Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

    "You made the mistake up above of asserting that solar power was not intermittent in the desert."
    Prove it ! Show me where I said "solar power was not intermittent in the desert" ! If you can not do this , then your statement is an attack ,  a lie and slander ! The very opposite of what you claim you want , "a better discussion."!

    "Possibly, if I understood better where you're coming from, we could have a better discussion."
    If you want a "better discussion" cut the attacks , the lies and the slander , stop your patronizing .
    Focus on what has been posted , don't try and force people into positions that they do not hold .

    "Such was the response on the solar stove. "
    Improved stove , IMPROVED not solar .
    The subject of my question was NOT solar .
    The improved stove project is NOT solar .
    You wish to talk about solar so bad that you are forced to twist my question about non solar improved stoves into a question about solar stoves . Great ,thanks 0% for playing that game with my question .

    I will answer all your questions after you go back and answer all of mine that were asked first .
    If you can not be bothered to answer my questions to you , why would I ever bother to answer yours ?


    l'essentiel est invisible

    by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I apologize if I miss some of the questions (0+ / 0-)
      1. Is Greenpeace corrupt?  I think it's a definite possibility that people at the top of Greenpeace are corrupt.  I can show you that Greenpeace has engaged in joint projects with TXU, one of the nastiest utility companies, at least twice.  The projects themselves are fine, but the business writeups show all the principals as being very chummy with each other.  I also can show you that Greenpeace did not protest the 17 TXU coal plants, nor did they join in the suit that caused many of them not to be built.  It's also a possibility that this is mere coincidence. Without the resources of a large police agency, I can't get you real proof.  An alternative interpretation of their actions is that they believe that global warming is less important that getting rid of nuclear power.  They might have several other motiviations.  I would love to hear their explanation.  I am waiting to see whether they attack TXU's new nuclear plant plans.  If they don't, while attacking NRG's new nuclear plants, for example, I would suspect even more that they are corrupt.  This is my opinion, but it is not a proven fact.
      1.  Is noticing that we seem to get a designated troll rater in each of these diaries a conspiracy theory.  No.  It's an observation.  It may simply be a coincidence.   But it is a coincidence that I've noticed.
      1.  When I used the word 'all' of the environmental organizations protesting TXU, it was an example of hyperbole.  However, it is true that many environmental groups protested.  And that Greenpeace did not.

      Those opposing the granting of permits to build and operate the power plants included the Sierra Club and other national environmental groups, new Texas rural citizen groups, the Clean Air Coalition of Cities, the Waco Chamber of Commerce, and numerous individuals from around the state.

      Furthermore, they did it where it counts, in the court room.
      You tube of Billionaires for Coal protesting TXU

      You asked for pictures and links; here are some.  If you need more, I'll look for more and try to post them.

      1.  Intermittency-in rereading, I find that I have confused you with chapter1.  You did not make that comment.  I was wrong, but I was not 'lying'.
      1.  Can I prove that you do not care a lot about the 24,000 people per year in the US who die from coal?  Yes, although you disputed the proof.  When Plan9 told you 24,000 people die for year, you replied:
      I said then, and say now that this statement shows a shocking unconcern for those 24,000 lives per year.  However, perhaps you did not mean what you said or were only joking?  You then kept asking for new facts.

      However, you followed up by saying the 24,000 dead per year are old news.  Again, this is not an answer that shows a high level of concern IMO.

      If you do have a high level of concern, you should say so.  I have a very literal mind, and sorting your snarks from what you believe is difficult for me.  I will know better on this subject if you answer my questions.

      1.  You asked can I prove you're an antinuke.  If you answer the questions I asked, I will know better what you believe and don't believe.  If you're not an antinuke, I am lost to explain why you are bothering with all the work you're going to here.
      1.  Stoves-I am at a complete loss where the stoves came from.  I told you, I know very little about new stoves, other than I wish I could afford a new stove.  Mine is 40 years old, literally.  The first time, I asked you whether I had located the program you meant.  From your first answer, I thought I had the right program, but for older stove models.  Now you tell me I don't have the right program at all & you have added a lot more links that I have to read to answer more fully on stoves.  I will try to do so more fully in a second post, after I finish trying to find & answer all your questions to me.  

      I have (other than those in this thread) made no comments on the improved stove project because I know nothing about stoves and would have little to contribute. The third world is a damn large place and I wouldn't presume to know what would improve their air the most.  However, getting CO2 levels lower is a safe bet to improve their lives by lowering global warming. The current administration does not consider CO2 pollution.  Before I answer your question in a later post, I need to know whether I am allowed to include CO2 as an air pollutant.

      I do care about people in 3rd world countries and will try to read up on your stove and see where that leads.

