... let tax gas.. $1.00 more per gallon and really stick it to ourselves.. before th prices go any higher...

I read that the gas companies are going to raise gas prices to te highest levels ever in order to see how far the american people will tolerate (supply and demand)..

So, why not just tax gas $1.00 more per gallon and use that money to subsidize alternate energy sources and THUS give the money back to the people... ilove IT!!
 
GK, over 1/2 of what you pay for a gallon of gas are already taxes.
Enough Gas Taxes.
and fuck using corn for Alcohol, Brazil uses grass and it's a lot more efficient.
Hemp would be even more so, as well as it can be made to make Bio-diesel.
The only problem we have with alternative fuels is that we do not have the infrastructure for it. Alternative energy is something I have been reading a lot about.
 
"nuclear waste.... what should be done with the waste?"

i tend to always think the best thing to do is copy nature. nuclear materials are naturally occurring and they are often found beneath mountains. we have already excavated a multi-billion dollar hole in Yuka mountain in NV for storing nuclear waste so let's use it.

as far as your tax thing, what do you mean subsidize alternative power? if you pay a power bill every month you are already subsidizing it. you should constantly ask your power provider what they have in the works, let them know you want some changes, that's your job as a consumer...consuming isn't a one way street. :)
 
Excellent points made throughout piece....
Of course Climate Change is an insidious hoax perpetrated by the collectivists and elitists....
There is hope yet, however, because here is a French Socialist Climatologist who has looked at the science available, and has changed his mind.
He has seen the light!
:joint:
Allegre's second thoughts


LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post

Published: Friday, March 02, 2007
Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.
"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
http://javascript:void window.open(...r=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=no')
His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."
Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.
But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.
Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear.
Allegre's second thoughts

Climate change: The Deniers


National Post

Published: Friday, February 09, 2007
The Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science. Here is the series so far:
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
End the chill -- The Deniers Part XI
Clouded research -- The Deniers Part XII


wow, claud allegre. how has his scientific record looked since then?

:lol:

Gravity[edit]
In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. Allègre responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; Allègre maintained his statement yet again.[12][14]

(Each falling ball experiences acceleration due to two main competing forces: gravity and air resistance. The acceleration due to gravity will be the same for both balls, regardless of mass [because F = ma = mg, so a = g], but the acceleration due to air resistance will be different because the balls have different sizes and surface textures. As a result, the balls' total accelerations will be different, as will their final speeds. If the balls fall in a vacuum, then there is no air resistance and their final speeds will be the same.)
 
This display of desperation is pathetic.
80700345.jpg
 
I recently read about a project in Arizona that I think they are about to break ground on.

They are going to build the tallest structure in North America. It is going to be a solar wind turbine, or some such. It looks like one giant nuclear power plant cooling tower. They will build a huge structure at the base.

Basically a big skirt, extending out in all directions, the structure will force air through the tunnel turning turbines generating electricity.

Sounds fun.
 
wow, claud allegre. how has his scientific record looked since then?

:lol:

Gravity[edit]
In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. Allègre responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; Allègre maintained his statement yet again.[12][14]

(Each falling ball experiences acceleration due to two main competing forces: gravity and air resistance. The acceleration due to gravity will be the same for both balls, regardless of mass [because F = ma = mg, so a = g], but the acceleration due to air resistance will be different because the balls have different sizes and surface textures. As a result, the balls' total accelerations will be different, as will their final speeds. If the balls fall in a vacuum, then there is no air resistance and their final speeds will be the same.)

3 years of you cruising the political forums daily does not in any way imply you are a troll, not at all!!
 
whats wrong with wind power and solar power?

Sometimes it is windless and dark.

The efficiency is not good and require subsidy to make if cost a lot less than it does.

It is a large and ugly, fragile and expensive waste of infrastructure $$, is why.
 
I recently read about a project in Arizona that I think they are about to break ground on.

They are going to build the tallest structure in North America. It is going to be a solar wind turbine, or some such. It looks like one giant nuclear power plant cooling tower. They will build a huge structure at the base.

Basically a big skirt, extending out in all directions, the structure will force air through the tunnel turning turbines generating electricity.

Sounds fun.


They have tested tethered inflatable turbine wind socks, now at 1000 feet in the air.

Anything rotating will break. I think we are ready for very large, stratospheric power generators, self powered, if the 25% efficiency goal is ever reached.
 
I have read that wind turbines have an effect on the way the air is naturally circulating. (forgot the word) They also kill birds and what not but I don't know how realistic either of these impacts are on us.

Solar power might work but not everywhere gets sunlight every day and so there would need to be lots of batteries to fill up in order for that to work.

Nuclear power doesn't end well for us, something that lives longer than the earth has been alive doesn't seem to settle easy with me. The fact is computers have bugs, humans make errors, and something that could potentially kill everyone around it within miles doesn't seem to be a bright idea.

Maybe I am too paranoid, I am no scientist that is for sure but I use common sense and apply knowledge learned to make my opinions.
 
Yes. It is all energy. You take energy out of the wind or out of fuel burn and spread it around as waste heat ultimately. And you take energy from the surfaces by shading with solar panels. Over time that can all have consequence.

If you harvest energy of the tides, you are moving the moon away....over time.
It you drag magnets to harvest energy in Earth's magnetic field.you slow the rotation..over time.
 
There is no left in the US. I agree that liberalism is fascist (by the way the op could not spell it so don't expect him to know what it means) but that doesn't make fascism left wing. The key characteristic of fascist economics is privatization. Mussolini privatized and so did Hitler. They may have sworn that they were socialist but they privatized.

Fascism is a form of capitalism.

"Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism" ~George Orwell
 
Back
Top