politicization of global warming
Didn't Bush come out several months ago and finally admit that Global Warming may be man-caused? ISTR a statement like that... Damon. sort of... http://www.greenoptions.com/blog/2007/05/15/bush_wants_action_on_global_warming_emissions_sort_of bush treats science, education, war, even natural disasters, as politics. his politicization of the justice department is just one example. i have to agree with what president carter said today, that bush has the worst foreign policy in american history. Does bushco sycophants sound like wording which considers all viewpoints? -- Ronn! :) i guess not, when you put it that way, -- jon One of the hard learned lessons learned by longtime listmembers here is that it does more harm than good to use any kind of language that is politically inflammatory. One has to consider that there are people here who GASP actually voted for Bush in one or more elections and feel like they had good reason to do so. One thing that one could do that would certainly rile our list conservatives and some of our centrists is to state an opinion in such a way as to make it appear that you assume everyone here is in total agreement with your own political views. In an earlier post today you said: i don't know anything about the regulars here, but i assume most are admirers of the brin perspective Let me assure you that such is not the case. We all like Dr Dave and are fans of his fiction (and to a lesser degree his non-fiction), but we have known the good Doctor in both the best and worst of times. We have seen his strengths and his flaws. We have enough common history that he is more or less one of the listmembers albeit the primary member in many ways. Even though he is not part of the daily life of the list, he is the reason most of us came here in the first place. i have stooped to the same level as karl rove and stand corrected. it's not so much that i assumed everyone on this list agrees with dr. brin's politics, i assumed that bush republicans would not participate on this list. perhaps they would be more likely to be fans or pournelle or niven. now that i think about it, however, i usually disagree with jerry's and larry's politics, but i like their books. i believe larry and jerry both recognize that the neocons have created more chaos in the mideast. anyone on this list would but i am interested in your viewpoint, and i have made an effort to understand why bush and company are so adamant in their denial that humans play a significant role in causing global warming. the only rationale i can come up with is they don't believe humans have a significant impact on the ecology, and that to implement drastic interventions to slow down the progress would be too destructive to the economy. i believe that this is starting to change, partly due to al gore's efforts, and partly because there is a profit to be made in alternative sources of energy. -- jon It seems to me that Bush and Co are a business oriented group and strongly wish to *not* believe Global Warming has a human caused component. For them, this would be the cause of a dismal future for commerce and for our nation and the world. There are a lot of people out there who basically believe the world to be more or less static and/or cannot comprehend much less believe in the chain of logic/causality that is required for a belief in human caused global warming. If there is anything to be argued about, it is that some are trying to turn a scientific debate into a political debate as if human caused global warming could be voted away or voted into existence. xponent A Speck I Am Maru rob Knowledge is Power Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
How to survive in a black hole
So there you are: you discover that your spaceship has inadvertently slipped across the event horizon of a black hole the boundary beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape the hole's fearsome gravity. The only question is how you can maximize the time you have left. What do you do? http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070514/pf/070514-21_pf.html -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: How to survive in a black hole
Wait a minute! As I have always understood black holes, don't you have all the time in the world left? http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ 'Earth is just a starter planet.' Stephen Colbert From: Ronn! Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: How to survive in a black hole Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 07:27:21 -0500 So there you are: you discover that your spaceship has inadvertently slipped across the event horizon of a black hole the boundary beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape the hole's fearsome gravity. The only question is how you can maximize the time you have left. What do you do? http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070514/pf/070514-21_pf.html -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How to survive in a black hole
Pat said: Wait a minute! As I have always understood black holes, don't you have all the time in the world left? No, you don't. From the viewpoint of a distant observer you *appear* to fall ever more slowly towards the horizon (and your image becomes ever dimmer and redder), but from your viewpoint you cross the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. From then on the singularity is always a (rather short) finite proper time in your future, at least until you hit it. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How to survive in a black hole
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: How to survive in a black hole Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:22:55 +0100 Pat said: Wait a minute! As I have always understood black holes, don't you have all the time in the world left? No, you don't. From the viewpoint of a distant observer you *appear* to fall ever more slowly towards the horizon (and your image becomes ever dimmer and redder), but from your viewpoint you cross the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. From then on the singularity is always a (rather short) finite proper time in your future, at least until you hit it. Rich ___ Ah. Splat! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How to survive in a black hole
