Mazda is famous for two things: fun cars and Wankel Rotary Engines. The company has two cars in its lineup right now it’s testing as hydrogen models: the Premacy and the RX-8. The Premacy is a mini-van and the RX-8 is a sport coupe and both use rotary engines.
Read the rest at Zoomilife.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Greenpeace Protest Ties Up Traffic; Not So Green
Reposted from The Washington Post
By climbing a 140-foot crane and unfurling a large banner around sunrise yesterday, seven Greenpeace protesters made their "Stop Global Warming" message heard loud and clear to 17 environmental leaders from around the world -- and in the process ruined the Monday morning commute for thousands of Washingtonians and (oops!) actually contributed to global warming.
Keep reading for more on Greenpeace's not-so-green protest...
D.C. area rush hours can be rough even when everything goes right -- quiet weather, no major accidents and no major events. Throw an unexpected downtown protest into the mix and you've got yourself a recipe for traffic nightmare, which is exactly what many commuters experienced downtown and in Northern Virginia yesterday morning.
Officials responded to the Greenpeace protest by closing a stretch of 23rd St. between Constitution Ave. and C St., staging rescue squad trucks and other emergency equipment, and eventually arresting the protesters (for unlawful entry to the construction site) after they came down from the crane around 9 a.m.
Traffic responded by backing up all over downtown and onto bridges and major highways heading into D.C. from Northern Virginia.
Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director for Greenpeace, seemed quite pleased with the attention attracted by the protest: "We believe our message was heard," Muffett told the Washington Post. Muffett also mentioned, proudly, that government ministers meeting at the State Department to discuss global warming came outside to take pictures of the protest.
I'm guessing the thousands of drivers who were late to work and likely brimming with road rage were not as impressed as Muffett. Messing up someone's Monday morning commute isn't exactly the best way to garner sympathy or support for your cause. Not to mention some of those caught in the gridlock are probably elected officials or decision-makers involved in legislation and other actions related to climate change.
Of course, the traffic mess was probably exactly the kind of attention-getting disruption the protesters were hoping for. It seems that Greenpeace cares more about the publicity gained than it does the inconvenience, frustration and lost work hours suffered by the local community.
I do wonder, though, whether Muffett or others at Greenpeace care that their protest gave thousands of idling and slow-moving vehicles a chance to emit an extra helping of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere?
By climbing a 140-foot crane and unfurling a large banner around sunrise yesterday, seven Greenpeace protesters made their "Stop Global Warming" message heard loud and clear to 17 environmental leaders from around the world -- and in the process ruined the Monday morning commute for thousands of Washingtonians and (oops!) actually contributed to global warming.
Keep reading for more on Greenpeace's not-so-green protest...
D.C. area rush hours can be rough even when everything goes right -- quiet weather, no major accidents and no major events. Throw an unexpected downtown protest into the mix and you've got yourself a recipe for traffic nightmare, which is exactly what many commuters experienced downtown and in Northern Virginia yesterday morning.
Officials responded to the Greenpeace protest by closing a stretch of 23rd St. between Constitution Ave. and C St., staging rescue squad trucks and other emergency equipment, and eventually arresting the protesters (for unlawful entry to the construction site) after they came down from the crane around 9 a.m.
Traffic responded by backing up all over downtown and onto bridges and major highways heading into D.C. from Northern Virginia.
Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director for Greenpeace, seemed quite pleased with the attention attracted by the protest: "We believe our message was heard," Muffett told the Washington Post. Muffett also mentioned, proudly, that government ministers meeting at the State Department to discuss global warming came outside to take pictures of the protest.
I'm guessing the thousands of drivers who were late to work and likely brimming with road rage were not as impressed as Muffett. Messing up someone's Monday morning commute isn't exactly the best way to garner sympathy or support for your cause. Not to mention some of those caught in the gridlock are probably elected officials or decision-makers involved in legislation and other actions related to climate change.
Of course, the traffic mess was probably exactly the kind of attention-getting disruption the protesters were hoping for. It seems that Greenpeace cares more about the publicity gained than it does the inconvenience, frustration and lost work hours suffered by the local community.
I do wonder, though, whether Muffett or others at Greenpeace care that their protest gave thousands of idling and slow-moving vehicles a chance to emit an extra helping of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Just In Time for the Season: the Humber Foton Solar-Powered Electric Fishing Boat!
Hell ya! I was just looking over my fishing gear this weekend and, as a matter of total coincidence, the information about this boat appeared on my screen today.
Hot diggity, I need a new boat too. I have a kick boat right now, but need something that I can get two people plus a couple/three dogs into. This one might fit the bill. Sweet!
It's a conversion that a buy named John Rowley of Humber Boats did. He took a classic drift/bass boat from teh 1970s and put a Torqueedo electric motor on it--these are more powerful outboards than the standard electric trollers. Then he added solar panels to the bow, put some marine batteries along the edges, and a few other electronics for the charging system. Viola! Electric fishing boat!
This is frikkin' awesome. It runs for about an hour and a half at full speed on a full charge and takes about 8 hours to recharge. Which is about how long you can float around on the lake in the daylight before running out of beer, in my experience.
Get this: he's making these boats for sale through Humber at $7,995. That's cheap, since the motor by itself is half of that. Price doesn't include a trailer, of course.
Here's a video of Rowley talking about his creation:
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
35 Inconvenient Truths The errors in Al Gore’s movie
From the article of the same name at the Science & Public Policy Institute. Click here to read the original (full) article.
by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.
To read the 35 errors, click here to read the original article.
by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
Al Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.
Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion.
We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.
To read the 35 errors, click here to read the original article.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Eat Local - Is That In Season?
We're used to going to the store and having everything there, all the time, no matter what season it is. One of the wonders of our world-wide food economy is that everything is in season somewhere, at some time.
One of the downers, of course, is that what we buy may not be as good as we think it is and who knows how it was grown or how green it was when harvested. This is why local food is always better.
The question is: what can you get right now, next week, or next month, locally? It's hard to plan things if you don't know what's going to be available.
Well, the Web has come to the rescue in the form of this handy widget you can install on any site, blog, etc. and see what's available locally, right now, for you.
I was going to install it here on Aaron's EnvironMental, but the sidebar is too skinny for it to fit.
If you want to try it out or install it on your own site, though, you can get it free at this link.
One of the downers, of course, is that what we buy may not be as good as we think it is and who knows how it was grown or how green it was when harvested. This is why local food is always better.
The question is: what can you get right now, next week, or next month, locally? It's hard to plan things if you don't know what's going to be available.
Well, the Web has come to the rescue in the form of this handy widget you can install on any site, blog, etc. and see what's available locally, right now, for you.
I was going to install it here on Aaron's EnvironMental, but the sidebar is too skinny for it to fit.
If you want to try it out or install it on your own site, though, you can get it free at this link.
So...You Love Your Ethanol and You Love Your Welfare Food Stamps Eh?
Ethanol in the United States means corn. For whatever stupid reason (it has a lot to do with big agra, lobbying, and general greed and stupidity), most of America's ethanol is made from corn.
I've already gotten into how dumb, inefficient, and non-sustainable this is in another post, so I'll just link you to that if you want more info there.
What I'm talking about right now is how corn-based ethanol production in this country is actually going to cause welfare programs to see hard times. Why? Because, once again, government is stupid and never stays under budget.
Corn-based ethanol, all by itself, is expected to raise food prices another 5.1% in 2009. That's besides inflation, higher costs, and more Obama-induced inflation. That 5.1% is the same rise we saw in 2007-08. Hmm...
Now, Obamabots, before you start nagging me about my relentless attacks on him, I'd like to point out that I equally target: G.W. Bush and nearly all elected officials. If you're going to get mad at me for focusing too much on someone for my bad-mouthing, it should be Al Gore.
