Skip to main content

I have happily developed a familial tradition of taking my kids, one in high school, the other in junior high, to the local university libraries on the weekend for homework sessions.

It's a pretty good idea, since, lacking distractions, they focus on their work - which prevents those homework arguments that I'm sure many parents have.    After a few hours of work, we go to the University Museum - a very good one with world class art ranging from Egyptian Classical, to Pre-Columbian North and South American art, to Van Gogh to Warhol.    Then we talk about art and whatever...

Not all libraries on this campus are open access, but two that are the Lewis Science Library - designed by Frank Gehry - and the Engineering Library.   My oldest boy, who is interested in art - and we may differ somewhat on Gehry's work here - prefers the Lewis Science Library,  parts of which were closed last year after a pipe broke.    (The most important parts of the library have re-opened, thankfully, but the event raises a question about the intersection of art and practical engineering.)

Today I convinced my boys to forgo the Lewis Library and to do our work in the Engineering Library, since the "new books" shelves at Engineering have to be one of the more exciting places in the universe, at least for a dork like me.

Among the books I perused today were Nanotribology and Nanomechanics, by Bharat Bhushan (Ed.), Computational Optimization and Applications in Engineering and Industry, and Bradley Fahlman's beautifully written and thoughtful textbook Materials Chemistry.

These are pretty typical of the types of titles one can find on the "new book" shelves in this wonderful library.

Less typical of the titles in the Engineering library was this book:

Oil in the Soil, by Pamela Martin, who is an Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at Carolina Coastal University.

So what's the book about?

It's about the political fight to block oil drilling in the Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) block of Yasuní National Park in Eastern Ecuador, one of the most important protected areas of the Amazon River System, an international effort spearheaded by the indigenous population of the area, some of whom were unaware of the larger world until recently.

The area is said to have proved reserves of more than 850 million barrels of oil, but it also contains 1/5 of all Amazon bird species, and more species of trees than the entire North American continent.

The best part is that the Ecuadoran government has been trying to get oil companies to pay to protect the reserve and park.

Note that the carbon involved will remain, um "pre-sequestered" in the only practical way to actually sequester carbon, which is to leave it in the ground in the first place.

Now that's what I'm talking about!!!!!!

This is not some bull crap "by 2090" fantasy of the consumerist creeps from the Yacht Club Set that runs the anti-intellectual, anti-science squad at Greenpeace.

This is not about 2090, it's about now.   It may be small change on the grand scale, but it's something and it's real.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Originally posted to NNadir on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 06:18 PM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Friends of the Library Newsletter, Community Spotlight, and Readers and Book Lovers.


Drill, Baby, Drill?!?

1%1 votes
0%0 votes
1%1 votes
0%0 votes
9%6 votes
3%2 votes
8%5 votes
9%6 votes
4%3 votes
13%8 votes
11%7 votes
3%2 votes
18%11 votes
4%3 votes
9%6 votes

| 61 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Environmentally sustainable oil drilling, attempts (14+ / 0-)

    at "pre-sequestration" when there's perfectly good oil available in Ecuador, a shortage of diesel fuel to run the "green" Greenpeace yachts, Rainbow Warriors where the "rainbows" are actually oil slicks floating on the headwaters of the Amazon, oil slicks from members of the Yacht club, irrespective of whether they claim that their yacht club adventures are "Eco-tours" or not, hidden tribes having to deal with international oil executives who have nothing to do with their way of life, ordinary sustainable renewable hide rates, and perfectly diverse, and perfectly untouched, pure protected troll rates all go here.

    •  A friend of mine just recently returned from (16+ / 0-)

      Ecuador where he was doing a study on abandon oil sites in the areas just outside large cities but still in the areas where the native population still depend on natural waters. What he found were areas where capped oil rigs still leaked and oozed out various volatile substances, holding ponds that would overflow during rains and no fencing around the abandon site to keep out wildlife or children. It's well known in the area that the wells were once maintained by US companies and when they left - they left! Oh, he did encounter some "guerillas" in the more mountainous areas who checked out my friend - after hearing what he was doing in the area, I supposed they were relieved it had nothing to do with drugs or illegal alcohol stills, they just more or less laughed at him and let him through...

      He's due to publish his article soon and if it flies in some publication I will link to it in any future oil / environmental diary.


      by FakeNews on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:23:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And it's not as if businesses (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cany, kurt, No one gets out alive

      pay all of the costs involved.  For want of a half-million dollar switch, BP gushed oil over a large portion of the Gulf of Mexico.  Those indigenous people aren't so dumb - they want the oil companies to pay what it will actually COST to get that oil out of the ground and preserve the area.  

      Must be socialists.

  •  So, the solution is.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, stolen water

    nukes, right?

    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

    by Karl Rover on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 06:31:36 PM PDT

    •  Right. This is easily demonstrated to be the (9+ / 0-)

      cleanest and most sustainable form of energy on the planet, no matter what uneducated scientifically illiterate flakes think.

      There are literally tens of thousands of publications, and oodles of software and analytical systems that prove as much, no matter what the bourgeois consumerist "by 2090" members of the yacht club board think.

      How do I know?

      Because I spend a good part of my life in Engineering and Science libraries, some of the best in the world.

      I don't get my information from rote dogma produced by dogmatic closed minded flakes who hate the science of Seaborg, Fermi, Bethe, and Wigner.

      Got it?


      Neither did the rest of the world apparently.   The concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the planetary atmosphere is now 393 ppm, up more than two ppm in a single year, and the response from the anti-intellectual anti-science squad is still all about trying to destroy what remains, after 30 years, the world's largest by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy.

