Lawsuits can & do happen....

There is no lawsuit that can win because someone said something on the internet. That's what free speech is there to protect. Now they could I suppose depending on what was said go in front of one of those unconstituational human rights commissions but those are a whole different discussion that is probably best left alone cause it'll get more than a few people riled up.

 

Libel laws still apply to internet postings. And there are limits to what is protected with respect to Freedom of Expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Free speech on a message board is a myth - you give it up when you agree to the terms of service that lets the board owner(s) and their appointees edit or remove your posts.

In a court of law the truth can be used as a defence. So if what you are saying is offensive, it still is legal as long as it is true. In the Kangaroo Court of our "Human Right" commissions, the truth can't be used as a defence. Nothing applies to help the defendant in those things, you are basically guilty when you walk in the door and the process is the punishment.

There is an interesting case of libel going on in the US right now - several publications and bloggers have called Michael Mann's global warming "science" into question, and instead of providing evidence to satisfy them, he is suing them instead for libel. This is what is known as a SLAPP lawsuit. In any event, in order to win his case, Mann will now have to prove that his work showing his hockey stick of global warming was in fact accurate and his data is solid. In all these years since his "hockey stick" projections of global warming went public, he has never released his data. If he does in fact do it, and the defendants prove they were right all along about Mann's work, the entire global warming industry might crumble, which it should, given it appears to be built on sand anyway.

Very interesting stuff guys. There is a lot to digest in that first link...

 

I love the clock, it really puts into perspective just how brief our existence has been. Personally, I prefer my sexual reproduction first thing in the morning and right before bed, but to each their own I suppose.

I guess the man-made polution is so bad it's also causing Mars to trend warmer too.

I guess the man-made polution is so bad it's also causing Mars to trend warmer too.

shhhh....don't want to mention the Sun....it detracts from the hysteria and panic of CO2....

like I said, way way too many factors to be as worked up as people are. Worry more about adapting.

I see nothing wrong with awareness in what's going on in our world and certain efforts to increase awareness. 

Not everything should be easily dismissed as rantings and over-emphasising.

After all, we are, and have always been, our own worst enemy.

I agree that we should love and respect our planet A LOT more than we do.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing wrong with awareness.  Even if the impact we have is too small to cause global shifts, if we have an impact we should be determined to minimize it.  But those efforts should be reasonable, balanced and sensible.

It just seems to me that there is a lot of people getting worked up trying to figure out how to put the toothpaste back in the tube. 

I agree that we should love and respect our planet A LOT more than we do.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There is nothing wrong with awareness.  Even if the impact we have is too small to cause global shifts, if we have an impact we should be determined to minimize it.  But those efforts should be reasonable, balanced and sensible.

Boom! This right here. Both sides of the argument would be singing koombaya if this was the consistent message.

 

Start small: Composting. Rain barrels. Recycling. http://www.eco-fitt.com/mbhydro/ <-- efficient faucet fixtures and shower heads. Free and easy. No excuse not to.

 

Feeling ambitious (and have money to burn)? The wife and I have been dreaming of building new, with insulated concrete form construction, geo-thermal heat, green roof and solar panels, grey water recycling... anything to get off the grid and be wholly sustainable, or as close as possible. The upfront cost is nothing compared to the savings in both energy use and reduced utility bills. It's worth the trouble.

Boom! This right here. Both sides of the argument would be singing koombaya if this was the consistent message.

 

Start small: Composting. Rain barrels. Recycling. http://www.eco-fitt.com/mbhydro/ <-- efficient faucet fixtures and shower heads. Free and easy. No excuse not to.

 

Feeling ambitious (and have money to burn)? The wife and I have been dreaming of building new, with insulated concrete form construction, geo-thermal heat, green roof and solar panels, grey water recycling... anything to get off the grid and be wholly sustainable, or as close as possible. The upfront cost is nothing compared to the savings in both energy use and reduced utility bills. It's worth the trouble.

I'd think twice about geo-thermal. The powers that be here in Kelowna suckered a lot of higher-end home owners to switch to geo-thermal from natural gas heating, promoting it as "cheaper" and of course the thing that appeals to all those who want to feel like they are "making a difference", that geo-thermal was much more "environmentally friendly". All of those people that switched are now crying their eyes out, as gas is cheap while electricity costs here are going up substantially. My brother in law was one of the suckers and he now pays almost $500 a month in electricity while I am still paying $150 a month for my gas bill and our houses are roughly the same size. The problem is that the idiots here went to a "two-tier" system to encourage people to use less electricity (bullshit excuse, it's a revenue grab) and so if you don't use much electricity, your bill stays low, but if you go above the low tier you get screwed. All the people on geothermal HAVE to use electricity to heat their houses, and they are being bent over right now. And good luck trying to sell your house, not too many people want to get raped like that for their utilities. Gas is the way to go baby.

