Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study

Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study
Photo Credit: NASA/TRACE
(PhysOrg.com) -- Sunspot formation is triggered by a magnetic field, which scientists say is steadily declining. They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades. The last time the sunspots disappeared altogether was in the 17th and 18th century, and coincided with a lengthy cool period on the planet known as the Little Ice Age.

Sunspots are regions of electrically charged, superheated gas (plasma) on the surface of the , formed when upwellings of the magnetic field trap the ionized plasma. The magnetic field prevents the gas from releasing the heat and sinking back below the sun’s surface. These areas are somewhat cooler than the surrounding and so appear to us as dark spots.

Sunspots have been observed at least since the early 17th century, and they are known to follow an 11 year cycle from to . The solar minimum usually lasts around 16 months, but the current minimum has already lasted 26 months, which is the longest minimum in a hundred years.

Since 1990, Matthew Penn and William Livingston, solar astronomers with the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona, have been using a measurement known as Zeeman splitting to study the magnetic strength of sunspots. The Zeeman splitting is the distance between a pair of infrared spectral lines in a taken of the light emitted by iron atoms in the atmosphere of the sun. The wider the distance, the greater is the intensity of the magnetic field.

Penn and Livingston examined 1500 sunspots and found that the average strength of the magnetic field of the sunspots has dropped from around 2700 gauss to 2000 gauss. (In comparison, the Earth’s magnetic field is below one gauss.) The reasons for the decline are unknown, but Livingston said that if the strength continues to decrease at the same rate it will drop to 1500 gauss by 2016, and below this strength the formation of sunspots appears to be impossible.

During the period from 1645 to 1715, a time known as the Maunder Minimum, there were almost no sunspots. This period coincided with the Little Ice Age, which produced lower than average temperatures in Europe. Livingston said their results should be treated with caution as their techniques are relatively new and it is not yet known if the decline in magnetic field strength will continue, and that “only the passage of time will tell whether the solar cycle will pick up.”

David Hathaway, a solar physicist with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, also cautioned the calculations do not take into account that many small sunspots with relatively weak magnetic fields appeared during the last solar maximum, and if these are not included in the calculations the average strength would seem higher than it actually was.

Penn and Livingston’s paper has been submitted to the online colloquium, International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 273.


Explore further

Are Sunspots Disappearing?

More information: Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields, Matthew Penn and William Livingston, arXiv:1009.0784v1 [astro-ph.SR]

© 2010 PhysOrg.com

Citation: Sunspots could soon disappear for decades: study (2010, September 15) retrieved 22 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-09-sunspots-decades.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 15, 2010
Ah, I can hear it now. "The effects of AGW are masked by the solar minimum, but temporary". I was expecting some kind of fallback position after consist failure of climate models.

Sep 15, 2010
Ugh, this is a fine article but I could just hear the gross oversimplifications from the anti-science crowd as I read it. Looks like one beat me here. Anti-evolution, anti-global warming, the drone is always the same. Predictable.

Sep 15, 2010
Hrm. How valid is this kind of extrapolation, I wonder? I mean, the sun does not exactly behave linearly; you can't just draw a line between point A and point B and assume that point C is ever going to happen. Then again, of course, there's obviously a precedent for a long, cold, sunspotless period...Wait and see, I guess.

If it does happen, though, I imagine it'll end up being something of a mixed blessing; the temporary cooldown in global temperatures will be nice, but as Mosahlah demonstrates so helpfully, it'll also cripple the acceptance of global warming--and thus, the political drive to do something about rising CO2. I'm not looking forward to a combination of rising solar activity and high CO2 levels, once we emerge from the minimum; that could be very nasty.

Sep 15, 2010
Al Gore will soon be urging carbon credits for burning MORE "fossil" fuels as humanity desperately seeks to stave off something a lot more threatening than AGW --- a solar-spawned little ice age.


Sep 15, 2010
Sancho: Erm...for what it's worth, the degree of badness you could get from global warming is a good deal more than possible from something like the Maunder minimum--after all, we got through the Maunder minimum with only a few scrapes, so to speak, but the worst-case scenarios for global warming imply a near-collapse--or outright collapse--of global civilization. Worst-case, of course, but even so. The threats of a little ice age don't quite match up.

Sep 15, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.

Sep 15, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.

WWII was instrumental in enabling technology and the systems engineering required to support such technology.
A 'crisis' is also an opportunity.
But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown, but not the risk of asteroid impacts.


WWII wasn't really the same as the GW scenario. The states still had an intact and expanding industrial capacity, while the rest of the industrial world was reduced to shambles. The point is that after WW2 the capacity still existed, so the loss of capacity wasn't completely global.

I have no idea where that asteroid came from.

Sep 15, 2010
Yeah, crisis is an opportunity, but when you look at the factions that exist today their agendas are mostly hostile to liberty-based societies and our constitutional republic. The factions camped outside our walls seem to desire wealth and power for themselves, at the expense of civilization and human progress. There doesn't seem to be any real opposition to these factions, other than their own timidness and fear of exposing themselves and their agendas.

Natural events like food shortages caused by a solar cooling event may provide them the chaos they need to re-organize society around their wills. Sadly, nature may provide them a real crisis, rather than the manufactured one they tried to create in AGW nonsense.

It's not like the people are intelligent enough to offer any alternatives to factional totalitarianism, right? They certainly won't offer any resistance to whatever power rises to dominance.

Sep 15, 2010
"But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown,"

I've worked in the plastics industry in the SE part of the USA for the past 27 years and we are starting to see issues we've not experienced before. Our evaporative cooling towers, chillers and HVAC units are either struggling or no longer able to maintain setpoints required for our processes - even at the reduced production required by a slow economy. A heat pump can only pump so much heat into a heated atmosphere. An evaporative cooling tower can only transfer so much heat and evaporate so much water into an already hot and humid environment.

Now, you may discount any effects of GW, but I have instrumentation that tells me that properly maintained equipment is getting to the point where it can no longer support our production processes.

Compensating for this is only possible with the installation of larger units that often require more power to operate. Multiply this effect world wide and do the math.

Sep 15, 2010
I would have to conclude that this article is the product of someone either looking for funding, or someone seeking research time on an observatory. The above story is nearly a verbatim repeat of the following story from nearly two years ago:
http://findarticl...1060879/

I do notice that the current version has replaced some of the prior wild speculations with new wild speculations, so it's not entirely a repeat of the old story. At least they included a cautionary warning that we should disregard what they are saying this time.

Sep 15, 2010
Thanks for having the courage to present this news story on Earth's heat source - the Sun.

That was the title of a paper published last year ["Earth's heat source - the Sun", Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144] when the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was still being ignored by Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

I am especially pleased to see that a solar physicist with the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama [Dr. David Hathaway] is now aware of the Sun's influence on Earth's ever-changing climate.

More will be revealed,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 15, 2010
This story reaffirms the unyielding spiritual foundation of science:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

[Numerous Bible verses; Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85]

Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 15, 2010
The cooling effect from diminished sunspot activity is likely to be less than the warming effect from GHG, so the net effect will probably be that Global Warming will continue at a slower rate than expected over the next several decades. This should be considered GREAT NEWS because it will would give us badly needed time to prepare.

Sep 15, 2010
Ah, I can hear it now. "The effects of AGW are masked by the solar minimum, but temporary". I was expecting some kind of fallback position after consist failure of climate models.

-and what if the temperature continues to rise? the last decade was the hotest on record.

Gswift,
There you go again, claiming all scientist care about is money. Go buy a telescope and watch the sun for decades, then come back and claim with a straight face that sun spots counts are being manipulated. Rediculous arguement, always the same, but only used when the science doesn't fit your desires and beleifs.

Oliver K. Manuel,

I hope your right, but science is not the deciding factor in the U.S., money and power is. Information dessimination is key to truth, and our media is highly controlled and propagandized.

Sep 15, 2010
"...but the current minimum has already lasted 26 months..."

Is this article up to date? Solar Cycle 24 has begun and sunspots are on the increase. Whatever one thinks of the strength of cycle 24 and what may come after, can we accurately be said to still be in a minimum?

Sep 15, 2010
marjon,

There are 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years, things that can bring the human race to our knees:
1. Nuclear war
2. Pollution (not just AGW... what happens when cancer rates reach 60%?)
3. astrophysical phenomenon

1 and 2 are both man made causes. These are my highest concern, we created this danger not god/universe. In my eyes, there is no greater sin that to destroy the planet (this is a beleif not science, learn the difference marjon and state which you are giving).

As for #3, yes it is a great concern. It would be one hell of milestone for our species if we can divert a natural disaster on the scale of mass extinctions (AGW is not a "natural" disaster). We are actively looking for objects in space, but I think only like 5% of the sky is accounted for... your right, it should be expanded.

Still, a massive astroid impact is on the scale of one every 10 to 100s of thousands of years.. AGW is once in the next 10 to 100 years.

Sep 15, 2010
Don't shrug off the cancer arguement marjon, this is the main concern of most environmentalists who are also doctors, not AGW. 25% of global populations got cancer sometime in there life around 1950 (smoking rates, in were 60%). Now 38% of the population gets cancer sometime in their life (smoking rates are less than 25%). that's 13% increase in 50 years. following this pattern, by 2050 they expect cancer rates to top 50% of the population. The large majority of doctors contribute this to air pollution.

If you really regect the evidence of AWG based on a BELIEF, focus on the health consequences when discussing modernizing our fuel source.

Sep 15, 2010
If it does happen, though, I imagine it'll end up being something of a mixed blessing; the temporary cooldown in global temperatures will be nice, but as Mosahlah demonstrates so helpfully, it'll also cripple the acceptance of global warming--and thus, the political drive to do something about rising CO2. I'm not looking forward to a combination of rising solar activity and high CO2 levels, once we emerge from the minimum; that could be very nasty.

Well think of it this way, it will be well definable through the secondary vector of CO2 emissions, "ocean acidification".

If we drop into a period of low solar output and temperatures decline, we'll see a rather marked decrease in the pH of the ocean and potentially a decrease in the measurements of atmospheric CO2.

One immediate benefit will come from the understanding of the solar interaction on the carbon cycle, allowing us to seperate noise from data with higher precision. If anything the issue may become more visible.

Sep 15, 2010
Oliver K. Manuel,

I hope your right, but science is not the deciding factor in the U.S., money and power is. Information dessimination is key to truth, and our media is highly controlled and propagandized.


Spiritual truths are powerful, as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi demonstrated in defeating the British Empire.

Governments, science, and the media are and were "highly controlled and propagandized." But all those forces together are naught compared to the forces that determine our next heartbeat and the time when the Earth quakes or the Sun sneezes.

I would much rather be on the side of spiritual truths than in the camp of Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Sep 15, 2010
I have no idea where that asteroid came from.

No one else will either.
Asteroid impacts are KNOWN to have occur and their effects are documents.
Where is the concern? Where are the chicken littles?
AGW MAY cause...COULD cause....and we MUST act NOW!
On a basis of risk, asteroids should top the list, not AGW.

You're neglecting the fact that we've been talking about CO2 emissions in scientific circles for almost a half century now and nothing has changed. We've only recently become interested in impact events and extinctions.

Let's fix our problems in order of easily preventable to not preventable and potentially adaptable.

If a large enough body came through, we're screwed. Only way to fix that problem is to leave Earth and have colonies already standing by, a real possibility. Problem is, you'll need to get the entire world on board, just like you will need to with emissions. Nothing can be done about any global problem until we have a global understanding.

Sep 15, 2010
marjon,

CO2 absorbs more IR radiation than air and releases more heat as a result. Do you really challenge this?

Sep 15, 2010
Oliver K. Manuel,

I agree Oliver, but I am losing hope fast that truth will prevail IN TIME, before the terrible happens.

Einstein said: "I'm not a pacifist but a militant pacifist"

I couldn't agree more. I will fight to the death to save the lives of the innocents. Truth will prevail in the end, but it may really be "THE END". The evidence for AGW is overwelming and common sense at this point, and it really may already be far to late to stop it.