      Thanks for your question.   I am happy to answer it.

      Have a nice day tomorrow.

      •  Given the aforementioned 393 ppm, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NNadir, hmi, Roadbed Guy

        I'm amazed that people continue to be frightened to the point of messing themselves by nuclear power.

        Even if you include Chernobyl, nuclear power has been responsible for less death and destruction than coal and oil.  393 and climbing is the whole planet.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 07:23:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In its entire history, over 50 years, nuclear... (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hmi, PeterHug, Dauphin, Roadbed Guy, bryfry

 has been responsible for fewer deaths than an average week - possibly even an average day of dangerous fossil fuel waste (aka "air pollution") kills.

          Air pollution, according to the World Health Organization kills about 2 million people die each year from air pollution, 5000 per day.

          The World Health Organization on Air Pollution.

          Thanks for your comment.   I agree of course.   Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than everything else.   It only needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

          •  Nuclear energy can be made "safe" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt, No one gets out alive

            but the cost to do so is astronomical.  Traditional LWRs have been shown numerous times to be a huge financial risk to the utilities building them, to the ratepayers forced to absorb the writedowns when the construction effort fails and to the Federal Government when the loan guarantees go bad.  

            We should take the money from the Nuclear Loan Guarantee program and use it to fund a Thorium research reactor to see how that reactor design performs as a commercial unit.  

            I'm glad to see you on the Rec List and a big part of why is because you didn't blindly bash renewable energy like you usually do.  Since Germany generates 20% of its electricity with renewable energy and they are showing no signs of stopping any time soon, this shows that these technologies can supply a large amount of energy given the right policy.  The combined renewable resources of the U.S. could power our energy needs many times over, the only problem is distribution and storage.  Electric cars doing double duty as storage devices and demand management will go a long way in alleviating these issues.  However, there will be a few parts of the country, especially the U.S. Southeast, that can't get to 100% renewable.  In these areas, a few Thorium reactors could bridge the gap eventually and get the country to 100% clean energy.

            •  Personally ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I love how "20%" constitutes a "large amount" in the mind of this commenter.

              Last year, nuclear provided 23% of Germany's electricity consumption, yet I wouldn't call that a "large amount." (For comparison, so-called "renewables" accounted for less than 17%.) (source)

              No, the "large amount" of Germany's electricity production is provided by fossil fuels, and that is only going to become worse after the phase-out.

              Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
              -- Albert Einstein

              by bryfry on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Bull. Any investment of improving the safety... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ...profile of nuclear energy is a waste of money by definition, becuase nothing, absolutely nothing, is as safe as nuclear energy as it already exists.

              For a marginal improvement in the extraordinarily high safety profile of nuclear energy, the money is better spent on health care, or even earthquake safety for buildings.

              Despite the horseshit selective attention of the scientifically illiterate anti-nuke squad, far more people died in the Sendai earthquake from non-nuclear causes - primarily collapsed buildings - than died from any nuclear related cause.    I still don't hear lots of calls to ban buildings, or for that matter dams.   The immediate death toll from collapsed dams - so called "renewable energy" - was infinitely larger than the immediate death toll from the reactors at Fukushima.

              Does the "selective attention" squad care about this?


              They're full of shit.   Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be infinitely superior to everything else.   It only needs to be infinitely superior to everything else, which it is.

              The idea that nuclear energy needs to be "safer" is an invention of people who think that every radionuclide is as dangerous as the ordinary releases of dangerous fossil fuel wastes.

              If nuclear energy killed as many people who will die in the next 8 hours from dangerous fossil fuel waste, there would be an outrageous uprorar.   It would still be pure nonsense.

              Have a nice evening.

      •  I want to believe in nuclear energy. I hate the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        effects of fossil fuels, both in their extraction and use.

        But after what happened at Fukushima, they frighten me.  Are there enough fail safes to protect us from the same outcome at, say the San Onofre nuclear plant in California?  Will there be enough generated power to keep the rods cool after the big quake?

        For years we camped at the military beach right next door to this power plant and were there when the big Landers quake struck in the early 90s.  Even though we were over 150 miles away, the sandy soil caused a lot of shaking.  But that was before Fukushima and the thought of trouble at San Onofre didn't even occur to me.  

        I'm not worried about the actual plant being damaged, but I am concerned about the fail safes being damaged and failing us just when we need them most.

        There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. - Elizabeth Warren

        by Susan Grigsby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 12:30:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Fukushima uproar is intellectually and morally (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, Roadbed Guy


          Almost all of the people who died from the event were killed in buildings and cars.

          But to hear the media reporting on this, you would think otherwise.

          Two million people die each year - independent of earthquakes and tsunamis - from dangerous fossil fuel waste.    This is not in accident situations.   This is in normal operations.

          The issue concerns the criteria for safety established for nuclear energy - arbitrarily and at great cost to humanity - which is that nuclear energy is supposed to be perfect, while everything else can kill at will.

          I very much doubt that 100 people will die from Fukushima.

          What needs to be safer is not nuclear energy, but rather buildings and cars.    They can never be as safe as nuclear energy, either in an earthquake and tsunami or anywhere else.

          That's a natural fact.

  •  They're not listening to you in CO: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  What is "by 2090" all about? (5+ / 0-)

    I'm having a difficult time following your diary. I can't quite tell where the sarcasm begins/ends, if there is any at all. I don't mean this in a negative way at all. I'm just confused. You seem happy that the oil is going to remain in the ground, but then you immediately say this:

    This is some bull crap "by 2090" fantasy of the consumerist creeps from the Yacht Club Set that runs the anti-intellectual, anti-science squad at Greenpeace.