Really though, isn't this largely academic, since you probably wouldn't survive the tidal forces involved? Would you be able to escape if you dropped some exotic matter into the singularity? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 19:22:55 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: How to survive in a black hole Pat said: Wait a minute! As I have always understood black holes, don't you have all the time in the world left? No, you don't. From the viewpoint of a distant observer you *appear* to fall ever more slowly towards the horizon (and your image becomes ever dimmer and redder), but from your viewpoint you cross the horizon in a finite amount of proper time. From then on the singularity is always a (rather short) finite proper time in your future, at least until you hit it. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How to survive in a black hole
Damon said: Really though, isn't this largely academic, since you probably wouldn't survive the tidal forces involved? Sufficiently large black holes have low enough tidal forces at the horizon that you should be able to survive crossing that without too much difficulty. You'll still be shredded before you hit the singularity though. Would you be able to escape if you dropped some exotic matter into the singularity? I don't know enough general relativity to know. There are certainly solutions for charged or spinning black holes in which you can fall through the horizon, miss the singularity, and effectively emerge in another universe. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that for the spinning, uncharged case you have to pass through an infinite blueshift surface on the way through though, so you'll be fried even if you aren't shredded. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: How to survive in a black hole
On Behalf Of Richard Baker On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that for the spinning, uncharged case you have to pass through an infinite blueshift surface on the way through though, so you'll be fried even if you aren't shredded. I really hate it when that happens. Obligatory second line. - jmh CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How to survive in a black hole
I remember doing some research on wormholes, and ISTR if you drop exotic matter into the singularity, it will theoretically expose it (meaning logically the escape velocity ! C). I, however, have a history degree, not an astrophysics. Plus, I'm interested mainly as RPG fodder... :) Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Re Cost of conservation
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 2:31 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Re Cost of conservation So I'm not sure how I feel about using corn for ethanol; is there really an advantage from the carbon standpoint? And what about the increase in price for people-grade food that this is apparently already causing? I think I heard (NPR? Frontline?) that there's a negative impact from production of some biofuels as well...like cutting down rainforest to plant palm oil trees. The only way that biofuel would be a real addition is if we could harvest the part of the cycle where plants naturally decay, and carbon dioxide is naturally produced. Even so, it would only be a small help. If gas goes to $8/gal, I will have to significantly increase my fees OK, that was a little whiny; still, I think it's not fair to raise gasoline prices _that_ much, because really marginal folk who have to drive for work, or are forced to commute long distances b/c they can't afford to live near work (frex actually a problem in some ski resort areas, where companies are subsidizing housing for food service and cleaning personnel). That's just the tip of the iceberg of the effect on people...if we are actually going to eliminate 80% of the US's present carbon footprint. The gas tax is _supposed_ to cause adjustments in the economy. When people cannot afford to commute to work, they'll move. They will lose money on their house and houses in town will go through the roof. But, that's what suppose to happena massive shift in the economy to reduce energy consumption. I talked about a 10 year process to keep this from being a step function, and allowing people to plan for it. I think those who drive gas-guzzlers, like luxury SUVs (what an oxymoron!) ought to pay a VAT-type penaly tax, rather than everyone subsidizing their fuel hogs. How would a gas tax have everyone subsidizing fuel hogs? The fuel hogs would pay a lot more tax than the fuel sippers. It would tend to get people to replace fuel hogs with fuel sipperswhich is a good thing. But, it wouldn't be enough. Let me quote an analysis I did off fuel consumption numbers from about a year ago. It's from a post of mine on 7-9-06, in the Re: An Inconvenient Truth thread: quote For the US to comply, it would have to reduce its emissions by 25% from the 2004 levels...and probably about 28% from the 2006 levels. But, let's just take the 2004 levels. That's an enormous amount. To see how big it is, let's look at various changes and see how much they would help. Let's look at the automobiles. Big trucks, such as semi's and dump trucks, consume about 20% of the motor vehicle fuel usage. The rest is used by SUVs, pick ups, autos, motorcycles, and that sort. Motor vehicles use about 44% of the petroleum used. Petroleum represents about 40% of total energy use. (natural gas is 23%, coal is 20%, nuclear is 8%, hydro is 4%, wood, waste, etc. is 4%, and other renewables are 1%). Thus, auto and SUV use represent about 14% of the totalor about 17% of the fossil fuel use. Let's say that, tomorrow, SUVs, pick up trucks, and the like disappear and are replaced by automobiles. That would replace a fleet with an average mileage rating of 16.2 mpg with a fleet with a mileage rating of 22.4 mpg. It would also reduce consumption of fossil fuels by about 2.2%. That's not even 10% of what is needed to meet Kyoto. end quote Going back, let's say Tom and Tim both drive 20k miles/year. One has a car that averages a real 40 mpg, the other has an SUV that averages a real 12 mpg. The first one pays $2500/year in additional gas taxes, while the second pays $8333/year. How is the first subsidizing the second. The real point, of course, is to cut down the gas use. Tim could save almost 6k/year buying a fuel efficient car, if he has to drive the 20k miles/year. He'd save more if he drove lesswhich is the idea of the tax. Finally, I didn't take your posts as snippy, Debbie. I realize I was pushing some when I pointed out how you would have to change your life if we were only to take the modest steps to drop our carbon footprint 25% (Kyoto). Dropping it a factor of 5 would be overwhelming...not just 3x harder. It would affect everyone significantly. That's the pointthe cost is much higher than those who argue for massive reductions are willing to admit. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