Sep 15, 2010
"Recent news just claimed methane from cows was more significant than human produce CO2."
-there are other forces at work in the media... big oil.
-I've done the math and it is a false claim. Do the math, I'm tiered of reiterating it for you.

another one from Einstein: "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

I agree some scientists are curropt, but not the majority who accept AGW as a fact of nature.

H2O absorbs orders of magnitude more IR energy than CO2

-I could beleive that, but global humitity hasn't doubled in the last 50 years, and I would imagin it has been proven to be relatively constant during the years before the industrial revolution. Please, contradict my BELEIF with real SCIENCE.

Sep 15, 2010
@ Gunslingor: What?

This article doesn't conflict with my views at all. It sounds like good science to me, so my views, if I had any in regard to sunspots, wouldn't enter into it anyway. Fact is fact. The part about sun spots stopping in 40 years is speculation though, as the story itself says.

I was merely pointing out that the article is an old article that's been resubmitted for some reason. As Shawn G. pointed out, it doesn't even seem to be up to date. One logical reason for digging up an old press release would be that they are preparing to request time on a telescope, and another reason could be a funding review approaching. That's not in any way a bad thing. I was just pointing out my thoughts about why an obviously old article would suddenly re-surface like this. They don't seem to have anything new to add to the story.

Sep 15, 2010
If it were every climatologist would agree and every technical solution, like nuclear energy, would be promoted and developed worldwide.


You really expect EVERY climatologist to agree!? ha! that'll never happen. A simple majority does me fine. Anyway, the majority should drive our future, not the minority nor the supermajority as you request. Driving off a supermajority is ineffective cause you can never get it; this is what happened to congress after the modifications to the filabuster (spelling baad?)... they are crippled.

Sep 15, 2010
Well think of it this way, it will be well definable through the secondary vector of CO2 emissions, "ocean acidification".

If we drop into a period of low solar output and temperatures decline, we'll see a rather marked decrease in the pH of the ocean and potentially a decrease in the measurements of atmospheric CO2.

One immediate benefit will come from the understanding of the solar interaction on the carbon cycle, allowing us to seperate noise from data with higher precision. If anything the issue may become more visible.

Ah, yes; somehow, I always manage to forget about ocean acidification when I'm thinking about the effects of global warming. And the impacts of that on, say, the fishing industry might well be enough to provide enough of an impetus to shift power production to something that doesn't pump CO2 into the atmosphere...hope for the best, I guess.

Sep 15, 2010
marjon: forget AGW... care about the other other effect, if you don't beleive the evidence by now you never will, lets move on.

1. Are you okay with massive deaths from cancer?
2. Are you okay with ocean acidification?
3. are you okay with 25mpg cars when 100mpg cars can be produced for nearly the same cost?
4. Are you okay with soot in our cities and smog in the air?
5. are you okay with chemicals in your water?

These are all but a few consequences of pollution. Please answer the questions, are you okay with this?

I have.


Good. So you agree it is a bogus claim?

Sep 15, 2010
If a decision has to be made quickly, it should be the majority. You think it should be the minority?

Over and over again we talk, but you never address the other effects of pollution. Please, answer my questions.

Sep 15, 2010
Ah, okay. so you think cow farts are to blaim for GW? You think cancer rates are stable? you think ocean ph has not changed? You think CO2 has not doubled?

Okay! I'm done with you then bro... I just don't have the time to give you that much education.

Sep 15, 2010
Read my words in context; when a path forward is needed, science, not belief should be the deciding factor. Scientists never agree 100% as you would desire, so the accepted principles written in the text books comes from the majority. There are people who beleive special relativity is false (like you with negative effects of pollution) but the majority came to consensus. The LARGE, and I mean large, majority think AWG is valid.

Nice article... Cancer DEATHS have decline due to medical advance... Cancer rates ahve increased according to your article which agrees with my sources.

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).."
lol, 2002 article before it was even passed. That was a prediction based on models. What relevance does it have anyway?


Sep 15, 2010
The last one, yet again, was an opinion piece, not science.

You don't beleive in scientific measurements using well established methods. As a result, to reiterate, I'm done with you. If you don't beleive in measurement theory you cannot use science at all, only belief... again we come to this. You must be a preacher or something. Go ahead, have the last word, make it good.

Sep 15, 2010
This paper is an admission that the Sun has dominant control of Earth's climate and yet another reaffirmation of the unyielding spiritual foundation of science:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

[Numerous Bible verses; Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85]

That truth is more powerful than the combined political influence of Al Gore, world leaders, the UN and the UN's IPCC, science journals, the news media, TV, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), NASA, DOE, EPA and other research agencies that NAS controls through budget review.

So be of good cheer,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo


Sep 15, 2010
The overwhelming evidence of global warming is 1/2 degree F in 150 years. Yawn.

Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! I sure as heck don't trust em.

Oliver K. Manuel,

Wow, I didn't ealize your coming from that angle.

Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! On the basis of spiritual truths, I recently requested the resignation of the editor of Nature for promoting three falsehoods as scientific facts:

Falsehoods:

1. Man-made CO2 induced global warming.

2. Earth's heat source is well-behaved H-fusion reactor.

3. Fusion powers the Sun and is our best hope for meeting future energy needs.

Scientific Facts:

1. Earth's heat source is a variable star [Energy & Environ 20 (2009) 131-144]: arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

2. Space-age measurements showed that "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass" [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856]: arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509

3. Neutron repulsion supplies most of the Sun energy ["The Sun's origin, composition and source of energy", Lunar & Planet. Sci. Conf. XXXII (2001) paper 1041] and is a far greater source of nuclear energy than H-fusion ["Neutron repulsion" (2010) manuscript under review].

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 15, 2010
" . . . only one in four Americans say they trust the government to do what is right always or most of the time, . . ."
http://politicalt...+Ticker)


Thanks, Marjon.

The poll further affirms the validity of this spiritual truth:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

And the absurdity of misusing science as a propaganda tool.

So be of good cheer,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Sep 15, 2010
Once again I am reminded that science and religion are close cousins.

Not because of any intrinsic properties, simply because of human psychology.

Our intellect may now grant us amazing powers of observation, analysis, and control over over our physical environment but we still haven't grappled with the reality that it's purpose is to get what our "animal" (core) brain wants.

And one of those core desires is to be "right", and recognized for it. So you get what I see here, a bunch of people using their intellectual conversation skills to scratch their animal brain "itch" on topics that are so vague and ill defined that only *faith* can explain their levels of certainty.

Oh, and gunslingor1 listed 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years... you left off the most likely one. A bio-engineered disease. Basement bio-hackers are going to replay the computer virus trend, but in real life.


Sep 15, 2010
IMHO science and spirituality are close cousins.

Science and religion are often enemies.

S & R are dominated by bigots.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Sep 15, 2010
I wonder if it really is possible to accurately predict the future by studying the past? Assuming we know all there is to know about the past, but that takes time so now here we are further into the future still playing catch-up. Probably a good idea to hedge our bets.

Sep 15, 2010
Yep!!! On the basis of spiritual truths, I recently requested the resignation of the editor of Nature for promoting three falsehoods as scientific facts...

You heard it here first! Oliver K. Manuel bases his scientific arguments on spiritual truths.

As is common with people who base their arguments entirely on "spiritual truths", you oversimplify every argument, engage in character assassination against everyone who disagrees with you (pretty much every scientist working for a major organization), and make numerous spurious claims, baldly asserting their truth.

Sep 15, 2010
Sorry to hurt your brain, but life is more complicated than you claim. The sun doesn't "control" the Earth's temperature, it provides one (or more) variable input. Do you argue that the atmosphere has NO effect on temperatures? If so, you're a fool. If not, then you have to agree that both solar activity AND atmospheric changes can affect temperatures on Earth. I'm sure you have a bible verse which disproves this, though?

This article is only talking about one potential input... and it's already irrelevant because we're coming out of the minimum.

Sep 16, 2010
Actually, per my comment above, I see that spaceweather.com explains that even the occasional spotless day means that solar minimum is still ongoing. Solar max's NEVER have a spotless day, apparently. And our current minimum do seem to be longer.

There's a very helpful explanation with updated data here: http://spaceweath...3bmhqid0

Sep 16, 2010
Actually, per my comment above, I see that spaceweather.com explains that even the occasional spotless day means that solar minimum is still ongoing. Solar max's NEVER have a spotless day, apparently. And our current minimum do seem to be longer.

There's a very helpful explanation with updated data here: http://spaceweath...3bmhqid0


We shall all be a little colder, by and by.

Sep 16, 2010
I've worked in the plastics industry in the SE part of the USA for the past 27 years and we are starting to see issues we've not experienced before
Here we have steve demonstrating the flip-side wrt the publics skepticism of AGW, .. the publics gullible nature. You're not going to personally NOTICE global temperatures changes. The natural variation in local temperatures washes out any global trend. I too work in plastics (IMM medical) for 18 years in the humidity of Florida, do moisture analysis on dried plastics, pc, nylon, delrin, etc, and notice no problems that aren't seasonal.


Sep 16, 2010
Oh, and gunslingor1 listed 3 likely causes of massive extinction events in the next 100 years... you left off the most likely one. A bio-engineered disease. Basement bio-hackers are going to replay the computer virus trend, but in real life.

-I don't consider it as important, but still important. 99.999999% of deseases are species specific, if that changes with technology it would be equal to nuclear winter. I am concerned about humanity, but more concerned about the planet... the planet can servive without humans, humans can't survive without the planet yet.. besides, I wouldn't mind seeing this planet produce another (of many, whom are all gone and not quite as intelligent as humans) intelligent species.

bhiestand,
I agree Oliver K. Manuel seems to be a bit evil in my eyes, mixing science with ORGANIZED religion. He cannot be objective at all, after all, he knows how the universe was created, in 7 days =). Therefore he is just being manipulative to make his god happy.

Sep 16, 2010
I have no idea where that asteroid came from.

No one else will either.
Asteroid impacts are KNOWN to have occur and their effects are documents.
Where is the concern? Where are the chicken littles?
AGW MAY cause...COULD cause....and we MUST act NOW!
On a basis of risk, asteroids should top the list, not AGW.


This is an article about changes in sun spot activity. Asteroids are a separate topic completely. Unless you're a great believer in karma, you should not consider that addressing any human component of global warming will have any effect on an asteroid.

Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter. We seem to repeatedly think it, whatever the present "it" is, is all about us humans. What an incredible ego our species has. In any instance, if a bit of panic can be the motivation to reduce dependence on carbon-based energy, then lets run wild.

Sep 16, 2010
1. You heard it here first! Oliver K. Manuel bases his scientific arguments on spiritual truths.


2. The sun doesn't "control" the Earth's temperature, it provides one (or more) variable input.


3. I agree Oliver K. Manuel seems to be a bit evil in my eyes, mixing science with ORGANIZED religion. He cannot be objective at all, after all, he knows how the universe was created, in 7 days =).


1. No. Science relies on spiritual truths, like:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."

2. The Sun heats planet Earth, evaporates water to make the rains that feed the flow of rivers back to the oceans, and the Sun sustains the cycle of life.

3. Spirituality and real science are unlike ORGANIZED religions. I do know how the universe was created, but space age measurements show that our Sun is the re-cycled remains of the supernova that gave birth to the Solar System 5 Gyr ago [Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856]:
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3

Oliver K Manuel

Sep 16, 2010
Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter.
Well I agree with that reasoning.

Sep 16, 2010
Don't mis-understand: I see evidence of global warming, however to me the jury is still out concerning the degree of effect that humans play in the matter.

-I agree somewhat. We know humans can cause a nuclear winter and kill all life on the planet with a single nuclear war. I think, if I remeber correctly, it would only take 5 H bombs set off around the globe... The US has 100s!.
-as for global warming and mans ability to affect climate in other ways, let me ask this. Do you think that, giving the right resources and time, man COULD someday teraform Mars or other planets? I think the best way to do this, if possible, would be to have a local 6 billion people population change the atmophere with daily activities, not a giant scifi machine.