    What is bull crap? I'm so lost.

    The man who moves a mountain begins by moving away small stones. -Confucius

    by Malachite on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 01:23:02 AM PDT

  •  These are (6+ / 0-)

    lucky kids! :)


  •  How does a diary that childishly smears (7+ / 0-)

    Greenpeace in the following manner....

    This is some bull crap "by 2090" fantasy of the consumerist creeps from the Yacht Club Set that runs the anti-intellectual, anti-science squad at Greenpeace.

    ... make it into the community spotlight list?

    What's happening in Ecuador is great, but to use those events to trash one of the main organizations that support protecting the rain forests is pretty disgusting.


    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 05:34:28 AM PDT

    •  Well it depends on how you define "Childish." (2+ / 0-)

      Here is the "by 2090" link to which I refer:

      Greenpeace's Soothsaying Energy "Study."

      These awful, mindless, consumerist bourgeois brats have this to say in their report on page 8 of the endless drivel it contains:

      In this report we have also expanded the time horizon for the Energy [R]evolution concept beyond 2050, to see when we could phase out fossil fuels entirely. Once the pathway of this scenario has been implemented, renewable energy could  provide all global energy needs by 2090. A more radical scenario – which takes the advanced projections of the renewables industry into account – could even phase out coal by 2050.

      The bold is mine.

      Phase out fossil fossil fuels by 2090?   Could?

      It may be childish to care about childish things and children generlly care about children.

      The people who dump responsibility on future generations not even born yet cannot be said to be caring about children.   Clearly they don't care about future generations at all, since they consume power and energy producing glib, scientifically illiterate drivel that does nothing at all now.

      The number of assholes who wrote this "report" who will be alive in 2090 to discuss what the soothsaying garbage they wrote in 2008 is zero.

      If one knows something about science - and this immediately excludes the entire membership of Greenpeace - one recognizes that the issues connected with climate change, the toxicity of dangerous fossil fuels and their waste - which kill 2 million people per year - are immediate tragedies.

      Don't tell me about childish.   Defending Greenpeace is all about contempt for children and our children's children.

      Have a great day.

      •  Another catch is that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NNadir, Susan from 29, Roadbed Guy

        projections become much less reliable the longer the time period. Just think of Malthus, who couldn't even conceive of the demographic transition.

        For this reason, I consider any planning with a time period longer than 10 or at most 15 years more or less informed speculation. The next 10 to 15 years are the meat of a plan.

        And that's why Greenpeace lost me. Their plans call for an increase in fossil-fuel use (natural gas) so those evil nuclear plants can be phased out. No, thank you.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:45:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so new nuclear is informed speculation? (0+ / 0-)

          since it takes 7-10 years to get permits and then then 3-5 years to construct?

          Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

          by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 06:00:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are now more than 60 nuclear power plants (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Roadbed Guy, bryfry

            ...being built around the world.

            Database of world wide nuclear reactor construction.

            The vast majority of them will each be able to produce more energy than all the wind facilities in Denmark, (and this without trashing huge tracts of land and without buying massive amounts of neodymium, an increasingly stressed metal supply on which wind turbines depend to avoid being destroyed by torque).

            The anti-nuke set, besides being ignorant of science and engineering, are also ignorant of history.

            Nuclear energy has proved the fastest form of carbon free primary energy to build, and this is not some made up soothsaying prediction, this is history.

            The United States historically constructed more than 100 reactors in 20 years, most of them capable of producing more electricity than all the solar installations in Germany.

            So you are in the position of whining that what has already happened is impossible.

            Anti-nukes are similar to arsonists who complain that there's too many fires.    They are the ones who attempt to destroy, out of fear, ignorance, and superstition, the world's largest non-carbon based form of primary energy, and they are the ones who come up with bullshit delaying tactics to try to slow nuclear construction.

            In a rational world, it would be possible to build nuclear reactors in well under 5 years.   How do I know?   Because for one thing its been done lots of times, and is being done right now in Asia.

            Have a great day.

            •  Sir (0+ / 0-)

              1/ I'm not anti-nuke.

              2/ I was responding to the short-sightedness of Dauphin's comment that 10-15 years is the maximum limit to any planning horizon.

              Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

              by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:22:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  You just don't like Greenpeace because they (3+ / 0-)

        won't line up for your "nukes are the magic solution to everything" stance.

        That's childish.

        And so is this comment of yours.

        Phasing out coal completely on a global level by 2050 is an ambitious, yet realistic, goal.

        And we won't need nukes to do it, no matter how many insulting and derogatory diaries you write here on DKos.

        "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

        by Lawrence on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 09:39:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't like them because they're scientifically (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, Roadbed Guy

          and morally illiterate.

          I've made my case well enough.  

          If you don't get it, it's none of my concern except to note that you are yet another member of the squad of people who rely on rote dogmatic ignorance, fear and superstition.

          I deplore all of these things, and have absolutely no intention of apologizing for doing so.

          You hate my response to Greenpeace, I suspect, because you are also a mindless consumer with no sense of the suffering of humanity now and no sense of responsibility to future generations..

          Phasing out fossil fuels "by 2050" is garbage.   They need to be phased out now.

          There is only one form of energy - exactly one - that is proved on scale to be capable of doing this.   It's the one that you and the other mindless anti-intellectuals despise, nuclear energy.   You despise nuclear energy not because you are aware of risk analysis, not because you understand the first thing about neutron diffusion theory, not because you understand the phase diagrams of plutonium oxides in various fluid phases - including melted PWR fuel - but out of ignorance of any of these topics.

