•−•  ••−•    −•−•  •−  ••−•  •
RF Cafe Morse Code >Hear It<

Job Board

About RF Cafe™

Sitemap

Poll: What is Your Position on Global Warming? - RF Cafe Forums

Because of the high maintenance needed to monitor and filter spammers from the RF Cafe Forums, I decided that it would be best to just archive the pages to make all the good information posted in the past available for review. It is unfortunate that the scumbags of the world ruin an otherwise useful venue for people wanting to exchanged useful ideas and views. It seems that the more formal social media like Facebook pretty much dominate this kind of venue anymore anyway, so if you would like to post something on RF Cafe's Facebook page, please do.

Below are all of the forum threads, including all the responses to the original posts.


What is Your Position on Global Warming?
We have doomed ourselves irreparably    2%  [ 3 ]
Drastic measures are needed immediately    7%  [ 10 ]
Reduce emissions where possible now without panic, while aggressively pursuing replacement technologies    28%  [ 38 ]
Mandate lower emission levels with a reasonable time limit, and make no exceptions    7%  [ 9 ]
First, ban all use of private jets and luxury boats, then I will scrap my SUV    10%  [ 14 ]
It is all a hoax; I had to scrape another 3&quot; of global warming off my car windshield again this morning    45%  [ 61 ]
Total votes : 135

 Post subject: What is Your Position on Global Warming?
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:52 am 
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Erie, PA
Greetings:

OK, so the blockbuster International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on global warming is out now and the conclusion is that mankind has in 100 years destroyed the planet so much so that even if we stop all emissions of greenhouse gasses today, the Earth would still heat by about 5 degree Celsius by the end of the century. The technical term is anthropogenic warming (human-caused).

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The study bases its authority on being a consensus of leading scientists, most of whom are not climatologists. The evidence is largely based on the correlation of rising temperatures and an increase in carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere. There is no denying that mankind has introduced higher levels on CO2 into the air, and that CO2 can cause the well-known greenhouse effect, but as one article I read points out, “correlation is not proof of causation.”

Don’t get me wrong, I am fully behind efforts to reduce carbon emissions. I would love to see the reemergence of nuclear power stations and the construction of windmill farms off the coasts, but I vehemently oppose the politicization of science for purposes of coercion. If it can be done with one issue, it can be done with other. Consider how some cities like NYC have outlawed the serving of fast foods with transfatty acids. I long for the day when a method is discovered to efficiently break down the cellulose fibers of grasses and corn stalks (not just the kernels) to have biofuels completely supplant petroleum fuels.

These things always bring to mind the old Woody Allen movie, “Sleeper.” In it, he awakens after a couple centuries of sleep and discovers a world full of healthful, energetic, young-looking people who he is told are so well off because it had been discovered that smoking cigarettes, eating chocolate, and scarfing down cream pies was actually good for you after all. Yeah, far-fetched, but an interesting concept none-the-less.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070707/


What is your opinion on the man-made global warming issue?

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:09 pm 
 
General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:47 am
Posts: 84
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
I remember when all these same "Scientists" were threatening doom with another ice age. That didn't happen either.


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:31 am 
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Erie, PA
Greetings kpainter:

Yeah, there's lots of money to be made in hacking for a doomsday cause. Research grants to universities and private corporations, contracts to pollution cleaner-uppers and promotional firms on Madison Avenue, unaudited cash to the U.N., the creation of new government bureaucracies, all result from the scare tactics. Those groups definitely have embraced the "New Paradigm" business model of "creating a need, and then filling it." It's akin to what many of that movement's most religious believers accuse the Government Military Complex of doing when they say that wars are created to pad the pockets of defense contractors.

Always the optimist, I think that as with most things, the two sides tend to keep each other in check. Both good and bad results come from the actions of both sides. It's the curse we live under.

Take care.

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:17 pm 
 
General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:47 am
Posts: 84
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Hi Kirt,
I think it is only natural as humans that we have to have something to be afraid of. This is just the latest "boogyman". When you talk of money to be made, you hit it on the head! Read this article:

'Doomsday vault' to resist global warming effects
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/070209000818.zc6pxovb.html

These people are just plain nuts. :roll: These are the like the weird relatives that you have to hide all the knives from when they come over (Ok, maybe that is just my family :oops: but you know what I mean).