-All that really matters is that we admit there is a danger. Also realize we have far better fuel sources, without even considering AGW as a factor. I mean, we've harnessed the power of the atom, far greater than any chemical reaction.

Sep 16, 2010
As for omatumr's comparison between science and religion, I have to agree to a certain extent. Just try to question, or profess disbelief in either and you'll notice the same knee-jerk reactions. Both proponents would exclaim blasphemy and do their best and with all sincerity to convince you otherwise - all while concerned for your sanity. I think OKM is just jerking on strings to watch which puppets jump.

Sep 16, 2010
Just try to question, or profess disbelief in either and you'll notice the same knee-jerk reactions.
No. Question science and you'll start an inquiry if the field isn't well known, if the field is well known you'll be confronted with proof and have your error demonstrated to you.

With religion you'll jsut be outcast or possibly murdered.

Science isn't controlled by anyone or any body politic. If you can demonstrate new science it is adopted. If you attempt to demonstrate new religion you're hunted like an animal by prior religions. This is the difference between a body of knowledge and a body of false knowledge.

Sep 16, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic, good way to put it I guess.

Religion speaks in a SINGLE absolute, while science speaks in ZERO absolutes. That's why they really aren't compatible; philosophy takes the place of religion in any workable partnership because philosophy, like science, takes nothing as absolute reality, unlike religion which takes everything involved as absolute reality...which is very useful for controlling a population.

Everything is questioned constantly in science, particularly the root of all sciences - physics. a lto of religions tell you you'll burn in hell for all eternity if you question the word and don't "beleive"... hence, you control a great deal of people with what you write under those conditions.

Sep 16, 2010
Marjon: Could it be that Pons and Fleischmann might have been relegated to the back burner because they made a serious error? Their experiment was replicated by hundreds of labs and their excess heat was found to be related to inadequate controls in their experiment. Other, much more sensitive experiments showed conclusively that the process did not work. So, you are using a proven embarrassing failure of quality control as your example of scientific persecution. Your true capability to understand science comes out in the belief that Pons and Fleischmann were "driven out of the field." They screwed up big time and announced unproven results on the news instead of having it peer reviewed. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Sep 16, 2010
Events at the National AGU meeting in Washington, DC in April 1976 convinced me that organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

Organized science has suffered severe constipation since then.

The Climategate scandal exposed the basic problem. Perhaps movement in science will start again.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo

Sep 16, 2010
The Climategate scandal exposed the basic problem. Perhaps movement in science will start again.


-Oliver, have you read any of the climegate emails, or are you just repeating what you saw on TV. Go to wikileaks, download the emails, then come back here and show me exactly which email is incriminating.
-I've alrady done this... There is nothing there other than the typical innappropriate talk that goes on in all offices... but there was nothing deceptive, dishonest or illegal. Please, show me your evidence.

Sep 16, 2010
If you read up, you'll see marjon doesn't beleive in measurement theory, he thinks it's false science. What's he proposing now, perpetual motion? Makes sense considering he doesn't think measurements can be made in this universe.

It really too bad scientists are not open to new ideas.

That comment really takes some balls to come in here and say, and clearly shows more sides of your ignorance.

Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

Sep 16, 2010
Marjon: If you read enough you can find reports of hauntings and angels appearing. The report you list seems to be from 1996. I have seen even newer reports listing success but they never stand up to peer review. Liquid flow calorimetry is a very difficult task. It is not unusual for errors to be made. The reason I am familiar with this field is that our lab tried to replicate the P&F work and showed that with 1000 times more sensitivity (thermal measurements are one of our specialties) there was no unaccounted excess heat. I was impressed with the ability of palladium to absorb hydrogen and deuterium. The amount we had could suck up a lecture bottle in seconds. However, we accounted for the heat of absorption and showed there was no nuclear reaction taking place. Time after time the experiments have proven the null hypothesis.

Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

-I don't know, perhaps your right. But I have yet to see much in the way of "organized" science. I mean really, there isn't a building full of scientists focusing on a single solution with absolutely ZERO flexibility or open mindedness to a better solution, thank god.

This is my conflict with religion, I think the real solution MAY be far better than any religion has conceived yet. And I can't talk to highly religious people because they have no open mindedness to other solutions, they can't they think they'll burn in hell if they question the word! I never have this problem with scientists, and I have yet to see an "organized" equivalent to religion.

Sep 16, 2010
For once, you are right marjon. I spoke without considering the exception to the rule. I have met maybe 4 or 5 seriously religious people whom were seriously open minded to our conversastions, one was a millioniare businessman and one was actually a Rabbi, one was a mentor... can't think of others, but there are a few... and it's not black and white, just a spectrum. Science, needs to be on the far open minded side of the spectrum while religion is completely incapable of approaching that side MOST of the time because of the way it was constructed.

Happy Marjon? =)

Sep 16, 2010
No.
You are too closed minded. You sound like a bigot who claims to have a few minority friends.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who is a demonstrated bigot with no friends.

Sep 16, 2010
1. No. Science relies on spiritual truths, like:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
A Truth which can critically endanger society will not be allowed to propagate. New technologies will not be developed before their Time. Obviously.

Similarly, many necessary developments have been sold under the guise of sensationalism. Plutonium, for instance, is the most valuable material that a civilization at our stage of development can possess.

Fissionables are freedom and insurance, and it took a dire Threat to prompt the enormous concerted Effort to produce them worldwide.

The technologies developed as a consequence of the crisis of AGW are critical to Plans for survival on a world with dwindling resources, and for a decisive effort to colonize space.

The Time for these technologies has arrived; the Methods employed to cause their development are irrelevant to the Fact that we will need them to survive and thrive, whether the earth is warming or not.

Sep 16, 2010
How do you know?
You just make unsubstantiated claims about religion and me. How scientific!

You have demonstrated your bigotry and misanthropy in virtually every thread in which you comment, marjon. You also demonstrate that you wouldn't know substance from irrelevancy if it smacked you in the face, as evidenced from your bald-faced attempts to inject your social/political/economic opinions into completely irrelevant topics, then lie about them, and them bomb the threads with more irrelevant and cherry-picked quote mining.

Sep 16, 2010
I love how you accuse me of groundlessly attacking you, and then you go and do the very things for which you are attacked. Your ignorant self-righteousness is a better advocate for those who oppose you than anything else they can say.

Sep 16, 2010
“a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet."
They already do, lucky for everybody.

Sep 16, 2010
Yep, organized science and organized religion are identical twins.

-I don't know, perhaps your right. But I have yet to see much in the way of "organized" science.


Does this spiritual truth reveal the similarity of organized science and organized religion:

Lao Tzu: "To know that you do not know is best,
To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease."


Sep 17, 2010
marjon: I knew it would come down to your quoting Fox "news." I had assumed that was where you got your "scientific information." Now you have proven that true. Actually, even though Fox tries to spin it, their quote: "The explanation he gave last week was that the impact from greenhouse gas emissions covers a broad "disruption" of climate patterns ranging from precipitation to storms to hot and cold temperatures. Those changes, he said, affect the availability of water, productivity of farms, spread of disease and other factors." tells the story pretty well. Warming of the Earth leads to a change in moisture balance and energy transport in both the oceans and atmosphere. It is disruptive. Then they go on to confuse weather with climate in their quote: "Are they going to change the name of weathermen to disruption analysts?" Once again showing the quality of your science sources.

Sep 17, 2010
unlike religion which takes everything involved as absolute reality...which is very useful for controlling a population.
Well that isn't true of all religions. You can't really pass this description off on many types of Buddhism, Shinto, etc. It is a rather strong aspect of western religion.
If it were every climatologist would agree and every technical solution, like nuclear energy, would be promoted and developed worldwide.

Hate to break it to you but Nuclear has become all the rage in every country that actually listens to their climatologists.

Sep 17, 2010
The last time a nuclear plant was build in the US was over 30 years ago. My state, South Carolina, is currently planning to build two new ones. They submitted a request for approval to the federal government last year, which is expected to take 3 to 4 years for approval. Local utility companies are paying for this through rate increases, not the federal government. The federal government has been holding them back every step of the way. South Carolina is the first, but there are a total of 14 nuclear reactors planned in the US right now. It takes 15 to 20 years to build them once they get approval. It takes 10 to 15 years to do everything needed to get approval, called a COL (construction and operating license).

Sep 17, 2010
"Do you think that, giving the right resources and time, man COULD someday teraform Mars or other planets?"

Our descendents are counting on it. Currently Mars doesn't have enough mass to hold an atmosphere we can use. It would be an incredible engineering challenge, but I've never been fond of the concept that challenges can't be met. Humanity still has difficulty seeing beyond each present generation, much less to the degree of forsight required to persue the survival of our species.

Sep 17, 2010
The last time a nuclear plant was build in the US was over 30 years ago. My state, South Carolina, is currently planning to build two new ones. They submitted a request for approval to the federal government last year, which is expected to take 3 to 4 years for approval. Local utility companies are paying for this through rate increases, not the federal government. The federal government has been holding them back every step of the way. South Carolina is the first, but there are a total of 14 nuclear reactors planned in the US right now. It takes 15 to 20 years to build them once they get approval. It takes 10 to 15 years to do everything needed to get approval, called a COL (construction and operating license).


And I live only 25 miles from where one in SC is to be built. My youngest son works for an electrical contractor and they are already bidding on the 10-year "Cherokee project".

Sep 18, 2010
This is will be good.. will give us a chance to burn off the remaining oil and switch to something different without causing runaway greenhouse effect and turning this planet into venus.. Keep on burning, people!

Sep 18, 2010
Editors at TG Daily, "We need to ramp up site use in the message boards. Add an article about the Sun and how it's output may be going down. Also link it to possible climate change. Make it vague enough the nobody will be able to cite clear facts for or against global warming."

Mission Accomplished.

Sep 19, 2010
I see more personal feuds carried on here than anything. The theory of what could happen during an extended minimum is tentative, we're going to find out either way (including whether the minimum is going to last as long as the tentative prediction.

As for global warming, people see what they want to see. I remember on of my favorite authors saying (paraphrasing), "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational animal".

Sep 19, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence that either man-made or natural activity will harm our lives or liberty before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity. And the harm must far outweigh the cost. Otherwise, people who want to use the power for their benefit will use fear mongering to achieve those ends.

As far as I can see, no strong evidence that any harm would come from some global warming, or even that there is measurable man made warming. And while we have the record of the little ice age, I don't think that trying to counter the effects is worthwhile. I believe we can readily adapt to either scenario.

Sep 19, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence...before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity.

That's not the purpose of government, it's just the definition you chose to use because it proves your tautological point.

I can counter that govt's purpose is to prevent others from doing harm to us, necessitating that the government not allow anyone to pollute unless it can be demonstrated that it won't result in harming others, but there's not a constitutional basis for either argument.

In the case of climate change, the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. Most studies show minimal effects on the economy with many potential benefits for the economy--it's really just a small nudge in our domestic policies. The combined costs of climate change, peak oil, toxic pollution, ocean acidification, and energy dependence, on the other hand, have the potential to drastically harm our entire society.

ERF
Sep 20, 2010
The earths climate has many variables affecting it from solar output(all solar output, not just IR) cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, volcanism, Malinkovich cycles, plate tectonics, atmospheric constituents, circulation patterns, ocean/landmass thermal and chemistry effects, aerosols and albedo just to name a few. If a model does not accurately account for all of these effects. Then the model is complete fiction. It's called the real world!

Sep 20, 2010
Our world is operating very close to operational minimums; It's just how our economy works. None of our societies have planned for a disruption in the natural systems that we depend on. If another little ice age appears, the geopolitical effects may be devastating. Nothing motivates wars like resource shortages, especially food.

WWII was instrumental in enabling technology and the systems engineering required to support such technology.
A 'crisis' is also an opportunity.
But, the 'crisis' of GW is way overblown, but not the risk of asteroid impacts.


you are talking about numbers and economical interactions.

we live in a potentially civilized world, we are not used to violence or suffering in large scales. hence why I feel that most humans don't like the idea of being nearly killed or starved to death, considering that GW is true and the effects are disastrous

Sep 20, 2010
How do you know?
You just make unsubstantiated claims about religion and me. How scientific!