At any rate, this raise in food prices means that the local food stamp office has to have more money to keep handing out food. About $900 million more. Think that's small change? That's just for one program.
For all of the welfare assistance programs related to food in the nation, this total will be... $5.3 BILLION. Yep, $5.3 billion more in food-related welfare just because of ethanol.
So why are we subsidizing corn-based ethanol so much again? Oh, ya, because Big Agra deserves our money more than the poor family down the street that can't afford groceries and school lunch. I forgot.
I've already gotten into how dumb, inefficient, and non-sustainable this is in another post, so I'll just link you to that if you want more info there.
What I'm talking about right now is how corn-based ethanol production in this country is actually going to cause welfare programs to see hard times. Why? Because, once again, government is stupid and never stays under budget.
Corn-based ethanol, all by itself, is expected to raise food prices another 5.1% in 2009. That's besides inflation, higher costs, and more Obama-induced inflation. That 5.1% is the same rise we saw in 2007-08. Hmm...
Now, Obamabots, before you start nagging me about my relentless attacks on him, I'd like to point out that I equally target: G.W. Bush and nearly all elected officials. If you're going to get mad at me for focusing too much on someone for my bad-mouthing, it should be Al Gore.
At any rate, this raise in food prices means that the local food stamp office has to have more money to keep handing out food. About $900 million more. Think that's small change? That's just for one program.
For all of the welfare assistance programs related to food in the nation, this total will be... $5.3 BILLION. Yep, $5.3 billion more in food-related welfare just because of ethanol.
So why are we subsidizing corn-based ethanol so much again? Oh, ya, because Big Agra deserves our money more than the poor family down the street that can't afford groceries and school lunch. I forgot.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Solar Plane Crosses the Alps
The Sunseeker II has successfully crossed the Alps under it's own power, 99 years after Geo Chavez did it in an airplane for the first time. The Sunseeker II is solar powered, so it's the first non-engine-powered plane to cross the Alps.
The pilot, Eric Raymond, says it was "the most scenic flight of my life."
The flight took about five and a half hours and it was harrowing, as Raymond found himself stuck in a snowstorm at high altitude, but got underneath it and managed to glide through to more sunlight.
The photos from the flight are really awesome. I've included some here.
Enjoy!
The pilot, Eric Raymond, says it was "the most scenic flight of my life."
The flight took about five and a half hours and it was harrowing, as Raymond found himself stuck in a snowstorm at high altitude, but got underneath it and managed to glide through to more sunlight.
The photos from the flight are really awesome. I've included some here.
Enjoy!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
From Climate Depot
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.
“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )
A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Washington, DC -- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at a high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.
“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”
According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance. Gore is scheduled to testify on Friday to the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment's fourth day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The hearing will be held in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.
According to Monckton, House Democrats told the Republican committee staff earlier this week that they would be putting forward an unnamed 'celebrity' as their star witness Friday at a multi-panel climate hearing examining the House global warming bill. The "celebrity" witness turned out to be Gore. Monckton said the GOP replied they would respond to the Democrats' "celebrity" with an unnamed "celebrity" of their own. But Monckton claims that when the Democrats were told who the GOP witness would be, they refused to allow him to testify alongside Gore.
[ Update: 1:55 PM EST: A GOP House source told Climate Depot that the Democrats on the Committee said “absolutely not” to allowing Monckton to appear during today's Gore hearing. The GOP committee “pushed at multiple levels” to bring Monckton in to testify but the Democrats “refused,” according to the GOP source. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich was called in to testify after Monckton was rejected by the committee Democrats, according to the Congressional source.]
“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.
“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows that, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained. Monckton has previously testified before the House Committee in March. (See: Monckton: Have the courage to do nothing...US Congress told climate change is not real ) Monckton has also publicly challenged Gore to a debate. (See: Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming By Lord Monckton - March 19, 2007 )
A call to the Democratic office of the House Energy and Commerce Committee seeking comment was not immediately returned Thursday night.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Kyocera's Flexible, Kinetic-Powered Smart Phone
Wow, check this thing out. I totally want one. It's a new concept cell phone design from Kyocera called an EOS phone. It's flexible, has a large OLED display, and is powered by kinetic energy.
That's right. As you move it around, press the keys, etc. the phone generates its own power. How sweet is that?
To talk on it, you leave the phone folded up like a little wallet. Unfolding it reveals a huge OLED screen and a QWERTY keyboard. The keyboard is also flexible and has shape memory so that they pop up when you're using them, but melt back into the unit when you don't have the keypad active.
The phone is made from a soft, flexible, but semi-rigid polymer skin. The phone is embedded with small piezoelectric generators that create an electric charge when it's being manipulated or used. So the more you play with it, the more power it generates. Cool, eh?
Of course, this is a prototype phone in its early design phase, but it could one day be in your hand.
Awesome.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
BYD’s CEO Guzzles Battery Fluid Like a Frat Boy…to prove a point
OK, maybe not “like a frat boy,” exactly, but he did prove a point. Wang Chuan-Fu is the CEO of BYD and he made a point about the new generation of batteries–specifically liithium-ion ones: they’re non-toxic. He did this by drinking some of the electrolyte fluids from one of BYD’s cells.
Read the rest over at Zoomilife.
Read the rest over at Zoomilife.
Survey Says: A Mere 34% of Americans Believe in Man-Made Global Warming
Not that popular opinion changes the minds of do-gooder politicians and power-grabbing bureaucrats (or is that power-grabbing politicians and do-gooder bureaucrats?), but a new survey says that only 34% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
Barely 1/3 of the nation believes that our "evil CO2 production" is causing the planet to heat up.
Looks like Al Gore failed in his quest to force-feed bad information about climate catastrophes on the American public. Someone take back his Nobel Prize, that sheister.
The survey was conducted by Rasmussen and represents the lowest finding that question has received in Rasmussen Reports' history. 48% of those surveyed attribute the planet's heating up to planetary trends on the long-term and 7% blame something else (probably Canadians).
Looking at it from policial party, 51% of Democrats are sold on Al Gore's theory while 48% of the "political class" (whatever that is) also side with Big Al. 66% of Republicans and 47% of non-affiliated adults disagree.
On the other hand, 62% of Americans agree that global warming is a serious problem and 33% more say it's "very serious." The other 35% say it's no big deal.
Other findings were also interesting. 63% of Americans believe that we need to find other sources for energy (DUH) and 58% think that nuclear plants are a way to go.
The survey was conducted on April 15-16 and consisted of 1,000 likely voters.
Green cavemen tree thumpers are up in arms over the survey and coming up with all kinds of ways to refute its findings, including naming Americans as "stupid."
Meanwhile, the Jebs and Bible Thumpers are lauding the survey as a breakthrough showcasing how Americans aren't taken in by the tripe pushed forward by those dirty hippies.
The rest of us see it as another survey of a whopping 1,000 people that comprises 0.0000003% of our population (give or take a zero). Were it to have found the opposite conclusions, the morons on either side would be trading places and making the same statements.
At least no one is listening to Al Gore anymore, that fat hypocritical jackass.
Barely 1/3 of the nation believes that our "evil CO2 production" is causing the planet to heat up.
Looks like Al Gore failed in his quest to force-feed bad information about climate catastrophes on the American public. Someone take back his Nobel Prize, that sheister.
The survey was conducted by Rasmussen and represents the lowest finding that question has received in Rasmussen Reports' history. 48% of those surveyed attribute the planet's heating up to planetary trends on the long-term and 7% blame something else (probably Canadians).
Looking at it from policial party, 51% of Democrats are sold on Al Gore's theory while 48% of the "political class" (whatever that is) also side with Big Al. 66% of Republicans and 47% of non-affiliated adults disagree.