We're all DOOMED! DOOMED I say! :smt100


 
   
 
 Post subject: Wrong question. Why not develop a proper mitigation plan?
Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:31 pm 
 
Lieutenant

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:38 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Oregon
Our position on man-made global warming? The question should be re-framed because the question is divisive in the USA. Some people still claim that there is a chance that what we are seeing is not global climate change but a "natural" bump in the weather. Others claim that much of the last few decades of weather patterns - especially in the arctic and antarctic regions - is due to CO2 and various other greenhouse gases.

And most of us will agree that it doesn't matter what causes the increased global mean temperature. The long-term result (40-100 years) is the same if we do nothing: warmer in most places, much warmer in the polar regions, and a potential for average sea level rise up to six or seven meters (20 feet). We generally all agree that such changes are disasterous for many places around the world.

Again, we agree: almost everyone on either side of the debate re: man-made global warming believes that there is some potential for unwanted climate change.

So why not start developing a proper mitigation plan? Global society and industry is ***NOT*** ready to go green for another 40-50 years. We are just staring to think about catching the gigatonnes of annual CO2 issuing from smokestacks. It will be another 20+ years before we figure out what to do with caught CO2 cost-effectively (I like the idea of fixing it into magnesium carbonate, a useful industrial material). And another 20+ years before carbon fixing is deployed cost-effectively.

Many more nuclear power plants can greatly reduce CO2 emissions a lot in the 50 years that we must wait before viable fusion reactors.

Wind power and solar power help in remote areas but both cost a great deal to maintain (even without batteries) and become completely unavailable when the wind is slow or when there is no sun.

That leaves us with 40-50 years of climate change before we can go green. To mitigate and halt climate change in the next decade I propose a macro-engineering program to evaluate techniques to slightly reduce the solar energy that enters the Earth's ecosystem.

One electromagnetic technique is to use atomic gold nanowire dipoles (optical wavelengths) in the stratosphere or in orbit. The dipoles are optical chaff and efficiently scatter optical photons away from the Earth. If there are no hidden problems, such a system would consume less than 5% of the world annual gold production and after 14 years the insolation would be attenuated by one percent. Cost: ten billion dollars, including the gold (at maximum market price for 2006) + manufacturing + launch + deployment.

Such a mitigation program would stabilize the Earth's climate by reducing average temperature by some carefully managed amount, typically one or two degrees C.

Similar macro-engineering programs have been considered at (for example) Lawrence Livermore National Labs (ref: Bala Govindasamy's models).

There is no funding now for mitigation schemes - even though most people want to avoid climate change. Most supercomputer models that I have seen show that we cannot avoid climate change without a macro-engineering project to reduce the suns's energy entering the tropospher by one or two percent.

Instead, the available green public monies are going to subsidies, tax write-offs and various commerical schemes that look nice on paper (see - we are doing something) but don't help the overall problem: expensive wind power, solar power etc.

Most of us will agree that it doesn't matter what causes the increased global mean temperature. Instead of trying to figure out who is to blame (those darn lawyers) , I propose a constructive direction: carefully managed reduced insolation.

I hope mitigation schemes based on reduced solar insolation get more attention and funding. Other schemes right now (like carbon sequester) are too little too late. We need reduced insolation to give us the four or five decades that industry needs to develop and deploy *cost-effective* green technologies like fission (then) fusion power, fuel cells for vehicles, quantum dot solar cells, and proper carbon sequester schemes.

_________________
Milou


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:25 am 
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Erie, PA
Greetings Milou:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I also like the concept of an active mitigation solution to offset what may or may not be human-caused warming. The caveat is that whatever is done would have to be reversible. I find the gold nanoparticle solution a little risky from the standpoint of what phenomena such as solar wind storms and the resulting auorae would manage to do to such perfect conductors. Imagine the project team's dismay as they watched 99% of their thermal shield spiral down to one of the earth's poles and contaminate the entire area with gold particles. Has anyone calculated the amount of pollutants that would be added to the atmosphere in lifting all those heavy gold particles into orbit?

Another option offered is to blow dust into the air ala the Icelandic Laki volcanic eruption in the 18th century and the Krakatoa eruption of the 19th century that measurably cooled the earth. The problem with that of course is the resulting particulate fallout and the fouling of aircraft engines. Still, it would be interesting to have a contemporary equivalent occur naturally (so we would not have to blame ourselves for the results) to record the effect.

I have no fool-proof solution to offer, but am highly dubious about a lot of the proposals that I have read mainly because of the potential for disaster. In the instance of a purposeful significant altering of our environment, the road to hell being paved with good intentions could literally be borne out.