          I make no secret that I despise ignorance.   Tough shit if you don't like it and what to whine about my contempt, of which I am proud.

          I couldn't care less what you think.   You are obviously the very thing I fight against.

        •  Common courtesy would suggest (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          that you adhere to Joieau's request to stick to your own sandbox as most of those here have lately refrained from stirring up hers.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:41:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  realism and yachts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lawrence, jam

        a) How long to you think it would take to replace 90% of fossil fuel consumption by nuclear if we started today?

        b) If it would take longer than 2050, may I conclude that you care nothing about future generations?

        c) Your link does not establish that the GP Board of Directors is a yacht club of some sort, only that one of the members made his money in small  boat manufacture...I suppose that would include yachts  but what it if does?

        d) One of the directors also has a PhD in physics, but clearly he is also a malicious and innumerate murderer of the unborn.

        e) I wonder what would be the composition of the board of International Nucleonics Incorporated, and how many ecologists or 3rd world development experts it would contain.

        f) I have been a supporter of yours for years, but I now conclude that you are simply not in your right mind.

        Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

        by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 11:43:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By comparison, how long (0+ / 0-)

          would it take to build the 90,000 large scale wind and/or solar projects to do likewise?

          From what I've been reading on this site how it's damn near impossible to get even one built, I'm thinking MUCH MUCH longer than 2050 . . .

          •  too many pronouns (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Calamity Jean

            Impossible to get one what built? The US has installed >23 GW of wind in the past three years and 0 GW of new nuclear.

            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

            by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 05:48:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you for proving my point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              So, in the past 3 years we've installed wind generating capacity worth ~1% of the electricity consumption of the country.

              So, at that rate it'd take about 300 years to get to full capacity.  Let me pull out my handy calculator to see if that's before or after 2050 . . . .

              •  um... (0+ / 0-)

                so it would take infinitely long to do it with nuclear so we should stop even having the conversation?

                Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:19:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We got to about 20% nuclear (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  by building nuclear power plants for about 20 years.

                  Just saying, that rate (i.e., ~1% a year) is about 3x faster that the (allegedly) fabulous burst of wind energy now being brought online.

                  •  which says nothing (0+ / 0-)

                    about the current regulatory and economic environment. I'm saying that your premise, that it is "damn near impossible to get one [wind farm] built" is unsupported by facts. Comparing nuclear power's rise to wind's rise is not only irrelevant but unproductive.

                    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                    by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 07:39:01 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Muskegon Critic has had any (0+ / 0-)

                      number of diaries right here at this site proving what I said . ..

                      Plus there are numerous examples elsewhere ranging from the Air Force squelching projects to rampant NIMBYism in many places (the New York Times, for example, has an amusing series of articles about Upstate NY).

                      The same thing goes for large scale solar - the last time I looked into it there were 5 or 6 molten salt projects being held up (compared to 0 or 1 actually being built) by so-called environmentalists and NIMBYists.

                      The bottom line is that it IS damn near impossible to get these things built - in a sane world we'd be building them 10 to 100x faster than we are.

                      •  anecdotal at best (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm going to a ribbon cutting for a wind project on an Air Force base on Friday.

                        Molten salt projects are being held up less for NIMBY than for economics. They are being switched to PV projects that are going forward.

                        Not saying it is perfect, just that it is. But now, I'm not sure of what your point is. It is hard to build wind and solar, but impossible to build nuclear (in the U.S., Watts Bar 2 not withstanding).

                        I would advocate for increasing the construction pace of all three technologies. But if you asked me to bet, I would have to place my money on wind being the dominate constructed energy supply (of the three, gas will win the day) over the next 10-15 years.

                        Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                        by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:06:17 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  According to Wikipedia (0+ / 0-)

                          link - there was a burst of wind installations in 2008 & 2009 that appear to be tailing off.

                          Presumably because of diminishing government incentives, indicating the technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound of yet . . . .

                          And if you get a chance, I hope you ask your Air Force buddies about this: Air Force concerns about radar interference stall huge Oregon wind energy farm

                          •  What? (0+ / 0-)
                            Presumably because of diminishing government incentives, indicating the technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound of yet . . . .

                            Why don't you just make up some more dumbass shit?

                            First, there was this little thing called "The Great Recession" - maybe you have heard of it?

                            Second, there have been no diminishing government incentives - the incentive structure has essentially stayed the same in the U.S.

                            Third, "technology based on it's own merits is not financially sound" - you sound like a ridiculous market obsessed republican, because obviously, the market is perfectly incentivizing energy generation so that all of society's needs are perfectly met in the most efficient economic way possible. The electricity market is completed screwed up and incentivizes all of the wrong shit and doesn't take into account any externalities.

                            Fourth, you obviously don't understand what the word anecdotal means.

                            Fifth, for criminy sakes, do your damn research:

                            The Shepherds Flat Wind Farm is an 845 megawatt (MW) wind farm under construction in Oregon, United States. The project is located in Eastern Oregon in both Morrow and Gilliam counties, near Arlington. Approved in 2008 by state regulators, groundbreaking came in 2009. The wind farm is being built by Caithness Energy using General Electric (GE) 2.5 MW wind turbines, and it will supply electricity to Southern California Edison.

                            In April, 2011, Google announced they had invested $100 million in the project. The wind farm is estimated to have an economic impact of $16 million annually for Oregon. It is projected to be the largest land-based wind farm in the world when completed in 2012.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 10:41:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bottom line - the Oregon wind (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            project was delayed by 5 to 6 years by Air Force opposition.  But I see you have no plans to ask your buddies over there why . . . .