On the other hand, 62% of Americans agree that global warming is a serious problem and 33% more say it's "very serious." The other 35% say it's no big deal.
Other findings were also interesting. 63% of Americans believe that we need to find other sources for energy (DUH) and 58% think that nuclear plants are a way to go.
The survey was conducted on April 15-16 and consisted of 1,000 likely voters.
Green cavemen tree thumpers are up in arms over the survey and coming up with all kinds of ways to refute its findings, including naming Americans as "stupid."
Meanwhile, the Jebs and Bible Thumpers are lauding the survey as a breakthrough showcasing how Americans aren't taken in by the tripe pushed forward by those dirty hippies.
The rest of us see it as another survey of a whopping 1,000 people that comprises 0.0000003% of our population (give or take a zero). Were it to have found the opposite conclusions, the morons on either side would be trading places and making the same statements.
At least no one is listening to Al Gore anymore, that fat hypocritical jackass.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Rattle That Regulatory Saber
by Floy Lilley, LewRockwell.com
"OBAMA TO REGULATE ‘POLLUTANT’ CO2" screams the headline. Thus does our most recent fearless leader thumb his nose at We the People. Not trusting to democratic institutions like Congress, Obama hides behind EPA’s skirts in a spineless ploy to have his way mandated upon us.
Straightforward or transparent legislation was not looking promising. The U.S. Senate voted down Obama’s climate plan. Climate czar Carol Browner has been so rebuffed by the Senate moderates that no one was wagering that cap and trade climate legislation was going to get passed. Did Browner put her old EPA hat back on to help rattle this saber? How embarrassing for greens to hold so many political Democratic Party cards and still be so impotent.
It overall is a very bad day for pushing expensive climate change alarmism. Climate policies are shifting toward reason, sobriety, debate, engaged real science, and fiscal restraint.
Obama ought to have second thoughts about the advice he’s being given when so many prominent scientists are freshly skeptical:
Obama’s running out of time to force us to swallow his catastrophic global warming agenda. The catastrophe evaporates as the harsh reality of the economic costs of such a global climate bureaucracy become clearer. Climate policies in Europe are changing rapidly. France’s most eminent climate skeptic, Claude Allegre, is likely to become that country’s equivalent head of the EPA. The G-20 meeting in London earlier this month ignored climate change. The G-20’s written statement mentioned the word "climate" only two times out of 3,146 words. Expectations are falling rapidly for the Copenhagen Climate Convention efforts this December to birth Son-of-Kyoto.
"OBAMA'S GREEN POLICY WILL KILL U.S. ECONOMY, SAYS OIL CHIEF" screams another headline. Has this President forgotten already that our U.S. economy is in a protracted nosedive? His budget calls for a $646 billion climate tax through a carbon-trading system that will throttle taxpayers. White House officials already admit this tax could be three times larger. A family of four could have to shell out nearly $45,000 in climate taxes during the coming decade. And that is all before the EPA gets started regulating. Whatever is he thinking of?
Some states have not waited for any EPA to tell them they can’t breathe out. They’ve gotten a jump on rationing energy. One victim is protesting. An electric utility sues New York over CO2 regulation. The utility valiantly fights the state on claims broadly ranging from "impermissible taxation" to Constitutional violations. I wish the utility well, but our government has never met a tax that was "impermissible" and doesn’t appear to give a flip about the Constitution.
That having been said, you can take action on the EPA’s proposed action. The EPA’s action is that the EPA Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
This proposed action would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act.
The public comment period is open for 60 days. Take the gloves off. Submit written comments. Attend one of two hearings. Support those who do. Obama has to already know that this issue is going to take him down. Whatever is he thinking of?
Floy Lilley is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.
"OBAMA TO REGULATE ‘POLLUTANT’ CO2" screams the headline. Thus does our most recent fearless leader thumb his nose at We the People. Not trusting to democratic institutions like Congress, Obama hides behind EPA’s skirts in a spineless ploy to have his way mandated upon us.
Straightforward or transparent legislation was not looking promising. The U.S. Senate voted down Obama’s climate plan. Climate czar Carol Browner has been so rebuffed by the Senate moderates that no one was wagering that cap and trade climate legislation was going to get passed. Did Browner put her old EPA hat back on to help rattle this saber? How embarrassing for greens to hold so many political Democratic Party cards and still be so impotent.
It overall is a very bad day for pushing expensive climate change alarmism. Climate policies are shifting toward reason, sobriety, debate, engaged real science, and fiscal restraint.
Obama ought to have second thoughts about the advice he’s being given when so many prominent scientists are freshly skeptical:
* Freeman Dyson, professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, has become outspoken and critical of the computer models which are driving climate alarmism. Dyson says, "I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in." Dyson tackles these bogus climate models along with stratospheric cooling in two short YouTube videos.
* Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, is now saying that "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view."
* Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, takes a harder look at negative climate feedbacks. "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
* Australia’s foremost Earth scientist, Ian Plimer, publishes Heaven And Earth: Global-Warming – The Missing Science. The inconvenient professor Plimer states that "The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
* A U.S. Navy physicist warns of possibly "several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine." Concern about cooling becomes commonplace. Mother Nature might even be credited with saving capitalism if this climate realism can end the suffocating alarmism. Russia airs cooling concerns freely. The Russians say our twelve-thousand-year-long warm period is ending and we are entering another ice age.
* Scientific graphs (within the PDF report) show global temperature has been falling for seven years. The graphs also show "CO2 concentration had been rising at about half the UN's central estimate, requiring its warming projections to be halved and rendering them harmless; and that 20 years of satellite observations of changes in outgoing long-wave radiation had demonstrated conclusively that the UN had exaggerated the effect of CO2 on temperature by a factor of 7–10. The economic graph showed the cost of adapting to "global warming" (if and when it resumed) as being many times cheaper than the cost of attempting to mitigate it."
Obama’s running out of time to force us to swallow his catastrophic global warming agenda. The catastrophe evaporates as the harsh reality of the economic costs of such a global climate bureaucracy become clearer. Climate policies in Europe are changing rapidly. France’s most eminent climate skeptic, Claude Allegre, is likely to become that country’s equivalent head of the EPA. The G-20 meeting in London earlier this month ignored climate change. The G-20’s written statement mentioned the word "climate" only two times out of 3,146 words. Expectations are falling rapidly for the Copenhagen Climate Convention efforts this December to birth Son-of-Kyoto.
"OBAMA'S GREEN POLICY WILL KILL U.S. ECONOMY, SAYS OIL CHIEF" screams another headline. Has this President forgotten already that our U.S. economy is in a protracted nosedive? His budget calls for a $646 billion climate tax through a carbon-trading system that will throttle taxpayers. White House officials already admit this tax could be three times larger. A family of four could have to shell out nearly $45,000 in climate taxes during the coming decade. And that is all before the EPA gets started regulating. Whatever is he thinking of?
Some states have not waited for any EPA to tell them they can’t breathe out. They’ve gotten a jump on rationing energy. One victim is protesting. An electric utility sues New York over CO2 regulation. The utility valiantly fights the state on claims broadly ranging from "impermissible taxation" to Constitutional violations. I wish the utility well, but our government has never met a tax that was "impermissible" and doesn’t appear to give a flip about the Constitution.
That having been said, you can take action on the EPA’s proposed action. The EPA’s action is that the EPA Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:
* The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) – in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
* The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.
This proposed action would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act.
The public comment period is open for 60 days. Take the gloves off. Submit written comments. Attend one of two hearings. Support those who do. Obama has to already know that this issue is going to take him down. Whatever is he thinking of?