You have demonstrated your bigotry and misanthropy in virtually every thread in which you comment, marjon. You also demonstrate that you wouldn't know substance from irrelevancy if it smacked you in the face, as evidenced from your bald-faced attempts to inject your social/political/economic opinions into completely irrelevant topics, then lie about them, and them bomb the threads with more irrelevant and cherry-picked quote mining.

I raise issues and present facts that contradict your assertions and instead of defending the assertion you attack me. That's ok with me as it says more about you than me.


every post from you is an exercise in pseudoscience, fallacies and citations from Fox News. You are an insane paranoid schizopathic instable lunatic that amuses himself citing foxnews and cato institute, completely biased sources.

Sep 20, 2010
Given government's purpose is to preserve our liberties, I think there must be very strong evidence that either man-made or natural activity will harm our lives or liberty before we allow government force to be used to counteract such activity.
The money we spend on oil is used to fund the enemies of the country. Is that good enough for you?
The earths climate has many variables affecting it from solar output(all solar output, not just IR) cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, volcanism, Malinkovich cycles, plate tectonics, atmospheric constituents, circulation patterns, ocean/landmass thermal and chemistry effects, aerosols and albedo just to name a few. If a model does not accurately account for all of these effects. Then the model is complete fiction. It's called the real world!

First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR. Second, one did not model the solar system perfectly on the first pass, yet it greatly improved our understanding of reality.

Sep 20, 2010
I just want to show our MARJON is taking his cues from Fox news to manipulate the facts to serve his purpose:
For gunslingor:
""If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now."
The years have been kind to those forecasts -- or more important, the years have been good for humanity. The benign trends have continued. Our species is better off in just about every measurable material way. And there is stronger reason than ever to believe that progressive trends will continue indefinitely."
http://www.cato.o..._id=6263

Now, if you open the referenced article, it first says the following, followed by his prefered arguement:


Sep 20, 2010
In 1980 the Global 2000 Report to the President began by stating that "if present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now." The introduction to The Resourceful Earth (edited by Julian Simon and the late Herman Kahn) revised that passage: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be less crowded (though more populated), less polluted, more stable ecologically, and less vulnerable to resource-supply disruption than the world we live in now."

Do you see now marjon how manipulative you are being. It should be clear from your own action that you care nothing about the solution, only about being 'right', no matter what the cost (just like fox!). You give a two sided opinion article as a reference, present it as fact by only showing your side of the arguement, and assume the rest of us are to stupid to check your sources (just like fox!). Fox must be so proud.

Sep 20, 2010
"And I live only 25 miles from where one in SC is to be built. My youngest son works for an electrical contractor and they are already bidding on the 10-year "Cherokee project"

Wow, cool. I live in Pelion (part of Lexington County). We're practically neighbors. :)

"Second, one did not model the solar system perfectly on the first pass, yet it greatly improved our understanding of reality"

Yep, that sums it up; the difference between science and a belief. Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me. Never mind predictions, I challenge anyone to create an accurate model of the CURRENT STATE of our atmosphere, land and sea with any hint of accuracy. Heck, I'll even make the challenge easy. Just get an accurate picture of wind direction around the globe at all altitudes at any given time. Surely that's not too hard with 100 cubic mile grids (10x10x10).

Sep 20, 2010
COOL! Yeah, nukes are definitely up and coming, as they were and should have continued to be 40 years ago.

I'm actually working on the Bellefonte nuclear plant project, we just got approved for the detailed engineering phase... $250million to do the engineering. Construction should start within 2 years.

There is hope, no matter how hard the oil loving marjon likes to fill the pockets of big oil above health and environment, there is still hope.

Sep 20, 2010
Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me.
Actually they've already done the wind simulator. When people hear that the models are incomplete, I can't help but link commentary like yours to the misunderstanding that the common public has. When you hear that a model is incomplete, do you think that it's wireframe diagrams as opposed to a full blown CGI motion picture in terms of the scope of incompleteness?

You've missed the point of my statement. We learn more about reality everytime we model. We make a model that is complete to our understanding and run it. Then we compare that model to reality and see what we're missing. Then we investigate reality, find what we're missing and add it to the next model. The next model is run to see if it matches reality. When it doesn't we go exploring again. It isn't a "guess and don't check" game like religion.

Sep 20, 2010
Yep, that sums it up; the difference between science and a belief. Science is demonstrable whereas beliefs don't need to be. If you have no models which represent reality, then it starts to sound an aweful lot like a religion to me.


You're missing the point of a model. A model can't be over parametrized, or it is simply a mirror of reality, and becomes unpredictable. The fewer variables you need in a model, the better.
A model is MEANT to be a simplification, and to show trends rather than details. Of course, the models are probabilistic, so the trend may not be followed, but the general expectation (and the general result for a good model) is that it will.

Sep 20, 2010
"Models are to be used, not believed."
George Box.

"Don't believe everything that you hear."
-Anonymous

People don't "believe" models. People investigate the rammifications of models and others check those same models for errors. Welcome to the world where saying something doesn't automatically make it true. We call it reality.

Sep 20, 2010
The people in IPCC seem to.
Well as we all know "seem" implies your interpretation of events. We also know that you've proved yourself to be a delusional liar.

You can imply whatever you like, it doesn't make your statements factual.

Yes that is an ad hominem attack, and when it comes to reality, you've shown that you're well outside of it making the statement relevant. Just figured I'd save you the one line post and inevitable reply that you're probably constructing in crayon at the moment.

Sep 20, 2010
LOL, I feel bad, but he really does deserve it.

I don't think he's said a single comment that got higher than a 1 star.

Sep 20, 2010
What matters is what you can prove.

Okay, prove that global warming is false! If you can't, then it doesn't matter to you right!? So stop gabbering about it.

I mean, quarks matter right? yet we cannot prove their existance, only infer it.

We know CO2 has double.
No other source other than man has been PROVEN to be plausible.
We know CO2 aborbs more IR radiation and release more heat.
Therefore we infer a temperature rise is likely.

This was the base of theory developed many decades ago.

The theory has been proven by observations of Venus, therefore we KNOW GW is a real phenominon.

The question then becomes, how much CO2= how much temperature rise.

but you fail to even get to this point in the analysis because you still claim GW is a false theory, even though it has been proven. All you need, to prove it to yourself, is a water bottle filled with air and one filled with CO2, both with a temperature element. Leave em out in the sun and you'll have your prof

Sep 20, 2010
What I keep saying, in science, consensus, votes, 'stars' is immaterial. What matters is what you can prove.
I can prove my ad hominem by quoting your posts from other threads.

What are the uncertainties in climate model predictions past and present?
Statistically significant or all inconsistencies?

Sep 20, 2010
First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR.
Allow me to clarify my quoted statement as it is incorrect as originally posted. The sun emits IR however it doesn't weigh into the radiance budget of the lower atmosphere as it is almost entirely filtered by the upper levels of the upper atmosphere. Thank you for the correction Thermodynamics, I appreciate it.

Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Let me explain why no one puts any stock in what you write here. You just quoted an informal letter from Mockton and failed to give the APS disclaimer that went with it. The disclaimer says:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

They went out of their way to reaffirm that he was wrong. They put it up to give more than ample space to deniers like you. His conclusions are classic examples of wrong interpretations, such as his assertion the Earth has not warmed since 1998. Great example of why your comments are not worth the electrons wasted to show them.

Sep 20, 2010
Why did APS publish?

-because we like to here opposing arguements to scientific theories. The problem with this one singular subject is that the opposition has no cloths.. they are opposing to obstruct, not to inform, as you yourself are doing.

God exists. Prove it false.

BY YOUR OWN PREVIOUS LOGIC, SINCE YOU CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, GOD DOESN"T MATTER. I disagree with this wholeheartedly... but I guess you only like to play in your own little ballpark of a reality.

Sep 20, 2010
I don't know how many times I have to correct you on this, marjon, but science works entirely by consensus. The methods science employs are agreed to by consensus, they conclusions they come to are confirmed by consensus, the experiments are repeated by peers to form a consensus. The very fact that new, revolutionary scientific theories often only become dominant after the old guard dies off proves that science works by consensus. The isolated, idiosyncratic researcher will never change science unless he can create a consensus about what he finds. Science isn't about finding metaphysical "Truth." It's about finding practical correlations, making predictions, and applying those correlations and predictions to our lives. This is an entirely consensual affair.

Sep 20, 2010
Yes, Planck was right. When the old guard opponents are so entrenched and institutionalized the only thing that changes scientific consensus is their deaths, and the younger scientists forming a consensus behind their backs. And when the opponents are really good at indoctrination, it can take generations for an alternate consensus to emerge. The point is that this is how science does its work, by forming a consensus between its practitioners.

Sep 20, 2010
I agree... AGW is well accepted, most opponents have already either switched sides or died.. It is the accepted theory.

Ever George Bush, FINALLY!, after many years of denying the possibilities of pollution having any negative consequences what so ever, FINAL!, admitted, not only are green house gases a danger, but the increase was caused by man. GEORGE BUSH, FINALLY!

What does that say about you, lol, just kidding; no one is as stupid as that guy, lolol.

Sep 20, 2010
Okay, prove that global warming is false! If you can't, then it doesn't matter to you right!? So stop gabbering about it.

God exists. Prove it false.
Using the statements of God's requirement to answer prayer as noted in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16, one can prove that God doesn't exist simply through praying for an item and watching it not appear.
So why hasn't the global mean temp increased just as fast a CO2?
Correlation is not causation.
Except when you understand the physics of CO2 and IR absorption. A doubling of CO2 does not create a doubling of warming in a linear scale. It is asymptotic.

Sep 20, 2010
First, the sun doesn't emit IR. The Earth emits IR.
Allow me to clarify my quoted statement as it is incorrect as originally posted. The sun emits IR however it doesn't weigh into the radiance budget of the lower atmosphere as it is almost entirely filtered by the upper levels of the upper atmosphere. Thank you for the correction Thermodynamics, I appreciate it.

And allow me to clarify again.

I was flatly incorrect. The sun does emit Ir within the lower atmosphere. My apologies, shouldn't happen again, I recant my prior statement, thanks again Thermo.

Sep 20, 2010
Instead of arguing the same facts any time GW is brought up why don't you guys spend some time arguing on what should be done about it? People on both side are in a status-quo argument that isnt changing anything. There are only a few options;
1. Population reduction - Highly unethical
2. Increase technology to be more efficient - which during our current economical troubles is highly unlikely
3. Force everyone to live like the guy on Discovery's "Dual Survival" ... barefoot and eating grubs
Take your pick and do something about it...

Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Once again you are incorrect. The response of the earth has no logarithmic relationship to CO2. The response is more complex and non-linear. Instead of a simple relationship of input to the atmosphere you have the thermal mass of the earth and each type of absorber (solid, liquid, gas) and the fluids are in motion (both horizontally and vertically). As an example, to control a simple system like a furnace, we have to use controllers which respond to change as direct, first derivative, second derivative, and integral. There is no way to directly control based on input and any direct relationship to temperature. However, we know that if we want the system to get hotter we turn up the energy source and if we want it to cool down we turn down the energy source. The earth is similar. Turn up the energy source and it gets hotter in a complex way. That includes excursions up and down as the temperature increases (just like a typical furnace will oscillate as it heats).

Sep 20, 2010
snwboardn: You have a great point about being proactive, however, to act you have to have support. While you might think that everyone will jump behind action, you are wrong. There are many people out there who have no idea of the science, get their information from FOX news, and don't believe there is any problem at all. Without the public understanding there is a problem that should be acted on there will be no action. It is the rest of the people who are influenced by the deniers that I try to reach in this forum by laying out the science as it stands right now. Then those who have not been following the science can understand it better. There are a lot of "grenade" throwers in this forum who put forward the denier agenda without the science. Those are the people many of us try to counter. It is not, generally, an argument since the deniers repeat sound bites that have been proven wrong. We just want to make sure the casual reader knows the science and the references.

Sep 20, 2010
marjon: Did you even get a GED?