                            Also, about the precipitous dip in wind installations over the past year - you're really going to blame that on the Great Recession?  When, at the very same time domestic coal and oil extraction have reached highs not seen in a generation.  That excuse totally does not pass even the most rudimentary smell test.

                          •  You really are just making stuff up (0+ / 0-)
                            This being a public forum, I'm not correcting you for your benefit. By pointing out your mistakes and emphasizing how very basic they are, I hope that those reading this will take away an important message from this exchange, so that the next time they run across some sort of idiotic, fearmongering claim on the Internet, they won't automatically take it at face value. I want them to question such claims with a bit of critical thought, and I want them to apply some context so that they understand, not just react. [bryfry]
                            A months-long stand-off came to a close today after the Deputy Secretary of Defense informed U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and U.S. Congressman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) that the Pentagon would no longer block construction of the Shepherds Flat Wind Farm in Oregon’s Gilliam and Morrow counties,

                            Your claim of 5-6 years is unsupported by the facts provided by the DOD and Sen. Wyden and Merkley.

                            CAGR 2007-2010 Electricity production
                            Coal    Petroleum    Nuclear    Solar    Wind    All
                            -2.8%    -17.5%    0.0%    28.5%    40.1%    -0.3%

                            Coal is down. Petroleum is down. Nuclear is flat. Solar and Wind have grown by 30-40%. Overall, electrical production is down.

                            Your claim that wind is dying and coal and petroleum (in the electricity sector) are booming is unsupported by the facts published by EIA.

                            Coal Production in the US has not changed significantly in the past 20 years: 1029 million short tons in 1990, 1085 in 2010. The range is only 226 million short tons from min (945 in 1993) to max (1171 in 2008)

                            Your claim that coal extraction has reached highs "not seen in a generation" is unsupported by the facts published by EIA.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 10:32:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Coal is being exported (0+ / 0-)

                            as fast as it can (Appalachian coal, for example, is limited by how fast it can be sent out the Chesapeake Bay - currently a huge bottleneck)

                            Coal exports through port booming

                            and a link to a largely ignored (who knows why - maybe it doesn't fit the populuar narrative of this site?) - pertaining to India's Coal Boom

                            And here's a link to the upswing in oil production under Obama (which, ironically, is never enough to keep the RW crazies happy - for fucks' sake, I really don't know why he keeps trying . . .)

                          •  and this has to do with (0+ / 0-)

                            US electricity production how?

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 12:33:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Seems like there are compelling shades of (0+ / 0-)

                            outsourcing torture to the Uzbeckistans and Egyptians and then claiming "our hands are clean" that has eerie similarities to outsourcing our polluting industries to the Chinese (e.g., steel and concrete) and Indians (as I linked, they're massively expanding coal) and then similarily claiming "our hands are clean".

                            If you are OK with this, I really have no rebuttal.

                            To me, however, it is somewhat troubling (in a similar vein as to how Gemany has claimed the moral high ground from shutting down all the inefficient East German industries to meet the Kyoto Accords, something few other countries have done . .. )

                          •  Roadbed Guy was fearmongering? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Roadbed Guy

                            Sorry, but I missed it.

                            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                            -- Albert Einstein

                            by bryfry on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:13:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, if I was, and it was (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            targeted at "business as usual" fossil fuels - then I'd wear the accusation as a badge of honor.

                            What really irks me, however, is those who point to (the incredibly paltry!!) gains in solar and wind as proof that everything is OK with the world . . ..

                            As I alluded to above, the only proven way to get off hydrocarbons is to engage is a full scale construction of nuclear power plants, something like was done in the 1960s and 70s . . .

                          •  yet (0+ / 0-)

                            Those incredibly paltry gains are just over 1000% more than the gains made by nuclear power in the United States over the past three years. (more of that percent talk again!)

                            I didn't say everything would be fine because wind and solar would save the day. In fact, I said

                            I would advocate for increasing the construction pace of all three technologies.

                            The tired argument that nuclear is "the only proven ..." is particularly irksome especially since I'm not arguing against nuclear, only for wind and solar. Like I also said earlier,

                            Comparing nuclear power's rise to wind's rise is not only irrelevant but unproductive.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:01:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In that context, you could equally dis (0+ / 0-)

                            oil refineries - of which no new ones have been built since the 1970s.

                            Yet, the existing ones (for better or worse - just like commercial nuclear power) - have become ever more efficient and profitable  - and have not diminished at all wrt  the national energy profile.

                            So sure, the meagre gains by solar and wind are fine as far as they go.  However, by looking at the "big picture" it is really, really difficult to see them as anything but a a smokescreen to mask the ongoing expansion of fossil fuels.

                            For the life of me, I don't see how you cannot be alarmed at the downward trends over the past year of wind and solar and the upward trends of coal, oil, and natural gas.

                            Unless, of course, it's your job to troll progress sites to present a "balanced view"  - note that I"m not at all accusing you of this, I'm just confused how any other scenario makes any sense.

                          •  yes, I secretly joined dKos (0+ / 0-)

                            in 2003, UID 3663, so that 8 years later I could troll progress sites and argue with assholes in a dead thread.

                            fuck off.

                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 01:57:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, this is an all too familiar end (0+ / 0-)

                            to trying to have a fact based discussion on this site.

                            It degenerates into being told to fuck off because the other person cannot rebut the information being presented.


                          •  You're hilarious (0+ / 0-)

                            You push a series of half-truths, lies, and conspiracy theories consummating in calling me a troll and then wrap yourself in the flag of a "fact based discussion."