Floy Lilley is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
ElectraFlyer-C All-Electric Mini Plane “Cheaper Than Driving”
The ElectraFlyer C is an electric ultralight plane is a kit craft available, right now, for $21,000. It has a flight range of about 2 hours and debuted at the EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh.
The pilots describe the flyer as extremely maneuverable and very hard to get used to because of its near total silence in the air. “Enjoy the scenery and the sensation of flying,” says one, “because you won’t be hearing a lot of engine noise out of it.”
Read the whole story at Zoomilife!
Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University Seek to Commercialize Nanoparticle-Based Algae Oil Extraction
This is very cool news for the algae fuel industry. The process of converting algae to gasoline, diesel, and other fuels just got better: now the algae itself can be preserved and continue growth, allowing for much more efficient fuel oil processes.
The US Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University have developed this method which uses sponge-like mesoporous nanoparticles to harvest the oils without harming the algae. This means shorter production cycles and less waste and more efficiency for the fuel production from algae farm.
The plan now is to commercialize the process and the nano-tech based company Catilin is now stepping in for that part of it through their agreement with Ames and ISU. This new commercialization is a 3-year process which the DOE is funding with $885,000 (in loans) along with $216,000 from Catilin and another $16,000 from ISU--both of which share in the profits when this goes to market.
Right now, the nanoparticles are proven with biodiesel production from algae and have been ASTM certified with the EN biodiesel results. The university plans to continue research into making ethanol and other bio fuels with the same technology.
Pretty awesome developments!
The US Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory and Iowa State University have developed this method which uses sponge-like mesoporous nanoparticles to harvest the oils without harming the algae. This means shorter production cycles and less waste and more efficiency for the fuel production from algae farm.
The plan now is to commercialize the process and the nano-tech based company Catilin is now stepping in for that part of it through their agreement with Ames and ISU. This new commercialization is a 3-year process which the DOE is funding with $885,000 (in loans) along with $216,000 from Catilin and another $16,000 from ISU--both of which share in the profits when this goes to market.
Right now, the nanoparticles are proven with biodiesel production from algae and have been ASTM certified with the EN biodiesel results. The university plans to continue research into making ethanol and other bio fuels with the same technology.
Pretty awesome developments!
Monday, April 20, 2009
Building Batteries With Viruses at MIT
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Biomolecular Materials Group is advancing techniques of using engineered viruses to build batteries. Or at least, battery electric storage components.
Check out the whole story at Zoomilife!
Check out the whole story at Zoomilife!
Star Trek Reality: Solar Power From Space
Pacific Gas & Electric, undaunted by California's drooping economy, deficit-ridden government, and whopping 9% sales tax, is going ahead with a project to produce 200 megawatts of solar energy by utilizing satellites in space.
Yep, they're gonna get solar power from space, man! The project is in collusion with Solaren, a "stealth space power company" and will take 15 years to complete. The result? Enough power to run two city blocks in LA. Or so.
Now, the last time I checked, solar power reach the earth's surface without much trouble in most parts of the world. So unless you live on Antarctica or the North Pole, you can probably use solar panels if you want. Wind, amazingly, is also a pretty common occurrence in most parts of the planet.
So what's the point of all this sending satellites into space to gather electricity? And what's the carbon offset of the average payload rocket noawadays?
I don't know about you, but if I were a PG&E customer, I'd be seriously questioning how these boys got their jobs and are spending the company's profits. Can't they come up with something better to do with them? Of course, PG&E was conceved by Enron, wasn't it? Ya, that explains a lot.
Anyway, the basic idea is this: use satellite arrays to gather sunlight through PV technology. Then take the generated electricity and use it to make a beam of radio that's send down to receiving stations on earth. Those convert the radio back into electricity and VIOLA! You've got power.
Want to know something even more amazing? Solaren isn't the only one planning to try this. Apparently, a company called Space Energy is doing the same, though they appear to be mostly privately funded.
What I can't figure is why this is somehow so important to pursue. At least, why it's important enough that a public utility would bother with it.
Yep, they're gonna get solar power from space, man! The project is in collusion with Solaren, a "stealth space power company" and will take 15 years to complete. The result? Enough power to run two city blocks in LA. Or so.
Now, the last time I checked, solar power reach the earth's surface without much trouble in most parts of the world. So unless you live on Antarctica or the North Pole, you can probably use solar panels if you want. Wind, amazingly, is also a pretty common occurrence in most parts of the planet.
So what's the point of all this sending satellites into space to gather electricity? And what's the carbon offset of the average payload rocket noawadays?
I don't know about you, but if I were a PG&E customer, I'd be seriously questioning how these boys got their jobs and are spending the company's profits. Can't they come up with something better to do with them? Of course, PG&E was conceved by Enron, wasn't it? Ya, that explains a lot.
Anyway, the basic idea is this: use satellite arrays to gather sunlight through PV technology. Then take the generated electricity and use it to make a beam of radio that's send down to receiving stations on earth. Those convert the radio back into electricity and VIOLA! You've got power.
Want to know something even more amazing? Solaren isn't the only one planning to try this. Apparently, a company called Space Energy is doing the same, though they appear to be mostly privately funded.
What I can't figure is why this is somehow so important to pursue. At least, why it's important enough that a public utility would bother with it.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Fuji's New "Eco-Respectful" Batteries
Here you go. Fuji is the first of the battery makers to finally come out with a (realistic and working) environmentally friendly battery. The EnviroMAX batteries have no mercury, no cadmium, and are PVC free.
In fact, even the batteries themselves are made up mainly of recycle materials. The packaging is even of recycled paper and PET plastic.
They're available through several national retailers and distributors and also online at Fuji's website (click here, greenfuji.com).
Saturday, April 18, 2009
VIDEO: Aptera Overview and the Aptera Stability Question Answered
From Zoomilife
Here’s a couple of great videos we found about the Aptera. The first is a great automotive report on the Aptera from Edmunds InsideLine. The second is a great short showing off the Aptera’s handling in corners from GreenCarReports.com.
Here’s a couple of great videos we found about the Aptera. The first is a great automotive report on the Aptera from Edmunds InsideLine. The second is a great short showing off the Aptera’s handling in corners from GreenCarReports.com.
Planned Florida City to be Solar-Self-Sufficient
The new city will be called Babcock Ranch and will be located near Fort Myers, Florida. Florida Power & Light plans to spend $350 million to build a 75-megawatt photovoltaic power plant at the city. The city is planned to begin construction later this year.
The largest PV plant currently in operation is the 60MW plant in Spain, so this could potentially become the world's largest solar PV plant.
The plant itself will be inside the city while the solar panels will be dispersed throughout the town, on rooftops everywhere. The city is being planned by Kitson & Partners and will also include 100% wireless Internet coverage, and several clean-tech features for water and sewer.
The planned city will have about six million square feet of retail, commercial and office space as well as civic and industrial. The entire project will cost at least $2 billion to complete and will include 19,500 homes.
This should be interesting. Read more about it on their website.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Google's Green Data Center Tour
Really boring and full of jargon, but this is a nice tour and overview of Google's green data center:
Oil From Animal Fat Becomes Official Le Mans Series Oil
File this under "cool things that might make you go ewwww."
Green Earth Technologies' G-Oil has been adopted as the official motor oil of the American Le Mans Series and the International Motor Sports Association (IMSA). Pretty sweet, since these kinds of deals are what propel new products, like this renewable, non-petroleum oil, into the mainstream.
Of course, the oil won't be used in actual racing vehicles (yet), but it will be used in all of Le Mans' safety trucks for this racing season. The G-Oil logo will be featured on the adverts and truck decals as well.
The oil itself is derived from animal fats (specifically saturated fats) which are often thrown away during butchery. The fats, whose single-bond carbon chains are similar to petroleum oils, leave no harsh effects on the environment when used as a lubricant.