You state:"That source is the sun. How do you plan to turn it up?" In response to my comment about a furnace.

Since you might really be as poorly educated as you appear to be, I will try to explain this so that you can understand. In the case of GHGs the source is the Earth (secondary to the sun which is approximately constant). The earth radiates, predominantly in the IR. Some of that is trapped by the CO2. We turn up that source by increasing CO2. I know you are going to come back with something equally as ignorant, but I had to try to answer anyway.

Sep 20, 2010
marjon: On the other set of questions you asked: "But you know what each ppm of CO2 will do?
How do you model atm H2O: vapor that absorbs IR and clouds that reflect?
If CO2 is such a major heat trap, has the daily high-low temperature spread in deserts decreased?
A good measure of humidity is to look at the high and low daily temp. If it is ~40F, it is very dry. If"

What part of my statement: "The response is more complex and non-linear." did you not understand?

If you really care about those questions you should do some homework and get answers to them. It would take me thousands of words and some referring to papers and books to adequately answer those questions. Do your own homework for a change. Quit trying to divert the discussion with your tangent questions.

Sep 20, 2010
Water as a component of our atmosphere is easy to model. There's just about as much water vapor in the atmosphere as the atmosphere can hold, as evidenced by the fact that there are lots of clouds in the sky somewhere in the world, all the time. If there were much more water vapor in the atmosphere, it would condense out and produce what sane people call rain. Water vapor is a red herring.

Sep 20, 2010
marjon: So, you have your own answers to your questions. As suspected, you were just baiting anyone who would go for your trolling. Of course your answers are wrong, but I would expect nothing more from you.

Sep 21, 2010
Except when you understand the physics of CO2 and IR absorption. A doubling of CO2 does not create a doubling of warming in a linear scale. It is asymptotic.

No, it is logarithmic.

So you don't know what asymptotic means. Perhaps you should frequent a different site. One where definitions don't matter and people only use commonly used words.

Sep 21, 2010
Give it up marjon. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? You haven't convinced a soul, as is evident from your comment ratings. Don't you know when you have lost an arguement? Can't you give up? I mean, if your right then nothing will happen and if we are right life as we know it may no longer be possible; you must be an alteriative motive, why obstruct us? your arguements are either moronic, contradictory or just facetious responses to our comments... you provide no evidence, only opinions and pretend like it's scientific data. You do not beleive in measurements for some bizzar reason.

You really can only be one of two things in my eyes, either ignorant and incompetant or curropt and manipulative.

Sep 21, 2010
marjon is a partisan. In all that I've spoken to him, he simply believes all scientists to be "progressives", "leftists", etc. He's the new breed of conservative that makes moderates out of the normal conservatives (me included), because everything done by these leftists is clearly an attempt to turn the world into a liberal paradise, where, somehow, liberals take away all your rights, because that is clearly what liberals try to do. He sees no reason, hears no reason and smells no reason. I had, and in some sense, still have hope that he will understand the error of his reasoning, but this seems less and less likely.

Sep 21, 2010
why obstruct us?
Because you want to obstruct me.


Yeah, I obstruct you trying to obstruct us saving the freaking planet man. It's not like we are evil, we are trying to save your life and you look us straight in the face and say FU and call us lieres. What's your agenda, to be write at all costs?

Where does the earth get its heat?

primarily the sun followed by radioactive decay in the earth. You should really know this if your going to be argueing these subjects.

gwargh,

I couldn't agree more. Marjon stinks of big oil, tea party and fox news. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he's being paid to post on these sites... in which case he along with Sarrah Palin (if in still in office) should be fired due to incompetence, lol.

Sep 21, 2010
First off, in 73 I was negative 8 years old.
If you decide to 'save the planet' using technology, free markets and persuasion, I can support you. If you believe you all have some special knowledge and know what is best for the rest of humanity and use the power of the state to force 'saving the planet', I will oppose that as it has been demonstrated to fail in the past.

I completely agree with that under most situations. The problem in this case, we don't have a free market. I mean you buy oil from Shell, Amaco, whatever... the price is fixed and manipulated by oil futures, intentionally in my opinion. So how do you expect capitalism to decide when we really have a corporate run socialist system?

You should know better than most, posting on these blogs. There is a huge demand for fuel efficient vehicles, and the technology is there, google 300mpg, research other designs.

The market decided long ago, but monopolies on products of necessity are outside the free market.

Sep 21, 2010
We are literally being "FORCED", to use your words, to kill the planet. We want a free market that will bring better products to us. But they resist because, i suspect, they fear losing control over the population. I have no special knowledge other than knowing far more about Coal, combustion turbines, Nuclear generating stations and more then most, it's my job. But everything I know about climate is common knowledge at this point, at least for technically minded folks.

You think I'm claiming I know what's best for humanity and I'm trying to force it on the US! Not at all. I'm simply trying to stop people like you from forcing me to die of cancer. Your agenda to keep the status quo directly affects me, my agenda to set minimum full efficiency standards to a modern level has little to no impact on you.

Sep 21, 2010
What I ask for is no different than a speed limit. To be analogious, from your standpoint (which I do understand and sympathize with), a speed limit is infringing on societies rights to go fast. From my viewpoint, not having a speed limit is infridging on peoples rights to life which will be lost more often without speed limits.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all systems. Nuclear isn't 100% perfect, but compared to coal (a thousand year old fuel source) it's 500% perfect. There comes a point, when technology has progressed to certain epoches, were the choice is obvious because the advantages infinitely outway the disadvantages. Ignoring AGW, fossil fuels are obsolete. Unfortunately, since fossil is largely controlled entirely by 4 or 5 US companies (british BP being a lapdog or partner in crime of the US) the free market is hushed.

The market has spoken. But big oil is not a free market by anymeans, and your far more ignorant than I thought if you think this.

Sep 21, 2010
Hey anyone going to the "Million Moderate March" aka "festival to restore sanity to Washington vs. feastival to keep fear alive and restore truthiness to Washington" in Washington?

John Stewart and Steven Colbert are doing a counter festival to Glenn Beck trying to be MLK.

It's gonna be HUGE!

it's 10-30-10

I'm going no matter what, even if I have to quite my job.

Sep 21, 2010
I'm considering it, gunslingor7, but not sure I'll be able to make it. Plenty of my friends and family, going.

I'm more interested in "Keep Fear Alive", though. I've been waiting for an excuse to use my "STOP THEM BEFORE THEY EAT OUR BABIES!" sign.

Sep 21, 2010
Hey anyone going to the "Million Moderate March" aka "festival to restore sanity to Washington vs. feastival to keep fear alive and restore truthiness to Washington" in Washington?
I'll be there guns. I wouldn't miss it for anything.

Sep 21, 2010
Guys, lets MEET UP! Seriously!

Sep 21, 2010


I'm going no matter what, even if I have to quite my job.


Give me your boss's number so I can call him for an interview after you pack up your desk ;)

Sep 22, 2010
"First, the demagoguery: There is no such entity as Big Oil. The idea that large American oil companies are able to manipulate oil or gasoline prices is nonsense. Only 6 percent of world oil reserves are held by investor-owned oil companies while nearly 80 percent are owned by the national oil companies of foreign governments. "
Big Oil is defined as a trade cartel, primarily composed of OPEC member states. Your source is almost as ignorant as you are.
we should reverse current policies that discourage the production of domestic oil and natural gas. That means expanding access to non-park federal lands in the West, Alaska, and under the waters off our coasts.
I'll pass. How about we use something other than the last known domestic energy reserves, like nuclear or anything other than fossil fuels.

Sep 22, 2010
And govt's mandate all sorts of safety features driving up the weight. Look at all the university competition for fuel efficient vehicles. Where is a commercially viable 300 mpg car? Viability means producible and reliable at a reasonable price.

-like I said, do the freaking research dude. 300mpg is an extreme version.. If they can make a 300mpg car running on gas alone, you don't think they could make one using modern technologies with 100-200mpg?

Come on dude, your just being argumentative and ignorant if you really think 30mpg is the best we can do. Do you really beleive this?

Sep 22, 2010
The story is about sun spots. The headline is poor at best, as it refers to a linear projection that the original author stated that there is no evidence for the trend to continue linearly.

I'm not sure where the debate about CO2 enters into this, but since Pandora's box seems to be missing it's lid:

Finding good cheap energy sources besides coal and oil seems like an obvious win-win for everyone. You would be stupid not to support such efforts as conservation, alternative energy of all types, more efficient transportation, agriculture, industial processes, heating and air conditioning, etc. The economic benefits alone are enough to support these efforts. The argument I have is not against those efforts. The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels so that a global market of carbon credits worth in excess of 100 billion euros anually can be created. That situation is made worse by the fact that the regulatory oversite is done by the ones getting rich.

Sep 22, 2010
The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels so that a global market of carbon credits worth in excess of 100 billion euros anually can be created. That situation is made worse by the fact that the regulatory oversite is done by the ones getting rich.
I think the majority of us are in agreement with this stance. My question is why don't you speak to this point as opposed to continuously speaking to the status quo as the only other option?

Sep 22, 2010
Gswift, I agree with most of what you said.

The tragedy I see is that these issues have been handcuffed to CO2 levels

I agree. People like marjon refuse to acknowledge the other benefits of modern technology, like reduced cancer, no suite in citys, no ocean acidification, far cheaper fuel, more choices, no dependance on foriegn energy, etc..

In my opinion, the reason the debate of our energy future, as discussed by the media, is only focus on foreign dependance and CO2 levels is because these are still a bit debatable. The other issues really aren't. They really like to maintain the we are still researching phase. It's like my chemist roomate in college. He worked for Lever, soap mfr, to develop a phospherous free detergent (which creates serious issues in our waters), spent 2 years and developed a good product. gave the package to his boss and his boss throw it in a draw; when he ask what next, his boss said "nothing, we just need to maintain the appearance of caring".

Sep 22, 2010
Yes, I have a hard time voicing my thoughts because it is a complicated issue and it's easy to become diverted into debate over minutiea (spelling?). As I've said many times, I fully support research funding far in excess of what we currently do. I really did mean it when I described the current political debate as a tragedy. I think many people, especially Americans, get caught up in the arguement over whether CO2 is causing GW and the other arguement about whether reductions in CO2 by cap and trade will have any effect. I personally find cap and trade to be about the worst thing anyone has ever done for environmental progress. Huge sums of money that may otherwise have gone to good purpose are now funnelled into the pockets of people with only self interest. There are plenty of better ideas than cap and trade that would accomplish so much more with so much less damaging side-effects. If they were proposing a better scheme than C&T then I think fewer conservatives would oppose them.

Sep 22, 2010
Of course, with even just a few small modifications to cap and trade, even I may support the effort. I just want to keep Al Gore's hands out of the cookie jar and make sure anyone getting rich from the deal is in full view of the public eye. The trading could be done exclusively through audited non-profits for example. The system should also include a renew/non-renew drop dead date rather than being a never ending fountain of money for the CO2 credit brokers. The way it is now, there's no transparency to the public and no accountability to any third party. Electric bills in the US could go to any imaginable level, and there would be no way for us to change it or to find out where all that money is going. I do like the free market approach, but even the stock market has checks and balances, and safety valves to prevent disaster.

Sep 22, 2010
One more thing: 100 billion Euros is quite a big incentive for corruption. In fact, there's no way that much money is at stake without corruption occurring, even to the extent of murder, extortion, conspiracy, espionage etc. Those things are done for far less money than 100 billion euros every day. Try suggesting a change in the C&T scheme that takes the money out of Al Gore's pocket and see what happens. We civilians should refuse to accept any CO2 reduction plan that allows third party individuals to become wealthy, in my opinion. It's just blatantly counter-productive to real climate/energy progress.

Sep 22, 2010
I agree for the most part. As your probably aware, cap and trade didn't originate as an environmentalist idea.

Here's the problem. Everytime we do the analysis and determine the best course of action, we are ignored and responded to with "its to hard" or other mombo jumbo.

These oil companies still like to maintain an appeaerance of caring. So they propose knowing unworkable solutions like wind or solar or clean coal and push them hard.