World progress depends on the availability of cheap and abundant transportation and energy. Emerging economies like that of China and India, with their massive populations are absolutely dependent on international trade for their survival. That trade requires transportation to move the raw materials to the factories, the finished goods to market, and from the market to the consumers. Those consumers must feel good about themselves and the state of the world to be motivated to spend their hard-earned money rather than sock it away for emergency purposes. The same goes for tourism, which is thriving and cannot exist without transportation. All this requires, at the moment, fossil fuels. It is both a blessing and accurse that we are good at collecting and distributing it.

China has been mentioned often as a looming threat to the greenhouse gas issue because it is rushing full speed into being a heavy manufacturing economy, and is already famous for its atrocious level of pollution. The air in the bigger cities and some of the outlying smaller ones is reminiscent of the early to mid 20th century American and European cities with the smog so bad that the visibility on a good day is maybe a mile. China’s only interest in controlling the situation is the threats it receives from its trading partners. Predictions have it ranking at the top of the polluting country list within a decade. So in the end, our cheap goods at Wal-Mart and Target come with a very high price – much more pollution is generated in the little-regulated manufacturing industry of China and the necessary long-distance transportation of goods, and as a bonus we help fund their military ambitions. What a deal!

Footnote: Most such "emerging economies" are given significant relief for compliance in the Kyoto plan while mandating strict adherence by established countries.

Until a plausible solution can be found for replacement energy technologies, the greatest action that most people can take is to reduce the amount of unnecessary traveling they do, and keep the thermostats in their homes set a little lower in the winter and higher in the summer. The travel budget where I work (for a major RF semiconductor manufacturer) is about $1.5 million per year. That’s a LOT of flying all over the world to meet with customers, suppliers, and manufacturers. Maybe I am naïve, but I cannot understand why more of this interfacing can't be accomplished with video conferencing. Sure, you need face-to-face interaction sometimes to achieve your goals, but it is hard to believe that half the business done after riding on an airplane for 8 hours cannot be done with streaming video and audio. The overall inconvenience factor would be not very great.

Lastly, I for one am tired of being preached to by hypocrites like Al Gore who are responsible for dumping untold amounts of CO2 into the air while jetting all around the world telling me to ride my bike to work, and then having the audacity to talk on television about his carbon-neutral house. The same goes for the Hollywierd types making similar claims. Some starlet gets photographed putting 3 gallons of gasoline into her Prius to prove how much she cares about the environment, while out of the picture is the 8,000 pound, armored limousine that escorted her to the pump. Unfortunately, the majority of the people seem to fall for it.

How many ices ages has the earth been through? 5? 8? What caused them and what warming mechanism ended them? Were SUVs and coal-burning power plants around for those? Maybe the aliens are responsible for those periods. Maybe we are doomed.

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:42 pm 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:39 pm
Posts: 21
There was a show on Nova last fall. Some guy was studying atmospheric pollutants and global warming. On September 11, 2001 and the next few days he had a great opprotunity to measure lots of stuff due to the lack of high-altitude clouds caused by condensation trails. He concluded that a big part of global warming (if caused by humans) is due to the reduction of aeresols from fossil fule burning power plant emissions.

My huge question is "why did the hole in the ozone layer go away" ? We were told that Freon(tm) lasts 50,000 years in the atmosphere and would cause total loss of the ozone layer. They did not study this 'hole' for even 1/2 of a solar cycle and then concluded it was refrigerants causing it?

As the sun approached the minimum (which is now) the ozone returned.

Well, now there is no hole in the ozone layer.

Will the hole begin to return in a few years as solar cycle 24 gets more active ?


 
   
 
 Post subject: Insolation reduction
Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:11 pm 
 
Lieutenant

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:38 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Oregon
Hi Kirt,

Right! I agree with your comments regarding unforeseen consequences of any climate macro-engineering program. Jumping headlong into full scale deployment of the proposed programs (gold nanowire dipole or sulphate crystals or iron-doping the oceans etc) is very risky, we want to reduce climate risk. In practice the techniques need to be prototyped and developed in a series of 18 (?) month trials: lab trials, small scale trials, medium-scale trials, large-scale trials etc before starting full-scale testing. Development time of about ten years is needed before full scale deployment could begin. We make enough time to check the risks. Magnetic capture of the gold dipoles by the magnetic poles might happen depending on the orbit, but would not happen in the stratosphere. Gold is a very eco-friendly material (its a noble metal), so maybe ecological impact of precipitating gold would be small - needs study at all scales of course.