 

Boom! This right here. Both sides of the argument would be singing koombaya if this was the consistent message.

 

Start small: Composting. Rain barrels. Recycling. http://www.eco-fitt.com/mbhydro/ <-- efficient faucet fixtures and shower heads. Free and easy. No excuse not to.

 

Feeling ambitious (and have money to burn)? The wife and I have been dreaming of building new, with insulated concrete form construction, geo-thermal heat, green roof and solar panels, grey water recycling... anything to get off the grid and be wholly sustainable, or as close as possible. The upfront cost is nothing compared to the savings in both energy use and reduced utility bills. It's worth the trouble.

I'd think twice about geo-thermal. The powers that be here in Kelowna suckered a lot of higher-end home owners to switch to geo-thermal from natural gas heating, promoting it as "cheaper" and of course the thing that appeals to all those who want to feel like they are "making a difference", that geo-thermal was much more "environmentally friendly". All of those people that switched are now crying their eyes out, as gas is cheap while electricity costs here are going up substantially. My brother in law was one of the suckers and he now pays almost $500 a month in electricity while I am still paying $150 a month for my gas bill and our houses are roughly the same size. The problem is that the idiots here went to a "two-tier" system to encourage people to use less electricity (bullshit excuse, it's a revenue grab) and so if you don't use much electricity, your bill stays low, but if you go above the low tier you get screwed. All the people on geothermal HAVE to use electricity to heat their houses, and they are being bent over right now. And good luck trying to sell your house, not too many people want to get raped like that for their utilities. Gas is the way to go baby.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Of all of the green options we're looking into, geo-thermal is certainly one we are willing to budge on. It's pretty easy to do for people on huge lots, but with a relatively smaller city lot the upfront cost is through the roof. We are fortunate in Manitoba to have such cheap electricity, but Manitoba hydro is also pushing people to use less... not because it's 'green' but because they can turn around and sell it to the states for a lot more than they sell it to me. Hence the solar panels. Even if they only generate enough power to run my fridge and stove, they pay for themselves on a long enough timeline.

 

As for selling the house... geo-thermal or not... if I were to build this dream house, it's the house I plan to retire in!

 

 

Boom! This right here. Both sides of the argument would be singing koombaya if this was the consistent message.

 

Start small: Composting. Rain barrels. Recycling. http://www.eco-fitt.com/mbhydro/ <-- efficient faucet fixtures and shower heads. Free and easy. No excuse not to.

 

Feeling ambitious (and have money to burn)? The wife and I have been dreaming of building new, with insulated concrete form construction, geo-thermal heat, green roof and solar panels, grey water recycling... anything to get off the grid and be wholly sustainable, or as close as possible. The upfront cost is nothing compared to the savings in both energy use and reduced utility bills. It's worth the trouble.

I'd think twice about geo-thermal. The powers that be here in Kelowna suckered a lot of higher-end home owners to switch to geo-thermal from natural gas heating, promoting it as "cheaper" and of course the thing that appeals to all those who want to feel like they are "making a difference", that geo-thermal was much more "environmentally friendly". All of those people that switched are now crying their eyes out, as gas is cheap while electricity costs here are going up substantially. My brother in law was one of the suckers and he now pays almost $500 a month in electricity while I am still paying $150 a month for my gas bill and our houses are roughly the same size. The problem is that the idiots here went to a "two-tier" system to encourage people to use less electricity (bullshit excuse, it's a revenue grab) and so if you don't use much electricity, your bill stays low, but if you go above the low tier you get screwed. All the people on geothermal HAVE to use electricity to heat their houses, and they are being bent over right now. And good luck trying to sell your house, not too many people want to get raped like that for their utilities. Gas is the way to go baby.

 

Thanks for the heads up. Of all of the green options we're looking into, geo-thermal is certainly one we are willing to budge on. It's pretty easy to do for people on huge lots, but with a relatively smaller city lot the upfront cost is through the roof. We are fortunate in Manitoba to have such cheap electricity, but Manitoba hydro is also pushing people to use less... not because it's 'green' but because they can turn around and sell it to the states for a lot more than they sell it to me. Hence the solar panels. Even if they only generate enough power to run my fridge and stove, they pay for themselves on a long enough timeline.

 

As for selling the house... geo-thermal or not... if I were to build this dream house, it's the house I plan to retire in!

 

 

Do they really?

 

with an economic life of about 25 years (http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/pv/life-expectancy-solar-PV-panels) do they really save you any money when you factor in the up front and ongoing maintenance costs?