In other words, when you change your car's G-Oil and some of it spills onto the ground, you don't have to worry about it. It's not going to hurt anything. It's biodegradable!
Really cool and it's awesome to see a green alternative like this becoming a mainstream choice. It also shows that racing fans, who're normally associated with beer-swilling Larry the Cable Guy types, are accepting the idea of environmentally friendly options.
Find out more about G-Oil by clicking here. They make consumer-grade products like 2-cycle, regular engine, and other oils too!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thank You, FDA
From LewRockwell.com, by Thomas Schmidt
Dear FDA,
Do you know how delicious Reblochon cheese is? I don’t mean young, firm, white-rinded Reblochon. I mean after it has had time to ripen, and the rind has turned reddish-orange, and when cut the cheese starts to flow out from between the rinds, and the smell – well, the smell gets you your own seat on the train. Lovingly trace your knife through, and spread an unctuous layer on your crust of bread: there may be no better cheese in the world.
Do you know that I might never have found this pleasure if not for you? In the late 1990s, you proposed to ban the sale of raw milk cheese, of which Reblochon is only one outstanding example (you’re still at it, by the way). With the defiant attitude of the native New Yorker, I marched down Third Avenue to Lamazou cheeses, where Nancy and Aziz were extremely helpful in giving me a tour of what might soon be a world closed to me: Morbier, with the trace of smoke in the middle; Appenzeller and Tete de Moine, hard, like the Swiss mountains from which they come; Tomme de Savoie and a whole host of others, all with flavors like those I had never known.
If Reblochon was good, I wondered what it tasted like in its pre-cheese form; yes, raw milk is what I now sought. I recalled seeing certified raw milk in my youth in Greenwich Village health food stores, but could not find any in the late 90s. Seems when I was not paying attention, you took care of that little matter by banning interstate sales of raw milk in 1984. Colleagues from the former Soviet Union extolled the delicious nature of milk fresh from the cow, dismayed that they could not find such in the land of the free.
All this spurred me to locate a source. The Union Square Greenmarket revealed a few suppliers selling their own raw milk cheeses; perhaps they had a pint or two of the real stuff? No, but one supplier, Hawthorne Valley Farm, did sell raw milk at their farmstead, as permitted under New York State law. And so I found myself driving 120 miles north of the city, where unhomogenized raw milk was for sale at the farm; I bought a half-gallon, and took it home to try. Warmed to "cow temperature," it was delightfully sweet and creamy. Why should it be banned?
And here you taught me my first lesson in what used to be called Moral Philosophy, economics. You see, the liquid produce of the cow is generally free of bacteria (one reason for this use among the Masai). However, pasteurized milk was originally developed because bacteria in the milk led to tuberculosis, among other illnesses; nowadays, E. coli might as easily get into the source. How did these bacteria come to be in the milk? From sloppy proprietors who did not take care to exercise precautions like properly cleaning their cows and equipment. Thus all milk had to be pasteurized for safety, driving the careful proprietor into an economically disadvantageous situation relative to the slob, and turning milk into a commodity: Gresham’s law applied, and bad practices drove out good husbandry. The same applies in other areas of cattle ranching.
Do you know how delicious grass-fed beef is? In the early part of this decade, you proposed to ban imports of Argentine beef. My local supermarket sold the stuff, and I figured to buy some before I lacked the chance. What depth of flavor! What exquisite texture! The meat is not marbled with the fat that encumbers and tenderizes American feedlot beef, so it is tougher and juicier, and the fat is healthier, as the cattle have fattened almost entirely on grass. You helped me become a better cook by learning how to tenderize through marinades, a skill that comes in handy now that more expensive cuts of beef are less in reach for us all.
You did eventually ban the importing, but I was able to find American suppliers, including local ones in New York, and a few national suppliers. Happily, these suppliers seem to have grown in number, as their entrepreneurial owners seek to discriminate market segments in the general mass of buyers. Bill Niman proposed to do the same for pigs as the grass-feeders were doing for cattle, and heirloom free-range pork likewise entered my food vocabulary, with a major assist from Joe Sobran.
Sobran’s description of the life of a commodity-pork pig is depressing in its inhumanity. What happens in the slaughterhouse is worse: "’Squealing hogs funnel into an area where they are electrocuted, stabbed in the jugular, then tied, lifted, and carried on a winding journey through the plant. They are dunked in scalding water, their hair is removed, they are run through a fiery furnace (to burn off residual hair), then disemboweled and sliced by an army of young, often immigrant laborers’ who ‘wear earplugs to muffle the screaming.’ Most find the work demoralizing." This is the picture of the modern, post-Upton-Sinclair slaughterhouse you have wrought, the very reason you were brought into being.
I’m reminded of this as I ask you, do you know how delicious Jamon Iberico de Bellota is? The pata negra pigs of southern Spain roam freely through fields and oak forests. When their time is near, they may be served a diet exclusively composed of acorns. The resultant effect is magnificent: the meat has a sweet, sometimes gamy flavor, and the fat, well, "the curing process converts the fat of the ham into a beneficial good-cholesterol fat, much like extra virgin olive oil."
But no slaughterhouse in Spain met your exacting standards, so this fine ham was not sold in the USA. It was in Parma, no slouch in the ham department, that I first tasted this delicacy, and I must thank you: it is the king of hams, and I would never have found it without you. Now, of course, an abattoir that meets your standards has opened in Spain, and Jamon Iberico de Bellota is for sale in the USA, at prices exceeding $100 a pound, and now your friends at the USDA have gone and made it even more expensive. You remind me that the FDA, like all government bureaucracies, is set up to favor the large over the small, the commodity producer over the artisan.
It is not the exquisite foodstuffs that your nannyism has led me to for which I have most to thank you; rather, it is your excellence in teaching moral philosophy. For years I filled my belly with the commodity products that you have brought about through your politically-connected centralization of control over the American food industry. But my mother used to tell me "you are what you eat." And so in eating the undifferentiated food that you foist upon us, I lost more sense of my essential nature and became more of a commodity; your friends in the rest of the government would like that, an enumerated, undifferentiated mass particle for them to push around, wouldn’t they? You have helped me to a visceral understanding of unaccountable hypertrophic government, and this is the most important lesson you took the time to teach me.
You see, the ability to discriminate is the heart of liberty. Charles de Gaulle once asked, "How do you govern a nation that has 246 kinds of cheese?" Since that time, the number has grown to over 500; the microbrew and artisanal cheese industries in the USA, for two examples, have exploded the number of brands and varieties of all kinds of liquid and solid refreshments. A population that can discern differences at a high level (discriminate, that is) cannot be ruled, only led, and this is only one small part of the promise of increased freedom as your centralized control breaks down.
Best,
Tom
Dear FDA,
Do you know how delicious Reblochon cheese is? I don’t mean young, firm, white-rinded Reblochon. I mean after it has had time to ripen, and the rind has turned reddish-orange, and when cut the cheese starts to flow out from between the rinds, and the smell – well, the smell gets you your own seat on the train. Lovingly trace your knife through, and spread an unctuous layer on your crust of bread: there may be no better cheese in the world.
Do you know that I might never have found this pleasure if not for you? In the late 1990s, you proposed to ban the sale of raw milk cheese, of which Reblochon is only one outstanding example (you’re still at it, by the way). With the defiant attitude of the native New Yorker, I marched down Third Avenue to Lamazou cheeses, where Nancy and Aziz were extremely helpful in giving me a tour of what might soon be a world closed to me: Morbier, with the trace of smoke in the middle; Appenzeller and Tete de Moine, hard, like the Swiss mountains from which they come; Tomme de Savoie and a whole host of others, all with flavors like those I had never known.