So us environmental engineers say, okay, you want wind... here's your 5MW wind turbines... you want solar, okay, here's the design of a 60% efficent cell + water heater design... you want clean coal, okay here, build a activated carbon filtration system the size of manhattan and you'll capture 10% of the CO2. Any workable solution is ignored. I suspect this is what is happening with carbon credits.

It can work if designed right. I mean, just the expection of it coming is having a dramatic effect. I'm actually involved in the following:

Sep 22, 2010
http://www.greenb...ed-units

Tva is planning for the coming carbon trade by closing coal units, building more nuclear and installing basic pollution controls on the coal units that remain (these pollution controls have a negligable effect, but it helps I guess).

Your right though. If they create loopholes in the system, TVA's plan will be scrapped and we'll have to start over AGAIN!

Anyway, note that the cap n trade isn't designed to be run by third party's, but it probably will be; that's just wallstreet for you, repackaging everything under the sun.

Here is how it is supposed to work: Every carbon produce is given credits, for free, by the government. If you don't use them all (by installing pollution controls and such) you can sell them... some will be sold to third parties as you state. The last part, which is mostly ignored yet the most import part, is that every year, the gov reduces the amount of credits it gives.

Sep 22, 2010
That's the only way it will work, and there has to be a target like "In 2050 ZERO carbon creadits will be given, though a small amount may still be available in the market for those lagging behind the transion".

This is a workable solution, it's not the BEST solution in my opinion, but it's workable. Rather than installing expensive and fairly ineffective pollution controls on coal units that are going to be shut down, just build nuclear which is far more profitable than coal, even with the over regulation. Instead of CT/CC sites, build solar thermal and such.

Rather than progressively and ineffectively increasing full efficiency standards for gas cars, but not trucks which have zero pollution controls, simply switch our fuel source to a more benign source. Electric or hydrogen seem the best to me, but there are others.

There is a VERY good chance we are far past the point of no return. There is still a small amount of hope, it's why I'm an engineer working in power.

Sep 22, 2010
I personally find cap and trade to be about the worst thing anyone has ever done for environmental progress. Huge sums of money that may otherwise have gone to good purpose are now funnelled into the pockets of people with only self interest. There are plenty of better ideas than cap and trade that would accomplish so much more with so much less damaging side-effects. If they were proposing a better scheme than C&T then I think fewer conservatives would oppose them.
Well I have to disagree with two points you raise here. C&T was well done with CFC emissions, however I see CFC emission and CO2 emission to be wholly seperate issues as CFCs were easily replaced while CO2 doesn't have a replacement, only a mitigation.
For the most part, you're correct, C&T is just another Big Business casino except the house (people) always loses.

As for conservatives, the tide of conservatism in the US has changed greatly in the past 10 years. They've become status quo supporters.

Sep 22, 2010
Now you are getting into areas where there are some huge differences of opinion. My point is that we really don't even need to get into that kind of debate. Whether AGW is real or not doesn't even matter. Whether CO2 is significant doesn't matter. Imagine the end result if we take a smarter approach to this thing. Say, for example, that the US embarks on a dedicated search for solar energy collection similar to the Manhattan Project. Would that work? How about another project of that nature focused on creating a better battery/capacitor. Such projects would pay for themselves many times over. Imagine every home in the civilized world being able to go off-grid in five or ten years. Wow. Now that's what we need; Not carbon credits. If Obama really wants to do something cool, he has the power to do stuff like that without even having to pass any new laws. Nobody would object to an effort like that except big oil. lol.

Sep 22, 2010
Completely agreed, however, Big Oil does own a good portion of our government. Just look at the ban on imported ethanol from Brazil.

We need another Apollo/Manhatten project for energy, and we need it now. When Biden said "You need to spend yourself out of debt" he was right. The problem is, the stimulus isn't the type of spending that gets you out of debt. A large scale technology and industry project does.

Sep 22, 2010
I agree completely with both of you. Big oil does own a big chunk of the soul of our governemnt. That's the problem Gswift, your ideas are the BEST solutions. But big oil, whom does own a great deal of shares in media outlets as well, only allows unworkable solutions to come to the table. As soon it becomes workable with a lot of work and inovation, they kill it. As soon as 5MW wind turbines were developed, Bush killed the subsidies. Same happened to Solar. Same thing happened with the EV-1.

....solar energy collection similar to the Manhattan Project. ...

Yes. Neglicting transmission issues, It would only take a PV array 100x100 miles placed in texas to power the entire US grid. Switch it to solar thermal and it would only have to be 50x50 miles (estimating here).

...focused on creating a better battery/capacitor.

Already been done, the patents are now owned by big oil and kept quite. Same thing happened with Debears, owning diamond production patents.

Sep 22, 2010
BRAVO, I couldn't agree more. Offer wild salaries to attract the best minds in the world if that's what it takes, though I suspect that the best people would offer body parts in exchange for a chance to be part of it. The really cool part of such a project is that it could end up being privately funded, at least in part. Unlike the Apollo or Manhatten projects, a project to develop alternative energy would actually have enough potential to be profitable to attract private investment, especially in this economy.

And the best part of all: the patents would be publicly held. :)

Sep 22, 2010
Shoot, I've already sacriced a big chunk of my life to be part of it. Anyway, I am severely glad we agree on a path forward, regardless of our opinions on GW, and most technical minds would agree. But technical minds don't run this country, technical minds don't run these businesses, corporate minds do.

So what do we do now guys? Please!

Sep 22, 2010
"So what do we do now guys? Please!"

GSwift7 for President?

Sep 22, 2010
A wolf in sheeps clothing, sneaking up the ranks of big oil or governement, I think, is the only real hope until things get really bad. When cancer rates top 50, ground water is undrinkable, the gulf of mexico is a tar pit, and the air is unbreathable without filtration, I do think there will be a real revolution... but that would, obviously be to late.

So strange about humanity, we have to see a disaterious result before we beleave there is a danger. A lot like indutrsial cyber security which I've worked on, no one is taking it seriously even though I or any moderately knowledgable hacker could take control of these plants from the house for god's sake.

It take a disaster to make us move, or a supermajority. Freaking supermajorities.

Sep 22, 2010
Shoot, I've already sacriced a big chunk of my life to be part of it. Anyway, I am severely glad we agree on a path forward, regardless of our opinions on GW, and most technical minds would agree. But technical minds don't run this country, technical minds don't run these businesses, corporate minds do.

So what do we do now guys? Please!

Marketing an idea isn't based on the idea. It is based in having others agree with your beliefs which will lead them to acting as you do.

Since we've determined that at least us 3 have the same beliefs, we simply need to spread our ideology around and let those who are interested, buy in of their own accord. If you want the government to do something, you build a PAC or Lobby and start making yourself heard.

I'm up for that, or starting even garage projects and moving forward from there. With the brainpower on this site and some of the contacts we have we could get something going.

Hell, GPS was born out of a side project.

Sep 22, 2010
Skeptic, your a man after my own heart.

We should really meet up at that festival.

Sep 22, 2010
Skeptic, your a man after my own heart.

We should really meet up at that festival.


So I think the real question here is, who else is in?

Sep 22, 2010
I'm up for that, or starting even garage projects and moving forward from there. With the brainpower on this site and some of the contacts we have we could get something going.

I've been studying fuel efficient car designs since the age of 13, almost 2 decades now, in my personal time. I am 110% positive I can make a normal looking sedan (not the bizar looking pruis and leaf designs) that will get a MINIMUM of 100 mpg, will be ale to accept a variety of fuel sources, increase the range compared to traditional sedans, and have zero loss of performance.

But it would take some real capital to design and build the prototype... this is why I work.

Sep 22, 2010
yeah, the Tucker got a supposed 35 mpg all the way back in 1948 I believe. Of course that didn't include a catalytic converter, and it probably used leaded fuel, but still not bad for that day.

"So I think the real question here is, who else is in?"

What does it take to propose a referendum?

Yeah, I know. There aren't any federal referendums, but I'm surprised to read that only the West half of the country (mainly) have referendum at the state level.

Sep 22, 2010
What does it take to propose a referendum?

Yeah, I know. There aren't any federal referendums, but I'm surprised to read that only the West half of the country (mainly) have referendum at the state level.

There's a method to get bills proposed in congress for residents of MA. I know quite a few residents. Let me perform some investigation and see what we'd have to do.

Sep 22, 2010
If you wanted to organize a movement or form an organization of citizens, what would be the goal? Would you be specific, for example seeking funding for a "Zues Solar Power Project", or would you be more general, seeking support for a "Power of the Future" general research drive, or some other option?

Sep 22, 2010
I think the first step should be a 6 month analysis of all the options in writing, followed by implementation of the BEST options.

Sep 22, 2010
I humbly suggest being as specific as possible. The goal of "Save the Planet" is already in use, if you know what I mean. I personally like the idea of promoting a national project to seek out and implement one clean power source that can compete with coal, oil or gas. The key to the success of Manhatten and Apollo is that they were laser focused on a specific goal.

Sep 22, 2010
Hello,

Please remove the following sentence from your first paragraph: "They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades."

If you read our paper, which you have linked to this web page, you will see that the latest data suggest that 1/2 of the sunspots may be absent from the solar surface in 2021. This is also clearly seen in our Figure 1.

Thank-you for your interest in this exciting field of research; but I hope you can do a better job moving forward when you present summaries of scientific papers.

Best wishes,
Matt Penn
NSO, Tucson

Sep 22, 2010
I humbly suggest being as specific as possible. The goal of "Save the Planet" is already in use, if you know what I mean. I personally like the idea of promoting a national project to seek out and implement one clean power source that can compete with coal, oil or gas. The key to the success of Manhatten and Apollo is that they were laser focused on a specific goal.
Agreed. There's an old joke that's told in NASA circles where everyone tried to get their pet project into the Apollo mission.

After about 4 days of arguing, the lead engineer stood up and said "Do you gentlemen want to get to the moon or not?"

I want to get there.

Sep 22, 2010
"Three-wheeled cars offer unique advantages in aerodynamic design and build costs, but they also work from a fundamental disadvantage in terms of handling. "
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Reliant Robin :-

http://www.youtub...CkjX3PWs

tbh, when you stick an overweight yorkshire man in one of those, you are asking for trouble :)
I actually drove one of these many years ago, it was quite stable.

Sep 23, 2010
What do moderates get excited about? They claim to be moderate.
What do Christians have to be proud of, they claim to be humble.

Sep 23, 2010
Alright guys, no more bickering. Marjon, thank you for your attempts at being productive. I honestly haven't put much thought into 3 wheeled vehicles, I don't think it's needed. I think we need to offer a car that looks and feels little different than gasoline cars. Like the prius, ugly as hell; if it was a normal gas car, I would never consider buying it.

Anyway folks, I agree on the direct goal. But anything that focuses on researching more 'unknown', 'undiscovered' or 'unworkable' alternatives, I don't want to be part of.. its being done enough. We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have. We just need to do the calculations formally, write them up, determine the precise details of the plan (e.g. car designs, how many nuclear solar etc sites are needed, timeline and steps to phase out coal, etc)and start pushing hard for implementation.

Sep 23, 2010
We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have.
Electric Diesel hybrids that can run SVO straight and get about 80-120 MPG. Effectively banned in the US due to the government's interest in domestic automakers. It's embarassing to watch ourselves flounder in this country.

Sep 23, 2010
We have existing technologies that will work just fine, far better than what we currently have.
Electric Diesel hybrids that can run SVO straight and get about 80-120 MPG. Effectively banned in the US due to the government's interest in domestic automakers. It's embarassing to watch ourselves flounder in this country.


Agreed about the floundering, but I want to stay away from diesel. high efficiency does not always mean less pollution, particular talking about diesels. Oil company's are pushing for diesels because there is less overhead associated with refining, but diesil is the dirtiest of dirties. Lets just try to give the consumer the option to get off of fossil completely; currently, there is no option. We can make the car able to run on fossil if we plan on designing a hydrogen internal combustion engine, but really, the main goal should be changing our primary fuel sources; at least giving the consumer the ability to make capitalism work.