      1.  I wasn't in the discussion about nuclear waste, but you ask my opinion.  As I need to know whether you consider CO2 an air pollutant, you need to know that I define nuclear waste as used fuel rods and lesser sorts of radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors.  Given that definition, no, I know of no one has been killed from nuclear waste.  The reason I define nuclear waste this way arises out of the question, "what do we do with nuclear waste"  which of course is not about stuff in the air from nuclear bomb blasts or Chernobyl; it's about the wastes from the commercial nuclear power industry. Wastes from the military industry, including bombs are a separate issue.  Megatons to Megawatts is a great solution for getting rid of old bombs, IMO
      1.  Reading up on the power industry.  I certainly found it useful to read up on how it works in this country.  I thought you might be interested too.  I'm a physicist & semiconductor engineer by trade, and I had only the sketchiest conception of how the power grid really worked until I had time to read up on it a couple years ago.  By giving you the option to read if interested, or not, if not interested, I was not trying  to suggest you didn't know about it and needed to study, only to make it easier for you if you wished to do more reading.  I'm sorry if you found this patronizing.  It was not my intent.
      1.  No I do not like to be patronized.  Your comments about weather are patronizing and I can say definitively that they do indeed get old.
      1.  As you said, it was bryfry, not me, who told you to learn something.  So this question is not for me, as far as I can tell.  You complain of boredom--I'm sorry that I have been boring, but it would be easier not to bore you if you would answer my's why I asked them.
      1.  How long have I known that people keep saying "false dichotomy"-about 8 months, since I have been reading this series of diaries.  It's a particularly odd & silly way to say what they mean, IMO. Again, what's new is not that people say this and that people respond that when a nuclear plant is closed, a coal plant is built.  The new thing is that the TXU case has shown when a coal plant is closed, a nuclear plant will be built.  I found that new interesting. YMMV For a dichotomy, two things must be true: "shutting nuclear plants implies opening coal plants for baseload power" has been proved, and now the other half "shutting coal plants implies opening nuclear plants for baseload power" has also been demonstrated.
      1.  assumptions about what you think.  All readers make assumptions about what a writer means.  It is often true that the reader will be wrong.
      1.  If I knew what you wanted to say by commenting on sun and rain, it wouldn't get old at all.  We could discuss the facts of the case.  That's why I asked you some questions; so I could respond to you better.
      1.  Why would you answer any of my questions?  I don't know.  Perhaps because you actually wanted to have a discussion?
      1.  Guinea worm--I read too fast--I find your t s eliot paragraphing and punctuating hard to read.  I am nearly blind in my right eye, and in addition wear trifocals--just seeing is hard for me, and it leads me to problems some times.  This was a mistake of mine.
      1.  How can you take seriously someone who says "I couldn't care less?"  (the I in the case meaning you, I assume?) Easily.  You need to examine why you give that impression and answer that you do care about the 24,000 deaths and the 400,000 or so worldwide.  You have a tendency to give flip answers, as weirdly enough, does NNadir.  It is not a writing style that serves either of you well.

      I have gone to a lot of trouble to try to locate your questions. In the last NNadir diary, there was for example, a person from Oregon who when this conversation can up, replied that he truly likes his coal plants because the power's cheap and doesn't care about the increased death rates involved with them.  Once the person asserted that I knew exactly how to respond to him. I assume you are not like him, but if you don't tell me, I don't know.  I am a very poor mind reader.

      So how about it?  Are you going to answer my questions now?  (You can skip question 6, since you require me to pay you to answer it)

      While waiting for you to answer, I will read more about the stoves.

      •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

        "Intermittency-in rereading, I find that I have confused you with chapter1.  You did not make that comment.  I was wrong, but I was not 'lying'."

        Is the above in regards to this ?

        "You made the mistake up above of asserting that solar power was not intermittent in the desert."
        Prove it ! Show me where I said "solar power was not intermittent in the desert" ! If you can not do this , then your statement is an attack , a lie and slander !

        Intermittency-in rereading =
        alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?

        Have you now read up on the improved stove project worldwide ?

        l'essentiel est invisible

        by indycam on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes-- (0+ / 0-)

          The poster who made the comment about sunlight in the desert not being intermittent was named chapter1.  For some reason, I confused his/her comment with one of yours.

          Intermittency-in rereading =
          alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?

          I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here.  

          I read the articles you linked about the improved stove project.

          What seemed particularly nice about it to me was the effort made to fit the stove to the cooking methods and foods of each culture rather than trying to make a one size fits all stove.  I did not, however, see any place in this project for a superannuated, half blind retired person with a disabled husband.  It appears to be funded by grants from Ashden & WHO, and so not seeking contributions as far as I could tell from the article I read, which is about all the use I could be to the project.

          I think I have managed to answer all your questions?

          •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

            "I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here."
            You posted ,
            "Intermittency-in rereading" ,
            so I asked  ,

            "Intermittency-in rereading =
            alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?"


            "What seemed particularly nice about it to me was the effort made to fit the stove to the cooking methods and foods of each culture rather than trying to make a one size fits all stove."
            Thats not the "nice" thing , I will in the morn , cut / paste , whats nice / ultra important .

            l'essentiel est invisible

            by indycam on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok, I see (0+ / 0-)

              Yes--once again, I apologized for wrongly attributing chapter1's comment to you.

              I'm sorry that you don't think it's nice that the people in the project took special care to adapt the improved stoves to the culture.  I still do.