                            I, in fact, rebutted all of your "facts" while you continued to wander aimlessly around the argument cherry-picking and lying the entire time.


                            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                            by jam on Wed Oct 26, 2011 at 06:08:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  France phased out coal in ten years. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          That's, um, history.

          The United States was well on its way to doing the same before fear, ignorance, and superstition took over.

          China plans to have 500 reactors by 2030, and will easily produce more electricity than the United States produces from all forms of energy using nuclear energy alone.   Most importantly they have between 30 and 40 under construction right now.

          Actually, I don't expect that dangerous fossil fuels will be phased out.   I think that fear, ignorance and superstition will rule the day.

          The time in which we may have prevented what will happen is past, but I'm not about to praise those whom I feel to be responsible for the coming tragedy, fuggettaboutit.

          The list of directors of Greenpeace does NOT include a Ph.D. in physics.   If you are referring to Frank Guggenheim, he has an undergraduate degree, in physics and a Master's degree in mathematics and and then went to medical school without apparently paying much attention to his work.   He also apparently got a Ph.D in immunology, which has nothing at all to do with the environment.  Even if he did have a Ph.D in physics, this is no indication that he understands the first thing about nuclear reactors, and yet the world wishes to include him as an "expert" on energy.

          In any case, I get very tired of this Ph.D. talk.   I know many thousands of people who have Ph.Ds.  An advanced degree in immunology, and 10 post docs in the same does NOT make one an expert in climate change.   OK?  Some of the Ph.Ds I know are brilliant and some are as dumb as stump.

          The "President of the Greek Yacht Owners Association" does say something.    I have argued that Greenpeace is all about bourgeios sensibilities.    However I am presonally gratified that Greenpeacers have not dressed up as organtans and climbed buildings to show that they give a fuck about the two or three billion people on this planet who have no drinking water.    I'm disgusted by such trivializing of important issues.

          The former head of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, famously worked to help Nigeria start its nuclear program, and Nigeria now has a working research reactor and is training nuclear engineers.   After receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, he made many speeches pointing out that the citizens of Nigeria live on an average of 8 watts of average continuous power.

          Besides his work on preventing war on hyped up nuclear fears, he has earned his prize by his work on fighting poverty.

          One of the most eloquent defenders of liberal causes was the very person who was responsible for organizing the construction of the first 60 to 70 American Nuclear Reactors.

          He was an outstanding scientist, outstanding educator, an
          outstanding administrator, a great writer, a great diplomat, a great advisor to almost all of the Presidents in his adult life, and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.   Until the end of his life, this great man, who redefined chemical physics by changing the shape of the periodic table, was a strong defender of nuclear energy.

          That would be Glenn Seaborg.    

          Compared to him the yacht club head, as well as the securities analyst, the "financial consultant" and the other liilliputians on the Greenpeace board, look rather like the sort of people that the "occupy" movement might target.

          I am sorry that you don't like what I say and how I say it, but if I need to praise the assholes at Greenpeace to be your pal, well, I guess we're not pals.

          Have a nice day.

    •  Greenpeace has done (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NNadir, PeterHug, JayBat, Roadbed Guy, murasaki

      a real disservice to many aspects of environmental science with false claims and stupid stunts. They have become the PETA of environment, sadly.

      Doubt is cheap. Finding out is hard. --@Daniel_Loxton

      by mem from somerville on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:18:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  GP's "stunts" have brought media attention (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dauphin, Mrs M, kurt

        to environmental issues that the media was ignoring. Do I agree with them on nuclear power? No. I think Germany is making a tragic mistake on nuclear power that will lead to more coal burning, more climate change and more ocean acidification. Nuclear power needs to be done better, not stopped.

        I disagree with NNadir's tactic of picking fights with GP supporters.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening. "Forgive them; for they know not what they do."

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:45:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, murasaki

          PETA's stunts get media attention too. It doesn't make them good ideas.

          Doubt is cheap. Finding out is hard. --@Daniel_Loxton

          by mem from somerville on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:48:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? Dressing up in clown suits brings... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry, billmosby

          ..."media attention?"

          What kind of attention would that be?

          I am not particularly interested in the stupid attention of our media.    They after all, spent several years trying to figure out whether or not they should report Dick Cheney's lies about Iraq's "nuclear weapons" - coupled with ignorant bull about their favorite topic of rote stupidity, uranium - verbatim as "news."

          So Greenpeace "gets media attention?"

          Maybe you should write to say, Jim Hansen, and tell him that he would be more effective at conveying the seriousness of climate change issues if he dressed up in a clown suit before testifying before Congress.

          That's a fucking joke, particularly as Sumatran rain forests are being destroyed so fucking Germans can meet their "renewable energy portfolios" with biofuels for the Autobahn.

          These are not environmentalists.   They're ignoramuses.

          I'm not "picking fights" with Greenpeace.     I start from a position of despising the way they trivialize and mock through stupidity the most serious scientific issue in modern history with stupid bourgeois jokes.  

          Moreover, they hate, from a position of complete ignorance, one of the most beautiful and important sciences there is, nuclear science.    There is not one member of Greenpeace who even remotely knows a single important fact about this science, other than that they hate it.

          This is not "picking fights."   It's something quite different.

          It's contempt.

          Some people regard contempt as ugly, but I couldn't care less.   I would be ethically remiss not to feel it, and couldn't live with myself without addressing it at these stupid, ignorant, clownish consumers who have no idea about how to address a serious issue.

          Their scientific illiteracy is legion.