To be perfectly honest, the best solution is probably if every house and building was as off the grid as possible, but good luck getting most people to pay the up front costs of conversion. Stuff like solar is a good option for minimal usage, use the grid for heavy use times only otherwise everyone is on their own. That's the future of energy if you ask me. 

I know this is all theoretical at this point and may not happen in my lifetime, but all roads point to nuclear power as our future. All that has to happen is that people have to get over their panicky idiot fears of nuclear energy and stop pulling Three Mile Island and Fukishima out of their scared butts. The potential of nuclear power, if harnessed properly, is virtually limitless.

This may be a hoax, but even if it has any potential at all, we could eliminate gas powered cars: http://xposethereal.com/re-fuel-every-100-years-with-the-new-thorium-car.html

I also like nuclear because Canada has some of the biggest uranium deposits in the free world, and the next Fort McMurray could be based in Northern Saskatchewan. Companies like Fisson and Hathor have made some monster finds there in the past few years. Go nuclear! Wind power, solar power, it all sucks, especially as far north as we are, and requires huge subsidization with extremely low returns thanks to the intermittency. That's never going to change, thanks to the laws of thermo-dynamics, which a lot of Greens seem to think can be bent to their purposes (why not - look at all the junk science that is going on to prove man-made global warming is occurring?) whereas nuclear power provides a steady power source at affordable rates.

I agree about nuclear.  Risks aside it really should be the preferred energy source.  We're going to need it for space exploration also (unless we can make some of the other ideas feasible).  The fact we havent gone back to the Moon or Mars yet really grinds my gears (oh wait, thats another thread).  Blame the Big O (bama) on that one.

Well if you want to keep the power supply centralized then yes nuclear is the clear cut best option. I just think a better solution is to de-centralize everyones power as much as possible. It's a lot of upfront costs on individuals though so it's not an easy sell. 

Well if you want to keep the power supply centralized then yes nuclear is the clear cut best option. I just think a better solution is to de-centralize everyones power as much as possible. It's a lot of upfront costs on individuals though so it's not an easy sell.

This guy is one of the biggest Greenies around and also one of the most radical leftists I have seen and he is huge on nuclear power:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

He addresses your theories about decentralization and he's not a big fan of it. As you say, huge costs involved.

where are they at on cold fusion?

 

Well if you want to keep the power supply centralized then yes nuclear is the clear cut best option. I just think a better solution is to de-centralize everyones power as much as possible. It's a lot of upfront costs on individuals though so it's not an easy sell.

This guy is one of the biggest Greenies around and also one of the most radical leftists I have seen and he is huge on nuclear power:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

He addresses your theories about decentralization and he's not a big fan of it. As you say, huge costs involved.

 

There's huge costs involved in building centralized power plants too, just that it's easier for a giant corportation to foot the bill and pass the expenses down to consumers incrementally. It really boils down to de-centralized vs. centralized and nothing more and they are competing ideologies on more issues than this one. 

Yes let's all use nuclear power. Who cares if it wipes a town off the map every 25 years or so. Efficiency is the name of the game! And nuclear waste? Forget about it! We can just bury it.

Yes let's all use nuclear power. Who cares if it wipes a town off the map every 25 years or so. Efficiency is the name of the game! And nuclear waste? Forget about it! We can just bury it.

well you CAN just bury nuclear waste, quite safely. And modern reactors have so many fail safes built in that you won't see a meltdown. Hell the only nuclear disaster recently was caused by a major earthquake and in Canada there are plenty of places where you won't see big seismic activity so nonissue there. 

 

Did you know that coal fired power plants produce more radioactive material than nuclear plants? And they just pump that all into the air. 

 

The nuclear boogeyman doesn't exist and the sooner people stop thinking it does the better off the world will be. 

At any rate pollution is bad and cutting just makes sense. The problem is the economy also has to exist the way it has been set up over the last century. One will always be getting in the way of the other. Global warming, who cares it is one of a hundred major global issues that will arise over the next 50 or so years.

We are all on the road to nowhere, so sit back crank some Ozzy and crack a cool one. I am going to take my own advice now, the next century is going to be 1000 steps back so enjoy today. Cheers.

The Japanese were stupid to put a nuclear reactor so close to where a Tsunami damaged it. It's still leaking nuclear waste...

A) nuclear power is safe and not a risk to enviroment when ran properly..

dont build on the coast OR on a fault line in case of a natural disaster.

C) every technique we have devised to generate power causes some adverse effect if you look hard enough.. Some more obvious then others..

You know, you'd think the Japanese would have known this but I bet it was done that way to save money... The hell with safety. 

We should be expanding hydroelectric power to never-before-seen levels.  The real power is in ocean currents.  The tides come in each day, and each day they go back out?  Unexplainable.  But that is movement on such a massive scale.  We should be harnessing that power, instead of leaking radioactive material into the air like 17to85 says.