Sep 23, 2010
marjon, we are not by any means on the side of big government, we are not by any means on the side of big business, we are however on the side of big truths.

Sep 23, 2010
Agreed about the floundering, but I want to stay away from diesel. high efficiency does not always mean less pollution, particular talking about diesels.
That's why I said "SVO" otherwise known as "Straight Vegetable Oil". Completely petroleum free.

Sep 23, 2010
Regulations are laws.
Governments are composed of people.
People are not laws.
Therefore, regulations are not government.

Do try to use those crayons rather than eating them or stuffing them up your nose going forward.

Sep 23, 2010
-The larger the population, the more laws are required to maintain order.
-The larger the corporations grow, the more regulations are required.

This is just basic rules of governance. Tea partiers don't seem to mind big governement stepping in to pass more laws against civilians (like no gay mariage or abortions), but they do seem to care about laws passed against big business. I wonder why?

You seem to be under the impression that markets can make the best decisions for the people (rather than government) but markets do not always make the best decisions. Markets exist for profit alone. If there was no regulation of these companies, heroin would be legal and we would all be junkies. Government, at least in principle in this country, exists for the people and by the people. I don't trust either, but overa long enough timeline, governement will make the better choices for society more often. They have to maintain an appears of 'for the people by the people', business does not.

Sep 23, 2010
Governments are composed of people.

Those govt people enforce the laws and the regulations they write.
We should excuse the concentration camp guards who were just following the law?
People write the regulations, sometimes with zero authority from Congress (those are people, too.)
If you violate regulation, who will punish you? The people who work for the govt, who are just following the orders from other people who are govt agents.


What the hell is your point?

Sep 23, 2010
Governments are composed of people.

Those govt people enforce the laws and the regulations they write.
We should excuse the concentration camp guards who were just following the law?
People write the regulations, sometimes with zero authority from Congress (those are people, too.)
If you violate regulation, who will punish you? The people who work for the govt, who are just following the orders from other people who are govt agents.
Are you telling us that you want more government regulators and fewer regulations? Your stance doesn't make sense.

It only takes 3 groups of people to enforce regulations. The group making the regulations (Congress or a proxy empowered by congress), the judicial system of judges and courts, and the auditors checking the regulated to ensure that the regulations are working properly and being adhered to.

You don't seem to understand how checks and balances work.

Sep 23, 2010
Markets exist to meet the needs and wants of those who participate in the market. In a free trade, both profit from the trade or the trade would not occur. If value your product more than I value my dollar and you value my dollar more than your product. We trade and we both receive value. Win-win.

It is never that simple, especial in this day and age.

Markets exist to meet the needs and wants of those who participate in the market.

True, consumers needs are meet and the needs of the business are also met. But governement also exists for the needs of the people. So what's your point? there needs to be a balance, this should be the arguement; not whether we need more or less governement in general, but where and when governement should be applied. Do you really beleive in a 100% capitalist system with zero governement oversite? To me, this is as bad if not far worse than being a Marxist.

Any wrokable form of modern governement takes piece from ALL classical forms.

Sep 23, 2010
Says who?
The tea party members what the federal government to be limited by the Constitution as it was designed.
The average Tea Party member doesn't have more than a high school education and is easily tricked into doing what their corporate overlords in the GOP want them to do.

Sep 23, 2010
For example Marjon,

Business lobists somehow got the governement to make it illegal to put the following label on food: "Not Genetically Modified".

Now, the governement is pretty evil for doing this, but so is business. Business themselves, in this case, are trying to take control of the markets by taking away the consumers rights to choice.

We have to keep business and governement separated, and both need to check the other for unethical behavior. When the colude, the above happens and, inevitably, coorporations, not the market, end up running everything.

Do you really argue with this man? Lets try to find common ground. Tell me what you agree with first. Then we can adress the disagreements; this will be far more productive for you.

Sep 23, 2010
Sorry Marjon, the above example should make it clear that the republican party, and it was primarily republicans +1 democrate, I think, that did this... should make it clear that the republican party isn't interested in free market, they are interested in business dictated regulation for the benefit of corporations, not the people.

Another example of business dictating there own regulations is pharmaceutical adds. The association of medical examiners originally recommend that the governement not allow adds of drugs because patients will see them, want the drugs as advertised without really understanding the cemistry and risk, and go to the doctors seeking the drugs and influencing the prognosis; rather than the doctor precribing an appropriate drug. This was the case for many years until, now, not only can you advertise drugs, you can lie about the effects.

This is not for the good of the people, it's for more profit for the drug companies. This is what the republicians stand for

Sep 24, 2010
The government put itself in the business of regulating food and demanding all sorts of information on labels. Why shouldn't the producers of food have a say?

-As they should. If they didn't, food producers wouldn't even have to tell the consumers nutritional contents, thus taking away the ability to chose healthy non processed foods. I can't beleive this is what you want. You really don't want someone to force these guys to tell the us what they do to our food? How do you expect capitalism to work? Damn straight producers should have a say. Food producers were trying to have a say; organic farmers wanted to market their product as "not genetically modified" because most food we buy today is genetically modified without consumers knowledge and this would have given the small producers a leg up in the markets. Monsanto got the law pasted making it illegal to put the label. This is not capitalism buddy, a MONOPOLY ON NECESSITY IS INCAPABLE OF CAPITALISM. So what do we do?

Sep 24, 2010
When have I NOT said this?
All my opponents demand government inference in business.

-We have no choice at this point. Your party is all about interference in peoples lives; no gay marriage, no abortion, no pot, warrentless wiretapping, etc. But they want business to be 100% free to manipulate markets and control consumer choices. I'm all for reducing laws for consumers, but not for business in this day and age. This has limits; I mean, when the fathers gave the right to bare arms, do you think they intented us to have the right of a citizen to have a hydrogen bomb? Do you think we should have the right to an H bomb?

What needs? The Constitution defined those needs quite explicitly, ..

-What needs!? Protecting citizens from enemies, BOTH FOREIGN AND DEMESTIC including corporations and civilians, both, not one or the other.

As great as the constitution is, we also need to understand it was writen by racist slave owners before the electronics age.

Sep 24, 2010
What is govt oversight? The govt's job is to protect property rights in a free market. Govt is not necessary for this function as this can be accomplished by the private sector.

-come on man, you really want tobaco mfrs to market there products as healthy? You seem to be all about giving preference to business rights over the rights of civilians, why? I want to know what they do to my food; you want them to have the rights to hide this from me and force the good food producers, the honest farmers, out of business.

-You want to live in a world where everything is run by big business? That means a toll on every road, it means mining and minerals doesn't have to pay royalties from materials owned by all americans, it means price fixing and false advertising. It does not mean a free market, it means a market who's regulations are dictated by only the most powerful corporations, not the small farmer. Is this the world you want?

Capitalism can work, but only when rules are set.

Sep 24, 2010
You need to comprehend that the rights of business in a truely 100% FREE MARKET sometimes conflicts with the rights of civilians in a democracy or republic. Resolution is required.

You always prefer business rights over citizen rights? But why? The only reason I can think, business has more money to buy your congressional votes.

Self regulation never works unless the parties involved truely have a high degree of ethics. Business is about money, not consumers. I hope you get this and agree.

Gov should be involved in all sectors of business, setting rules as an independant party to protect both the consumers and make a stable environment for capitalism to flourish. I mean, think about it. Where does money come from? It comes from the gov, you don't think gov should have the right to set rules regarding it? If thats the case, coorporatations will, once again, create shanty towns and there own currency. They make decisions based on immediate profit, not the good of the people.

Sep 24, 2010
Guns, you're wasting your time with marjon. Marjon doesn't recognize that the policies fed to him by the media he chooses would lead him into servitude. As Kruschev said of socialism one can say about slavery.

Americans will never accept a direct shift to slavery, however, if one can entice them, point by point, to allow for corporate largess, they will offer themselves up for shackles with a smile.

Sep 24, 2010
lol, true that. Your right Skeptic, I don't know why I bother. I mean, I do understand and sympathize with marjons views; but the fact that he can't even comprehend the other sides view point makes the debate and resolution/compromise impossible. I'm done now, unsubcribed. Talk to you later skeptic.

Sep 24, 2010
There are rules and regulations for citizens, there must also be rules and regulations for business 'period'.

Sep 24, 2010
They can refuse to buy their products!
But at what cost?

You can refuse to buy power from PSNH in New Hampshire, but there are no other power companies who can deliver to your location. Have a happy winter season.

You can refuse to purchase food from a particular supermarket chain, if there are no other food sources you're going to have a helluva problem feeding yourself regularly in most climates.

The consumer does not have the economic power that a large company does. The government levels that playing field to prevent consumer slavery.

And just a quick history lesson for you, the Gold window was closed by Nixon, not FDR. FDR instituted an enforced buyback to enact economic stabilization against the rich gold owners of the time who were corrupting the market for personal gain. My, my how times don't change.

Sep 24, 2010
I'll offer my two centavos I guess: If you look at a comparison between medications regulated by the FDA and products like the ones sold at GNC, which mostly are not FDA regulated, then you start to see some interesting things Marjon. Even the ones that ARE regulated get caught making false claims once in a while, but in large part I can feel safe that the pain reliever I buy at walmart is 'safe' for me. On the other hand, if I go to GNC and buy some 'organic' or 'herbal' weight loss supliment, I really have no idea what I'm in for. They aren't required to list the active ingredients, and they aren't required to do any testing for side effects or possible interactions with other chemicals I may or may not be taking. Knowing that the FDA controled products usually have SOME kind of possibility to harm me, it leaves me dumbfounded why anyone would risk taking an untested, uncontroled product on a daily basis.

Sep 24, 2010
On the flip side of that, I happen to know for a fact that you can lable a package of bread as being 'organic' simply by using flour that came from wheat which was planted and harvested by GPS-controlled tractors. I also happen to know that there is so little difference between 'normal' vegetable oil and vegetable oil with Omega 3 in it that you can use them interchangeably in bread. You can use Omega 3 oil in all your products and only lable some of them as 'Omega 3' enhanced, and the ing-nut panel (as the ingredient-nutrition panel is called in the food industry), can simply say 'vegetable oil' even when you use the Omega 3 kind. Omega 3 isn't FDA controlled. That may surprise someone like my girlfriend who refuses to eat any animal products, since Omega-3 oil is a fish product.

I guess what you don't know won't hurt you SOME times.

Sep 24, 2010
Actually, I think Omega3 fish oils are now regulated; happened very recently. Actually, I think you need a perscription for certain ones... doctors have told me this is unnecessary, and just a way to charge more. Don't know myself though.

Anyway marjon, we are not talking about a city-state market system from 2 thousand years ago. Modern markets have evolved, and only those focusing on profits at any cost have survived. You don't want to regulate small family owned businesses, I guess I could understand that, but large coorporations must be regultated.

Skeptic was right. I hate my power company and if this were true capitalism, I would be able to buy from a competitor. Since there is only one for a given area, I cannot, so the governement has to maintain a certain standard; citizens demand it, I demand it. Capitalism requires competition to even be called capitalism, its fundamental to the economic system. If its not capitalism in a given sector, regulation must set benchmarks.

Sep 24, 2010
One more point about non-regulated products: Let's say that the Marjon Plastic Fork Company, based in Laguna Beach California, produces the finest quality organic polymer cutlery in the world. They use 100% renewable energy to power thier facility (children on tread-mills in the back room). It costs them $5.00 to make a fork. The GSwift7 corporation, with a secret facility in the 3rd world country of Gunsligorland, makes imitation plastic forks from reconstituded baby seal concentrate. It costs GSwift7 Corp $0.07 to make it's forks because it buys illegal baby seal concentrate from Skepticorp on the black market. Without government controls, GSwift7 Corp can package it's cheap knockoffs in fake Marjon boxes and sell them to unsuspecting people in Kansas. The only way for Marjon Company to prevent it is to hire Blackwater to nuke the whole country of Gunslignorland. Think of the poor children of Gunslingorland.