          Your views, by the way, on nuclear power are just garbage.   I have zero respect for them, particularly in light of your awful Fukushima diaries which pretended that every one in Japan was about to die because of the failed reactors.   Your odious lie was that nuclear energy was the only thing that needed to be risk free in a 9.0 earthquake and a huge tsunami.

          Where, exactly, are the bodies from the nuclear "disaster?"

          We damn well know where the bodies are from the other technologies, including architecture, roads, and cars in which people died from during the earthquake and tsunami.

          As far as I'm concerned, you trivialized these people to focus on something that was not even remotely serious on scale.

          Nuclear energy is already vastly superior on proved grounds than all other forms of energy.

          Nuclear energy needs improvement?

          How come you never issue the same blathering garbage about dangerous fossil fuels?   They after all, kill more than two million people per year in normal operations, not even including climate change.

          You spent hours and hours and hours in orgies of hysteria about radioactivity in seawater after Fukushima, all of it barely literate.    Talking about such things in the absence of risk analysis is garbage.

          Where's your concern for the people who will die because fo the dangerous fossil fuel use because the reactors were destroyed?

          Nowhere.   You couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuels and the fact that they, and nothing else, are replacing the reactors destroyed as well as those irrationally shut by superstition, fear and ignorance.

          The existing nuclear infrastructure need not be perfect, nor without risk to be vastly superior to all existing infrastructure.

          Any money spent to improve nuclear safety would be a waste of money when measured in the important but often ignored unit of "lives saved per dollar spent."   We could save millions of lives for the same amount of money that might be spent to prevent a single death from nuclear energy by simply funding a free child vaccination program.

          As you seem to think otherwise, it's easy to see why you think clowning is a positive because "it get's attention."

          It's not positive.

          it's trivializing, it's childish, and it's not even good marketing.

          Yeah, dressing in organtan suits is um, real serious.

          I've met many thousands of high level scientists in my career, some spectacularly intelligent people.   I can't say that I've know one who would identify with this sort of "tactic," or be anything but embarrassed by association with dressing up as an organatan and climbing a building to protest soap.

          It appears that majority of the board of Greenpeace consists not of even one serious scientist, but consists almost entirely of "business types" that the "Occupy" types oppose, securities analysts, yacht club tycoons, etc.   If I listed the occupations and backgrounds of that board on this site without indicated what board they were on, I would generate vast displays of outrage.

          I'll let you know when I care about your view of my tactics.   As things stand, I don't.

          •  Hansen (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Maybe you should write to say, Jim Hansen, and tell him that he would be more effective at conveying the seriousness of climate change issues if he dressed up in a clown suit before testifying before Congress.

            Well, Hansen has been arrested several times now for protesting fossil fuel facilities. Each time, he wasn't dressed like a clown, nor did he try to wiggle out of being arrested, like so many Greenpeace weenies do. He peacefully cooperated with the arresting officers, and he was dressed appropriately -- i.e., as a middle-aged man who was engaging in peaceful civil disobedience because of his principles.

            If he had dressed in a "clown suit" it would have cheapened everything that he was trying to accomplish.

            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
            -- Albert Einstein

            by bryfry on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:48:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My favorite is when they demanded (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        billmosby, bryfry

        that chlorine be banned from this planet.

        Funny, funny stuff!

        •  I hadn't heard of that one, lol. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy, bryfry

          Although, as I have related here before, chlorine figured in the only really significant life-threatening accident we ever had at Argonne-West. A too-helpful employee tried to fill in for the guy who usually changed the chorine bottles on our potable water system and ended up dumping the whole thing to atmosphere during a very calm day. The resulting chorine cloud stayed around for quite a while, resulting in about a dozen and a half folks being hospitalized for observation after they inhaled small amounts of the stuff.

          Moderation in most things.

          by billmosby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:39:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Chlorinated compounds definitely can be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            nasty, but OTOH they are ubiquitous in nature, making the following rather silly:

            Greenpeace and its allies argue that chlorine and all organochlorines (i.e. compounds containing chlorine) threaten wildlife and people. They see an outright ban as the quickest and most effective way to improve environmental quality. Further, they claim that a "chlorine-free society" is achievable at modest economic cost. None of these claims are accurate.


            Of course, I believe it was way back in 1994 when Greenpeace proposed banning all chorinated hydrocarbons (not actually chlorine as I earlier stated), so maybe we should cut them some slack since Wikipedia was not yet in existence where they could have learned:


            many organochlorine compounds have been isolated from natural sources ranging from bacteria to humans.[1][2] Chlorinated organic compounds are found in nearly every class of biomolecules including alkaloids, terpenes, amino acids, flavonoids, steroids, and fatty acids.[1][3] Organochlorides, including dioxins, are produced in the high temperature environment of forest fires, and dioxins have been found in the preserved ashes of lightning-ignited fires that predate synthetic dioxins.[4] In addition, a variety of simple chlorinated hydrocarbons including dichloromethane, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride have been isolated from marine algae.[5] A majority of the chloromethane in the environment is produced naturally by biological decomposition, forest fires, and volcanoes.[6] The natural organochloride epibatidine, an alkaloid isolated from tree frogs, has potent analgesic effects and has stimulated research into new pain medication.
  •  I love that you take your boys to university (8+ / 0-)

    libraries.  What wonderful exposure this is for them.

    When my kids were in high school I took them to visit colleges and universities as day/field trips.  We lived in the Boston area so there were many from which to choose.  My main focus was on encouraging them to do well in high school so that they would be able to some day go to college.  (It worked)

    I took my son to the Boston Public Library when he was about 6 years old.  We walked through the doors of the main entrance, and he immediately stopped and took in the atmosphere.  He slowly turned around and around amazed at what he saw.  When he finally spoke he said, "Can I come here by myself when I grow up?"