If Reblochon was good, I wondered what it tasted like in its pre-cheese form; yes, raw milk is what I now sought. I recalled seeing certified raw milk in my youth in Greenwich Village health food stores, but could not find any in the late 90s. Seems when I was not paying attention, you took care of that little matter by banning interstate sales of raw milk in 1984. Colleagues from the former Soviet Union extolled the delicious nature of milk fresh from the cow, dismayed that they could not find such in the land of the free.
All this spurred me to locate a source. The Union Square Greenmarket revealed a few suppliers selling their own raw milk cheeses; perhaps they had a pint or two of the real stuff? No, but one supplier, Hawthorne Valley Farm, did sell raw milk at their farmstead, as permitted under New York State law. And so I found myself driving 120 miles north of the city, where unhomogenized raw milk was for sale at the farm; I bought a half-gallon, and took it home to try. Warmed to "cow temperature," it was delightfully sweet and creamy. Why should it be banned?
And here you taught me my first lesson in what used to be called Moral Philosophy, economics. You see, the liquid produce of the cow is generally free of bacteria (one reason for this use among the Masai). However, pasteurized milk was originally developed because bacteria in the milk led to tuberculosis, among other illnesses; nowadays, E. coli might as easily get into the source. How did these bacteria come to be in the milk? From sloppy proprietors who did not take care to exercise precautions like properly cleaning their cows and equipment. Thus all milk had to be pasteurized for safety, driving the careful proprietor into an economically disadvantageous situation relative to the slob, and turning milk into a commodity: Gresham’s law applied, and bad practices drove out good husbandry. The same applies in other areas of cattle ranching.
Do you know how delicious grass-fed beef is? In the early part of this decade, you proposed to ban imports of Argentine beef. My local supermarket sold the stuff, and I figured to buy some before I lacked the chance. What depth of flavor! What exquisite texture! The meat is not marbled with the fat that encumbers and tenderizes American feedlot beef, so it is tougher and juicier, and the fat is healthier, as the cattle have fattened almost entirely on grass. You helped me become a better cook by learning how to tenderize through marinades, a skill that comes in handy now that more expensive cuts of beef are less in reach for us all.
You did eventually ban the importing, but I was able to find American suppliers, including local ones in New York, and a few national suppliers. Happily, these suppliers seem to have grown in number, as their entrepreneurial owners seek to discriminate market segments in the general mass of buyers. Bill Niman proposed to do the same for pigs as the grass-feeders were doing for cattle, and heirloom free-range pork likewise entered my food vocabulary, with a major assist from Joe Sobran.
Sobran’s description of the life of a commodity-pork pig is depressing in its inhumanity. What happens in the slaughterhouse is worse: "’Squealing hogs funnel into an area where they are electrocuted, stabbed in the jugular, then tied, lifted, and carried on a winding journey through the plant. They are dunked in scalding water, their hair is removed, they are run through a fiery furnace (to burn off residual hair), then disemboweled and sliced by an army of young, often immigrant laborers’ who ‘wear earplugs to muffle the screaming.’ Most find the work demoralizing." This is the picture of the modern, post-Upton-Sinclair slaughterhouse you have wrought, the very reason you were brought into being.
I’m reminded of this as I ask you, do you know how delicious Jamon Iberico de Bellota is? The pata negra pigs of southern Spain roam freely through fields and oak forests. When their time is near, they may be served a diet exclusively composed of acorns. The resultant effect is magnificent: the meat has a sweet, sometimes gamy flavor, and the fat, well, "the curing process converts the fat of the ham into a beneficial good-cholesterol fat, much like extra virgin olive oil."
But no slaughterhouse in Spain met your exacting standards, so this fine ham was not sold in the USA. It was in Parma, no slouch in the ham department, that I first tasted this delicacy, and I must thank you: it is the king of hams, and I would never have found it without you. Now, of course, an abattoir that meets your standards has opened in Spain, and Jamon Iberico de Bellota is for sale in the USA, at prices exceeding $100 a pound, and now your friends at the USDA have gone and made it even more expensive. You remind me that the FDA, like all government bureaucracies, is set up to favor the large over the small, the commodity producer over the artisan.
It is not the exquisite foodstuffs that your nannyism has led me to for which I have most to thank you; rather, it is your excellence in teaching moral philosophy. For years I filled my belly with the commodity products that you have brought about through your politically-connected centralization of control over the American food industry. But my mother used to tell me "you are what you eat." And so in eating the undifferentiated food that you foist upon us, I lost more sense of my essential nature and became more of a commodity; your friends in the rest of the government would like that, an enumerated, undifferentiated mass particle for them to push around, wouldn’t they? You have helped me to a visceral understanding of unaccountable hypertrophic government, and this is the most important lesson you took the time to teach me.
You see, the ability to discriminate is the heart of liberty. Charles de Gaulle once asked, "How do you govern a nation that has 246 kinds of cheese?" Since that time, the number has grown to over 500; the microbrew and artisanal cheese industries in the USA, for two examples, have exploded the number of brands and varieties of all kinds of liquid and solid refreshments. A population that can discern differences at a high level (discriminate, that is) cannot be ruled, only led, and this is only one small part of the promise of increased freedom as your centralized control breaks down.
Best,
Tom
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
World’s First Electricross Goes Off Without a Hitch
The world's first all-electric motorcycle endurance race (motocross) took place in San Jose recently. All kinds of world records were broken! Read about it at Zoomilife by clicking here.
Boeing and Airbus Continue Biofuel Plane Research
Despite the sluggish economy, especially for the airlines, both Boeing and Airbus, who are pioneering two similar types of bio-jet fuels, have said that research and development will continue as planned.
Commercially available bio jet fuels are still at least a decade away, scientists say, but the average life of an aircraft is 30+ years, so aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus tend to think in terms of quarter centuries anyway.
This is why shorter term downturns in sales and the economy don't tend to hit airplane makers right away.
Boeing has projected that biofuels will be certified for jet fuel use on aircraft sometime in the next 3-5 years and that most airlines will be at least partially using them by then. Airbus predicts that by 2025, at least 1/4 of the fuel used by airlines will be bio-based.
Most of these projects assume that production of the biofuels will be on a large enough scale to supply that demand. Both aircraft makers are working with biofuel producers to meet those needs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Solar Car Wash
A "green entrepreneur" named Any Williams is co-owner of GreenSky Energetics, Inc. in Manitowoc. The company specializes in natural energy solutions (solar, wind, etc.) and has converted a local car wash, the Rapid Car Wash in Manitowoc, to be more green.
A 10-panel solar hot water system saves the business more than 850 therms (85,000 cubic feet of natural gas) per year. That's about 60% of the car wash's hot water usage, so it's no small sum.
In the wintertime, the units also run a radiant floor heating system to keep all of the facility's space warm so components don't freeze. While the car wash owners are unsure as of yet, they believe that anywhere from 40-85% of the total costs to install the systems will be reimbursed through tax incentives and rebates. Their business plan counted on 45% reimbursement.
The Car Wash will see a full return on its investment in less than five years and, if energy prices continue to rise, perhaps as early as 3 years.
This is GreenSky's second energy project, the company's first being the installation of the world's largest forced-air heating system in Wisconsin. That system, installed at Eland Electric Corporation, now saves the company nearly half of its energy bills compared to the year before it was installed.
It's a good time to be a greentrepreneur, I guess.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Venice to Use Algae for Power
Venice is full of water. Literally. With that water comes algae, which is always plentiful. The city has announced a plan to use that algae to provide about 50% of its power, replacing fossil fuels at the electric plant currently producing the majority of the city's power.
The Venice seaport regularly cleans algae from visit ships' hulls, from port and dock facilities, etc. That algae will be collected and turned into fuel for the power plant to burn.