Sep 24, 2010
lol, nice, but I doubt he'll understand that either. He thinks GswiftCorp will, out of the goodness of their hearts, not package the product under anothers name. He prefers capitalist anarchy I guess. He likes to be lied to when buying products. Enjoy your penis enlargement pills marjon, YOU NEED EM, lolol.

Sep 24, 2010
P.S. If anyone spews soda or milk out their nose when they read that, I want pictures.

It's Friday and it's time to go home, so you all have a great weekend.

Sep 24, 2010
That is where 20/20, 60 Minutes or a newspaper enters.

Except those news corps have a deal that allows them to rake in 10% of all the profits made by GSwift7 Co with any muckrakers being dredged in front of the press and impeached through libelous stories drummed up in back room unregulated business deals.

Tough shit for Marjon plastic Incorporatedl, they go under, even though they followed reasonable safety concerns. No one could help them, even the ones who really wanted to because of backroom unregulated deals.

So there's an industrial accident in Skepticland and the baby seal extract is poisoned with mercury. Everyone who uses the products made of these items have their first infant child die due to toxic breastmilk from their unsuspecting mothers.

No government to protect those people, or save those children, not to mention the shut down of the only fair and just company that employed American people rather than backroom labor with tainted products.

Sep 24, 2010
That is why there must be regulations, that are erected by the government, which are composed of people who have a vested interest in the safety and benefit of their constituents.

When those regulations do become overbearing or oppressive, the people keep the government in check. When the regulations are too loose the government fixes them and keeps the companies in check.

The people thereby control the companies, however, they must educate themselves enough to understand how the whole system works.

Sep 24, 2010
1) The US Govt. made slavery illegal and forced private citizens and companies to give up their "property". That's just one more argument in our favor.

2) You're complaining about the Department of Justice not doing anything about slave labor because they're taking legal action against a private company which was using slave labor?

3) "FAIRTRADE Mark" wouldn't mean anything if the GOVERNMENT didn't provide for the enforcement side of it.

Your examples are terrible, and it's painfully obvious that you are trolling. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

Sep 24, 2010
I would like to end this discussion with a thank you to Matt Penn, one of the authors of this paper, for his correction to PhysOrg's reporting:

Please remove the following sentence from your first paragraph: "They predict that by 2016 there may be no remaining sunspots, and the sun may stay spotless for several decades."

If you read our paper, which you have linked to this web page, you will see that the latest data suggest that 1/2 of the sunspots may be absent from the solar surface in 2021. This is also clearly seen in our Figure 1.

Sep 25, 2010
Look at that. 5 posts in a row from Marjon.

This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating memes to yourself in order to prevent being convinced that you're wrong.

Hilarious. He's not trying to convince us. He's trying to convince himself.

Sep 26, 2010
So you assert.
This isn't exactly a win-win situation for you, but it is for me. If you aren't trying to convince yourself, then you've taken the immoral stance of saying it is completely acceptable to allow the economy to turn into the wild west, where those with good moral imperative get screwed, and you're not jsut ok with it, but all for it.

So pick your poison. Either you're a scumbag, or you're brainwashed.

Sep 27, 2010
Like those who were taken by Madoff when the SEC looked the other way?
Or the bank in MA that was punished by the FDIC for not making enough bad loans?
Or all those 401K suckers who trusted the govt?
All of which would have happened with no legal repercussions or retrieved funds without regulation. In your ideal world all of those acts would be legal. Own up to your meme.

Sep 27, 2010
Marjon, are you going to own up to the abuses of the freemarket as we outlined above or not? Until you can properly answer to those, you have no business speaking economics.

Sep 28, 2010
marjon you moron.

Your saying that since the government allows .001% of all manufactured products to be produced by slave labor, the goverment shouldn't go after any slave labor.

I mean, this is your arguement. Here are the points you made in order:
1. you admit companies get screwed by your response to Gswift
2. you think media coverage will fix it
3. Skeptic explains why media is incapable of regulation and explains why regulations are important.
4. You explain the .001% in which trade regulations fail to protect the slaves.

So I ask, you really think media coverage will have a bigger effect on slave labor than regulation and law enforcement? Really? Does the media have guns? Should we give them authority to arrest and interigate people? Why not throw in torture while we are at it.

The people have spoken, most of us want the same level of laws imposed on corporations as are imposed on us, citizens. To repeat a phase shouted at me by your kind "Love it or Leave it"!

Sep 28, 2010
My marjon prophecy filter is comming on. I predict he'll post something about how sweatshops have raised the living standard amongst those in southeast asia.

Sep 29, 2010
marjon, you've been proven wrong a number of times duirng this discussion and not once did you acknoledge it, you just keep deflecting and changing the subject. You need to learn to admit when you are wrong, like all of us have done throughout this conversation. You have zero credibility.

Sep 29, 2010
Your 100% right, none of us here are defending governments abuses of power. But you are defending coorporate abuses of power. Why? Any abuse of power should be shunned, it's why they call it abuse. Do you see why people are pissed at you?

Sep 29, 2010
Of course they are. People here advocate for govt to have MORE power to abuse.
No one has advocated that. You're assuming and stating things that are not accurate, again.
If you really want to curb any corporate abuse, make them responsive to their customers. That doesn't occur when corporations can buy politicians to make regulations that favor their business at the expense of competition.
You mean like government enforced regulations that provide protective provisions for consumers.
The solution is to limit the power of the government to control the economy, to regulate businesses.
What?

So which do you want? Businesses with accountability, or businesses that are wholly free from accountability?

Sep 29, 2010
What business is free of accountability?
Any business that isn't following regulations.
The only business like that are those protected by the govt.
So if there are no laws that determine how a business must operate, what accountability is there?

Oct 01, 2010
Why SH attacks the Tea Party:
"The elite's fear and loathing of the tea party movement is rooted in the recognition that the real change is only now coming.
Yeah, a change back to low educational standards, religious bigotry, and overt racism against anyone who isn't "representative of the majority".
That's why I'm against the TEA party. I don't attack, I let them self defeat.

Oct 02, 2010
Limited govt, the basis of the tea party, is back in fashion after 200 years.
SH can joins with the statist establishment in his opposition of limited govt power.
Who said the majority is ever right?

Oct 02, 2010
The people should submit to their betters?

No, the people should defer to the experts on what the actual facts are. From there they should work (with politicians) to determine acceptable SOLUTIONS to known problems.

Unfortunately, this is impossible when there are morons, luddites, and industry shills peddling garbage and attempting to muddy the waters of information.

Oct 02, 2010
It is amusing how you claim the people are the check against an overbearing govt and now attack those very same people. SH keeps demonstrating his statist/socialist support while claiming not to.
If I was demonstrating socialist or statist support, why would I encourage the vote? I always encourage the vote, in order to put people into office who are rational, and willing to listen to the experts and determine the best course of action through representation of their electorate.

You demonstrate the very checks I often speak of. This is a government by the people, and for the people. That's about as socialist a statement as you can ever get.

The funny thing is, you're the one who rails against the majority and against the government, and against basic civil values that make this country a country.

It is too bad we can't trust experts' facts anymore.
No, you're just too simple to understand them.

Oct 03, 2010

The funny thing is I am the only one who advocates support for the Constitution and individual rights.
Unfortunately, you don't understand either one.
Those govt economic 'experts' have done a fine job with the economy. Is that why Larry Summers is escaping the real world for Harvard?
What are you talking about? Summers was the former president of Harvard and was forced out because he's a racist and a bigot. He's being forced out of government because, like you, he's a banking industry shill. He's a smart guy when it comes to economics, but he's socially retarded. Anyone comming with the backing of Kissinger shouldn't be allowed near government or education.

Oct 03, 2010
I state again, too bad we can't trust 'experts'.

I agree, too bad we can't trust experts who are industry shills and have been corrupted by money to influence them to maintain the status quo.

Oh, wait, SH just ripped your previous point to pieces and you tried to twist the facts yet again to make it look like you made a valid point. You didn't.

Oct 03, 2010
I really don't know why you're arguing with marjon's economic views. His own past posts have proved himself to be a psychopath who wants to have the right to torture other people's children, brutally murder people who disagree with his religious views, and enslave those poorer than he for his own ends. I really doubt his economic views are going to be much more enlightening. Sadly, his free-market views are simply a parroting of poorly understood soundbites. Folk like marjon, but with better characters, are usually simply unaware of the extent and degree that free markets are fragile things, hard to start and hard to perpetuate, without nearly constant supervision and attention.

Oct 04, 2010
Free markets are fragile? Says who? They existed long before govts.

Says everybody who knows virtually anything about them. Property rights imply a government. Without a government, "rights" are nothing more than idle talk and unachievable idealism. Markets are not fragile. They have existed since time immemorial, and will continue far past any of us. A market's natural state is determined from within by the wealthiest and most powerful individuals. These markets are not free because the wealthy can command them, whether they choose to or not. Free markets are incredibly fragile and fleeting, and require constant supervision to maintain. The power of the wealthy must be held in check and their every economic action must be subject to scrutiny to keep the market free from their possible control.

Oct 04, 2010
The invisible hand of the free market also comes with the iron gauntlet of totalitarian corporatism. And that'll have to be my last commentary on the matter. For evidence to this point, simply examine the free markets of the world and tell me who's in charge in those nations, past and present.

Oct 04, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...

Oct 05, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...

-Don't know if your being sarcastic or serious, but you gave the perfect example. Unless your a millionair, you are forced to buy medical insurance, otherwise, you simply cannot afford treatment if something serious happens. It's not like there is a choice in the matter. If you kid gets sick, say cancer, and you don't have insurance, doctors will not be treating him unless he is dieing then and there. He will not be treated with chemo, without insurance.

Seriously, what better way to trap a consumer and force his/her choice than to hold the iron fist of death over his/her head.

Taking a capitalistic approach to modern medicine is impossible, it cost to much. So we need either issurance or goverment run tax funded healthcare. Putting life and death in the hands of capitalism has proven to be a bad idea, US is rank 38th in care quality and 1st in cost.

Oct 05, 2010
Anyway, most of that is debatable. What I honestly feel s not debatable is that all citizens should be given the choice to either:
-go without insurance and suffer the consequences.
-get private insurance
-get government run insurance

Some of us want the governement to run our insurance, hence the public option. I do not understand why you people refuse to let us have this? Is it because you know it'll wipe out private insurance? Tough luck. I have my rights and we have the right to choose our healthcare provider; I want the government and you force me to choose a private company. I am not forcing you to choose government, go private if you want. So, you agenda is directly affecting me negatively and my agenda is only indirectly affecting you by making health care cheaper by taking out middle men and, eventually, making private insurance unpopular.

Oct 05, 2010
marjon,

Not once in these many weeks have you said "I understand your point but..", or "your right about that but not this", or similar. You never give an once. Everytime your proven wrong, you change the subject. You have no credibility. Your on here to prove you are right, not to come to a consensus or determine the reality of any of the issues discussed. Your practicing arguing and being right at all cost (even reality), not arguing for resolution. Your not worth talking to.

Oct 05, 2010
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was able to force you to buy a product...like health insurance...

You don't have to buy health insurance. And if you don't you'll be taxed in order to cover the cost of your free emergency room use.

Oct 05, 2010
US is rank 38th in care quality and 1st in cost.
Just a minor correction here guns. We're ranked number 38th in overall healthcare system quality, however, according to the quality standards and outcomes we're number 1. The problem is the other fields that go into the overall calculation. We're ranked very poorly in distribution, affordability, and the lack of a public option drops us down a few ranks as well.

The reason why we rank so poorly is the capitalist aspect of the healthcare system, while the reason for the high cost is the introduction of new technology and how bleeding edge some treatment regimens are. The cost of pharmaceuticals, which is greatly inflated in this country also is factored into cost.

Oct 06, 2010
marjon: Is this a new record with 7 posts in a row - just ranting to the audience? Let me go back a few posts just to waste my time again trying to make a point with you (not that I really hope you will listen). You said: "I have not been proven wrong." Referring to the idea that you have never admitted you were wrong even though you have been given s