              Yes, the project does other things.  It saves time collecting fuel, saves fuel (hence trees, and hence lowers CO2 emissions), and improves air quality inside homes so that people will be much healthier.  The same would all be true, only more so, if the people were using solar stoves.

              It is the fact that the people can make their own stoves and that the stoves are appropriate for their ways of cooking that insure that such stoves will actually be used & will continue to built, which justifies developing and promoting them vis a vis solar stoves.

              So it was the cultural sensitivity here that I particularly admired.  

              •  The solar stove is great (0+ / 0-)

                but its not a real good way to cook .
                Trying to get people , millions and millions and millions , women actually , to move away from cooking over a flame as they and their mother and their mothers mother etc etc etc have done , is an undertaking of such magnitude , that imho , the moon shot looks easy in comparison .
                Getting people to do less work gathering fuel , paying for less fuel while lowering the deadly conditions they cook / work under , easy .
                It frees up the women to do more important things than spending hours gathering fuel for wasteful open hearth type stoves . It frees up the children so that maybe they can spend more time in school .

                I dare say , based on nothing but pure supposition  , that getting half the 3rd world old fashion stoves replaced will have net greater overall positive impact on global warming , environmental degradation , species protection , death rates from airborne pollution , etc etc etc , than shutting down the nasty dirty coal fired plants .
                But saying that is pointless because its not an A or B .
                Coal is a cheap energy source if you disregard the externalities . Disregarding the externalities is what people have been doing and will keep on doing unless they are forced not to . Coal is and will continue to be dug up and burnt , I fear , until all the coal is gone or another source of energy production is found that is really cheaper . Its very unlikely that the nations of the world will say with a united voice , coal must not be dug up and burnt . I fear the polar caps could turn into vast molten vats of lava and some people would still dig up and burn coal .


                People in this thread have stated that I am antinuke this is not true .
                I am not 100% for or against nukes or coal .
                I am against outrageous claims / statement in support of one or the other .  

                If somehow I was put in charge of all the on off switches for all the power plants world wide , I could not turn off all the coal plants and turn on all the nukes , or turn off all the nuke plants and turn on all the coal plants .


                The claim that safe clean reliable nuke power has never killed is , imho , an outrageous claim .
                Chernobyl is the most glaring , over the top , bright red flashing neon example of that externality .

                If on the other hand it was presented as approx min max deaths per "exajoule" year , decade , century . coal vs nuke ...

                l'essentiel est invisible

                by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:32:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Indycam thanks for the answers (0+ / 0-)

                  It appears we are in exact agreement on the stove project, although we state it differently.

                  Myself, I am a very traditional cook.  And so are many others.  Look at the very limited uses the microwave has gotten-used by many people only to thaw things, pop corn, heat water, and heat pastry.  People like to cook like grandma cooked.  I do myself, and even though in other areas of endeavor, I totally adore new gadgets.

                  As to the impact of the project, it is difficult to calculate, and different assumption have led different studies to yield very different numbers.,

                  The NYT has had some very interesting articles about environmental problems in China.  The second installment is in today's paper, on their disappearing water.

                  The first installment, As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes, ran on Aug. 27.

                  An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that 300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An additional 110,000 deaths could be attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction materials, said a person involved in that study.

                  However, a different study by World Bank came up with very different numbers:

                  This spring, a World Bank study done with SEPA, the national environmental agency, concluded that outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year. Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.

                  And a third study by WHO:

                  For example, the World Health Organization found that China suffered more deaths from water-related pollutants and fewer from bad air, but agreed with the World Bank that the total death toll had reached 750,000 a year

                  Obviously, if one accepted the second study, one would conclude that stoves were more important than China's coal burning.  One would reach the opposite conclusion if one accepted the first study.

                  And in the third study, one would be interested in cleaning up the water.

                  Fortunately, doing one does not keep China from doing the other two.


                  •  The 1st is from (0+ / 0-)

                    "Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning"?
                    The Environmental Planning in china ? Not so good .
                    I would not put much weight on the "Chinese Academy"
                    until I was shown that they are not a bad joke .

                    If you read the reports from china
                    dead rivers , deadly smog , etc etc etc .
                    Aren't we lucky to be down wind / share a planet with china ?


                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, we got a free pass (0+ / 0-)

                      when we were going through that phase of our industrial development.  China is sort of a developed and undeveloped nation at the same time.

                      For one thing, although people usually get in a twist about it, the fact that the Chinese have limited the number of children they have has been a plus.  And they are currently doing new development with wind, solar & nuclear.  However, they are in real, real trouble with their water table and their rivers.  

                      And I've got to say that 3 things about the Chinese make me nervous:

                      1.  The growing size of their fleet of nuclear submarines
                      1.  The fact that the US owes them a TON of money
                      1.  The desperation that's going to happen when they run out of food due to the destruction of air, water, and land.  Desperate people do desperate things.

                      The 2 NYT articles were very interesting, I thought.

                      •  Label this snark (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        "The fact that the US owes them a TON of money"
                        A ton is an understatement .
                        I say we sell them texas and or florida .
                        If they buy texas and florida we give as a bonus,  detroit .

                        l'essentiel est invisible

                        by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:27:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site