The projects will be up and running by 2011 and will cost an estimated $264 million to implement.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Navy Announces Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Plans
The United States Navy has announced plans to build a hydrogen fuel-cell powered UAV, with research already beyond the developmental stage. The first test flight of this ground-breaking machine will be this spring.
The little UAV is called the Ion Tiger and is powered entirely by hydrogen fuel-cells. The Tiger is about the size of a large hobby RC craft, is characteristically stealthy (thanks to it’s low-heat motor and power generation), is capable of carrying a 5 pound payload for 24 hours of continuous flight, and could potentially have several uses as a military UAV.
Visit Zoomilife to read more about it.
Pandering to Big Agra: Senators Propose Loan Guarantees for Ethanol Pipeline
It's no secret to those in the agriculture business that corn's value skyrocketed over a few short years' time when government-assisted ethanol production kicked into high gear. The false paradigm of "green" fuel through corn-based ethanol made Washington, Big Agriculture Conglomerates, and Big Oil all look good as they got together to pimp corn-based ethanol as the environmental savior of America.
As with many environmental issues, the real science got ignored in favor of sensationalistic and emotionally-based claims of "helping the family farm in America" and "boosting the independent farmer." This along with ethanol being given the "green" label as an "alternative" fuel with "zero net carbs."
Small American farmer? Ya, right. Try multimillion dollar agricultural corporations and conglomerates like Conagra. Small American farmers rarely, if ever, see the benefits of government-run programs. It's Big Agra that pushes for these subsidies and Big Agra that benefits.
Ethanol is green? Another lie, at least in the way they're pushing it. Ethanol itself can be a great alternative fuel that's renewable, generally neutral, and definitely better for the environment than petroleum. However, corn-based ethanol (which they're pimping) is only renewable and has none of the other benefits. It actually COSTS about as much fuel to produce corn-based ethanol as it yields.
In fact, most attributes of corn-based ethanol are negative. It displaces food crop, yields less per acre than other ethanol-producing crops, and is more depleting of the soil by acre than many other (better) alternatives.
Now, of course, the Senators on the Big Agra payroll are looking to secure even more money for their benefactors by pushing for an ethanol pipeline in the name of "green."
Green money or green environment? You be the judge.
As with many environmental issues, the real science got ignored in favor of sensationalistic and emotionally-based claims of "helping the family farm in America" and "boosting the independent farmer." This along with ethanol being given the "green" label as an "alternative" fuel with "zero net carbs."
Small American farmer? Ya, right. Try multimillion dollar agricultural corporations and conglomerates like Conagra. Small American farmers rarely, if ever, see the benefits of government-run programs. It's Big Agra that pushes for these subsidies and Big Agra that benefits.
Ethanol is green? Another lie, at least in the way they're pushing it. Ethanol itself can be a great alternative fuel that's renewable, generally neutral, and definitely better for the environment than petroleum. However, corn-based ethanol (which they're pimping) is only renewable and has none of the other benefits. It actually COSTS about as much fuel to produce corn-based ethanol as it yields.
In fact, most attributes of corn-based ethanol are negative. It displaces food crop, yields less per acre than other ethanol-producing crops, and is more depleting of the soil by acre than many other (better) alternatives.
Now, of course, the Senators on the Big Agra payroll are looking to secure even more money for their benefactors by pushing for an ethanol pipeline in the name of "green."
Green money or green environment? You be the judge.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Grass-Fed Beef, Pork, and Other Meats Have Amazingly Huge Benefits
A recent article in Mother Earth News about grass-fed beef made me realize how little is generally known by the public regarding where their meats come from and how they are processed from birth to meat counter. There's a huge disconnect today between Joe 6-Pack and his food sources.
Most meat that you buy in your store today comes from huge factory farming operations (aka "Big Agra"). Most of the animals raised for slaughter in this operations never have more than ten feet to move around in during their lifetimes. While they aren't all "pen fed" like the sadly mistreated pigs and chickens shown in tiny little containers they can't even move around in, most livestock for meat production doesn't have it a whole lot better than that.
Sure, we see the roaming cattle when we drive down the freeway and maybe see a few happy happy spots on TV showing the "family farm" (these don't really exist anymore on a real scale), but for the most part: our meat comes from factories.
OK, it's not Soilent Green...yet, but it's not a whole lot better.
While most cattle are fairly free to roam (short distances) at "pasture," the majority of their diet is alfalfa, grain, and hormones. Not always in that order. These animals get relatively little exercise, lots of protein-producing input foods, and plenty of chemicals to keep them "healthy."
Then we eat them.
Well, a growing movement towards "grass fed" or "free range" animals, especially cattle and chickens, is happening now. Pigs aren't always so lucky, but they are seeing the trend some now too.
Despite the best efforts of Big Agra, the FDA, and the Dept. of Agriculture, localized, smaller operations and home-made food production is becoming more and more popular now. Here in my town, for instance, gardening is making a definite comeback (it never really went away, but it did scale down some). Poultry are showing up in the mail now too, as those mail-ordered chicks begin arriving at the local feed & grain store.
Technically, the city ordinance says that no livestock or poultry are allowed on smaller town lots, but this rarely stops people in Wyoming. Which is why I live here. "Laws are general guidelines for my consideration," is the thought pattern amongst those who live here in the Last of the Free States.
Agriculture professionals, though, are also taking note. Grass-fed and ranged beef cattle are taking the lead now as grassland pastures are more sustainably utilized for the production of healthier, more nutritional, and definitely happier cows become the new goal.
Experts are saying that if it continues to scale up, the currently over-used commercial grain production fields that supply the feed for the mostly-immobile meat production industry now could convert to more sustainable grassland range instead. This would mean no loss in meat production and possible net gains--especially in profits, as farming these fields has become steadily more expensive over time.
The cries of "disease" and other tripe from the FDA are found to be crap as experts show that ranged beef have markedly lower instances of disease than those kept penned together. Ditto with pigs, poultry, and all the rest. Humans too, if you want to know.
The best part is that this ranged system is much more humane, healthier for everyone involved, and increases wildlife habitat to boot. What's to lose? Well, industrial farming and livestock production for one. Big Agra doesn't want that...
Read one Montana rancher's story of converting to free-range here.
Most meat that you buy in your store today comes from huge factory farming operations (aka "Big Agra"). Most of the animals raised for slaughter in this operations never have more than ten feet to move around in during their lifetimes. While they aren't all "pen fed" like the sadly mistreated pigs and chickens shown in tiny little containers they can't even move around in, most livestock for meat production doesn't have it a whole lot better than that.
Sure, we see the roaming cattle when we drive down the freeway and maybe see a few happy happy spots on TV showing the "family farm" (these don't really exist anymore on a real scale), but for the most part: our meat comes from factories.
OK, it's not Soilent Green...yet, but it's not a whole lot better.
While most cattle are fairly free to roam (short distances) at "pasture," the majority of their diet is alfalfa, grain, and hormones. Not always in that order. These animals get relatively little exercise, lots of protein-producing input foods, and plenty of chemicals to keep them "healthy."
Then we eat them.
Well, a growing movement towards "grass fed" or "free range" animals, especially cattle and chickens, is happening now. Pigs aren't always so lucky, but they are seeing the trend some now too.
Despite the best efforts of Big Agra, the FDA, and the Dept. of Agriculture, localized, smaller operations and home-made food production is becoming more and more popular now. Here in my town, for instance, gardening is making a definite comeback (it never really went away, but it did scale down some). Poultry are showing up in the mail now too, as those mail-ordered chicks begin arriving at the local feed & grain store.