    Universities, libraries and art galleries are among my favorite places.

    I fall down, I get up, I keep dancing.

    by DamselleFly on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 07:02:35 AM PDT

    •  Yesterday I reminded my sons - happily they agreed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PeterHug, Dauphin, DamselleFly, OLinda

      - about how fortunate we are to live in this area.

      Being an old tiresome father I complained that I had nothing like this when I was a kid.

      I'm sure you have great university libraries in Boston.

      I've been wanting to find some time to go to MIT's library for some stuff I can't get at Princeton, just a few items.

      •  OT: If you have borrowing privileges at (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NNadir, OLinda

        Princeton, you can get some materials from the MIT libraries via interlibrary loan:
        MIT Libraries' Catalog

        MIT Library Services for Outside Users

        We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

        by NoMoJoe on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 12:33:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanx. I didn't know that. (0+ / 0-)

          However I'm not sure that this extends to journals.

          Princeton is an excellent school, but it lacks a nuclear engineering department.    This is very sad.

           It does not subscribe to ANS journals.

          MIT does.

          I keep a record of every reference that I want to read, but haven't read.    I suppose I could cover all of that in a few days at MIT's libraries.

          •  You should look into it (0+ / 0-)

            I recall getting access to difficult-to-find journal articles through ILL (interlibrary loan) when I was in graduate school.  This was over a decade ago, and I was mostly interested in old articles in journals that most university libraries didn't carry at the time.

            Nevertheless, it is a useful, if underused, resource that can save you a lot of trouble.

            Back then, I would receive the article in the mail as a photocopy.  These days, they would probably just email you an electronic copy of the article that you're looking for.

            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
            -- Albert Einstein

            by bryfry on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 08:46:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks! I enjoyed this tale of a wonderfully (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NNadir, PeterHug, karmsy, Susan from 29, kurt

    geeky family pursuit as much as I enjoyed the book review.

    And even though it all went wrong I'll stand before the Lord of Song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah! -Leonard Cohen .................@laurenreichelt

    by TheFatLadySings on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 07:48:23 AM PDT

  •  If the purpose of the diary is to aim invective (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karmsy, FishOutofWater

    at Greenpeace, you should write a diary explaining the problems with the organization. It would be illuminating to me and many others here.
    Mixing it in with a trip down the library aisle confuses the issue to me.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

    •  Illuminate yourself here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catte Nappe, Roadbed Guy

      At ScienceBlogs:

      The narrow mind of Greenpeace

      It has turned off a lot of science-minded folks.

      Doubt is cheap. Finding out is hard. --@Daniel_Loxton

      by mem from somerville on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:53:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have written at length about the problems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      with Greenpeace.

      It is an awful organization which has zero familiarity with any important scientific concept connected with either environmental science or energy science.

      There are no serious scientists on its boards, and 100% of the defenders of this organization that I've met in this space I would consider as being scientifically illiterate.

      You may review some of my diaries to see examples of my arguments about this clique of bourgeois brats, but it's not like I've never written about them.   It's not like this is a new claim with me.

      They are not scientists.    At best they are circus clowns who work to trivialize serious issues with said clowning, the most important of which is climate change.

  •  I have a gift subscription to a little (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Susan from 29, Calamity Jean

    monthly rag called "Nutrition Action," put out by a nonprofit. It's devoted, appropriately enough, to "hard" scientific information about food and nutrition.

    "Nutrition Action" isn't a political mag. It doesn't endorse policies or candidates, and it doesn't--for instance--decry genetic engineering of crops (which many of us believe is probably bad news, although the science is still basically missing on that one).

    So it was quite a bombshell when "Nutrition Action" came out against the artificial sweetener aspartame, in a statement very similar to, "Aspartame was rushed to market during the Reagan era, bypassing critical FDA testing. We advise against its use." Wow.

    You're right, sometimes astute political commentary turns up in the darndest places. Thanks for the diary.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:06:40 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the tip on the University Libraries. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishOutofWater, OLinda, billmosby

    I'll be using that one.

    Poverty = politics.

    by Renee on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 01:05:33 PM PDT

    •  One of my happy places, too. (0+ / 0-)

      Mostly in memoriam these days, but in the late 60s when I was an undergrad in Aero Engineering there was no place I liked better than the upper floors of the "UGLI" at U of Mich. Undergraduate Library. Engineering stuff was up there.

      Moderation in most things.

      by billmosby on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 10:32:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We can cut all that nuke waste if we presequester (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    uranium--leave it in its harmless low radioactivity state.
    Nuke power can be an obsession with some folks!

  •  Thanks for the inspiration (0+ / 0-)

    my twins turn three next month and I very much look forward to stealing this tradition.

    Next time I'm visiting my best friend in Hightstown, perhaps I'll pop over to Princeton and see if we can argue the merits of so-called "renewable energy" face to face (hah, I originally typed fact to fact).

    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

    by jam on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:23:50 AM PDT

    •  hey jam, thanks for your reply on the last NNadir (0+ / 0-)

      classic. I'm trying to get the original piggott paper without paying for it, so I can read it without that liar's jaundiced eye.

      hey, NNadir, still love you, baby!

      Je regretez tout. How's me French?

      by Mark B on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:13:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  and, yeah, but my twins are 5 1/2 and (0+ / 0-)

      its' gonna be a while. I built them a long table in our library/office and they love to sit there for homework & drawing

      Je regretez tout. How's me French?

      by Mark B on Tue Oct 25, 2011 at 11:22:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site