Technically, the city ordinance says that no livestock or poultry are allowed on smaller town lots, but this rarely stops people in Wyoming. Which is why I live here. "Laws are general guidelines for my consideration," is the thought pattern amongst those who live here in the Last of the Free States.
Agriculture professionals, though, are also taking note. Grass-fed and ranged beef cattle are taking the lead now as grassland pastures are more sustainably utilized for the production of healthier, more nutritional, and definitely happier cows become the new goal.
Experts are saying that if it continues to scale up, the currently over-used commercial grain production fields that supply the feed for the mostly-immobile meat production industry now could convert to more sustainable grassland range instead. This would mean no loss in meat production and possible net gains--especially in profits, as farming these fields has become steadily more expensive over time.
The cries of "disease" and other tripe from the FDA are found to be crap as experts show that ranged beef have markedly lower instances of disease than those kept penned together. Ditto with pigs, poultry, and all the rest. Humans too, if you want to know.
The best part is that this ranged system is much more humane, healthier for everyone involved, and increases wildlife habitat to boot. What's to lose? Well, industrial farming and livestock production for one. Big Agra doesn't want that...
Read one Montana rancher's story of converting to free-range here.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Rising Sea Levels is "the Greatest Lie Ever Told"
(Reprinted from the London Telegraph, original story is at this link.)
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
by Christopher Booker
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.
by Christopher Booker
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.
Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.
But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.
Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Finally, a Flying Car!
Well, someone finally did it. The flying car we all dreamed about and that 1950s scientists said would be in everyone's garage by 1985 is finally here. A few years late, maybe, but Terrafugia managed to pull it off.
The Boston-based company recently took the maiden flight in their Transition, a hybrid car-plane. The test flight lasted only 37 seconds, but the vehicle not only drove to the runway, but it took off and landed successfully without a hitch.
Anna Mracek Dietrich, co-founder of Terrafugia and COO says that "The first flight is great, but first landing is what matters."
Aptly put. The pilot, Phil Mateer, a retired USAF test pilot, took the wheel on March 5 in Plattsburgh, New York. His statement was to the point: "The flight was remarkably unremarkable."
The Transition has been in design for years and has been road tested for the past six months. March was its first test flight. The car-plane runs on regular unleaded and has a range of 500 miles. The wings fold up into "car mode" in less than thirty seconds and unfold in the same amount of time.
The information from this test flight plus road testing will combine for tweaks to make up the second prototype, which will likely be the pre-production model. The Transition is slated to hit the market in 2010 with a price tag of $194,000 and the company has already taken deposits for 40 vehicles.
Pretty cool first step towards true terra-to-air hybrid technology!
The Boston-based company recently took the maiden flight in their Transition, a hybrid car-plane. The test flight lasted only 37 seconds, but the vehicle not only drove to the runway, but it took off and landed successfully without a hitch.
Anna Mracek Dietrich, co-founder of Terrafugia and COO says that "The first flight is great, but first landing is what matters."
Aptly put. The pilot, Phil Mateer, a retired USAF test pilot, took the wheel on March 5 in Plattsburgh, New York. His statement was to the point: "The flight was remarkably unremarkable."
The Transition has been in design for years and has been road tested for the past six months. March was its first test flight. The car-plane runs on regular unleaded and has a range of 500 miles. The wings fold up into "car mode" in less than thirty seconds and unfold in the same amount of time.
The information from this test flight plus road testing will combine for tweaks to make up the second prototype, which will likely be the pre-production model. The Transition is slated to hit the market in 2010 with a price tag of $194,000 and the company has already taken deposits for 40 vehicles.
Pretty cool first step towards true terra-to-air hybrid technology!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Why Streets Are for Cars, Not Pedestrians
This is Barcelona in 1907 and the camera is mounted on a street trolley. Watch how pedestrians and bicyclists play chicken with it. Sort of like now in some of our bigger cities. Some things never chage, eh?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
What the Heck is a "Smart Grid" Anyway?
Here's a nice little video primer on the smart grid and what it really means. All kinds of theories on what it COULD mean are thrown around, of course, but basically the little wire straw man in the GE commercials means this:
Monday, April 6, 2009
New EPA Standards from DoT Released
The Department of Transportation (DoT) released the new combined fuel efficiency standard for 2011, raising it to 27.3 from the 2010 numbers that were 2 gallons lower.
This means that passenger cars will have to be at 30.2mpg while trucks, SUVs and other larger vehicles will have to be at 24.1mpg. A 2007 energy bill signed into law requires that this 27.3 average be at 35mpg in 2020 and this new 2011 standard is an incremental step towards that.
Obama, of course, wants to one-up that by pushing the standard to 40mpg by 2022.
All of this sounds great to reasonable environmentalists, but the hard-core "bicycle or die" types are screaming that it's "not enough." In my mind, this is already too much. Why is it the federal government's job to set these standards again? Can't the market do this on its own? If people truly demand this kind of change towards efficiency, they'd push the market in that direction without government intervention.
But hey, the EPA and DoT can't collect fines (read: taxes) without this kind of legislation and we all know that larger government is happier government.
Read the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's press release here, then wonder why EPA standards have anything to do with "traffic safety" and chuckle at the stupidity that is bureaucracy.
This means that passenger cars will have to be at 30.2mpg while trucks, SUVs and other larger vehicles will have to be at 24.1mpg. A 2007 energy bill signed into law requires that this 27.3 average be at 35mpg in 2020 and this new 2011 standard is an incremental step towards that.
Obama, of course, wants to one-up that by pushing the standard to 40mpg by 2022.
All of this sounds great to reasonable environmentalists, but the hard-core "bicycle or die" types are screaming that it's "not enough." In my mind, this is already too much. Why is it the federal government's job to set these standards again? Can't the market do this on its own? If people truly demand this kind of change towards efficiency, they'd push the market in that direction without government intervention.
But hey, the EPA and DoT can't collect fines (read: taxes) without this kind of legislation and we all know that larger government is happier government.
Read the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's press release here, then wonder why EPA standards have anything to do with "traffic safety" and chuckle at the stupidity that is bureaucracy.
Solar Beacon / Sustainable Shelter in the Swiss Alps
This is pretty cool. It's a sustainable shelter built in the Swiss Alps called the Monte Rosa Hut. Developed by the Swiss Alpine Club, this domicile won the Holcim Awards Bronze 2008 Europe. It sits 2,883 meters above sea level.
The cool shelter uses awesome technologies to produce energy, collect water, treat solid and liquid wastes, and more sustainably and self-sufficiently. Plus, from long distances, the "mirror" finish (used to reduce solar heat effects) acts as a beacon for miles, reflecting sunlight in all directions.
The entire "hut" is five stories high with plenty of sleeping, dining, socializing, etc. space. The spiral-shaped glass band around the building conducts passive solar energy using the staircase behind it. It gives awesome panoramic views as well.
The entire structure was designed with a special CAD system to reduce the amount of materials and transportation requirements to get them to the site to the minimum. The shelter hasn't been built yet, but plans to put it together this summer are unfolding.
Whether it's built or not, it's pretty cool regardless.
The cool shelter uses awesome technologies to produce energy, collect water, treat solid and liquid wastes, and more sustainably and self-sufficiently. Plus, from long distances, the "mirror" finish (used to reduce solar heat effects) acts as a beacon for miles, reflecting sunlight in all directions.
The entire "hut" is five stories high with plenty of sleeping, dining, socializing, etc. space. The spiral-shaped glass band around the building conducts passive solar energy using the staircase behind it. It gives awesome panoramic views as well.
The entire structure was designed with a special CAD system to reduce the amount of materials and transportation requirements to get them to the site to the minimum. The shelter hasn't been built yet, but plans to put it together this summer are unfolding.
Whether it's built or not, it's pretty cool regardless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)