International support and public oversight would be needed as climate macro-engineering crosses all national boundaries.

The early success of the Montreal protocol (ozne depleting chemical ban) gives me hope that such large scale international cooperation is possible.

Right now the atmospheric sulphates in Europe from heavy industry help keep temperatures about two degrees C cooler than they would be if the air were clean. Euro summers will get that much warmer on average in the next few years as the new emissions controls come into force. Unforeseen consequences...

Right now $4B annually is being spent on measuring global climate measurements and modelling. A 1% solar shield can potentially solve the problem for $10B a year over 14 years of full scale production. The idea might be completely wrong - but we have NO fallback position. Why not make ourselves a fallback position by starting to study macro-engineering techniques? Why not start testing the idea in the lab (i.e., fabricate the gold nanowire dipoles and test them). Other techniques are available, all such ideas need to be seriously evaluated. No one wants serious climate change. The data that I have seen seem to indicate we cannot possibly conserve enough to hold back the greenhouse effect - and the chance of nonlinear "tipping effects". Why not put 10M dollars annually into the public study of each macro-engineering possibility?

Amount of pollutants from the launch of the solar shield: need 50-70 launches per year of the Zenit 2-SLB medium / heavy launch vehicle. These new models are using new eco-friendly propellants with ecofriendly reaction products. I can send links to the manufacturer if you like.

Again, I think engineers should speak out: let's reduce the risk of climate change by developing mitigation models at least in the small scale. Greenland ice cores show show that drastic climate changes in the past are generally sudden (nonlinear!), happening in about ten years or less. While we might never need to fully deploy a macro-engineering solution, I say it is prident to be ready with carefully studied options in case micro-energy conservation fails to address the macro-climate problem.

Re: Kyoto protocol: you are right. China and other developing countries are getting away with lax- or no carbon budgets. But Kyoto targets get updated every few years and the country classifications will change as the situation evolves. Kyoto may become obsolete in the next decade as we get more complete climate data.

The Amsterdam Accord (2000?) recognized the Earth's surface as a homeostatic self-regulating simple feedback climate system with built-in carbon storage. The mean climate has been the same for billions of years with some exceptions (snowball earth). The ice ages of the last 2M years seem to be a recent response of the homeostatic system to the continuous increase in solar output power (the sun is a main sequence star and over the last few billion years the solar "constant" has been increasing monotonically. That explains the snowball 2B years ago (it was colder). And it explains the iceages now: the input energy is 20-30% greater and the homeostatic system is looking for a new steady state equilibrium.

I don't think we are doomed, but there is significant engineering risk in the future of the (admittedly flawed) modern societythe nations. I think we can reduce the risk of massive social disruption and large scale famine and war by making small scale prototypes of macro-engineering ideas. Let's publically check out all our options, maybe there is a cost-effective delaying tactic.

I have a proposal document for the solar shield using gold nanowire, should you would like to review it. I know there are many possible approaches to macro-engineering, I chose gold nanowires because I have an EM background.

_________________
Milou


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:34 am 
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Erie, PA
Greetings:

Here is a timely article that appeared today.

Offshore Wind Farms Could Power Entire East Coast
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251979,00.html

Who are the biggest opponents of such a plan? The fabulously wealthy of Cape Code, Long Island, and other well-known prime seaboard areas (including pontificating politicians and relatives of politicians who claim to be amongst the greenest citizens). They simply do not want their pristine vistas upset by the windmills - the "not in my back yard" phenomenon.

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster


 
   
 
 Post subject: Wind farms -
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:03 pm 
 
Lieutenant

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:38 pm
Posts: 3
Location: Oregon
Proponents of windpower claim the harvested power is cheap, I want to believe it. But I am unconvinced. I want to see publicly audited reports on the capital and operational cost of our largest modern wind farms - without the benefit of public subsidies and grants. Can you direct me to audited reports?

I believe Germany was the first country to build significant wind farms (on land) for the public grid. In the last decade, Denmark followed with billions of dollars of capital invested in wind farms on land and in the shallow sea waters.

My understanding is that Denmark has found their large scale wind energy cost (a function of capital funding cost plus maintenance cost) is significantly greater than the cost of electricity from the conventional sources: coal, gas/oil, nuclear, hydro etc. Even though the littoral environment has great wind availability, the salty ocean and the salt fogs and spray are especially harsh on the high speed moving parts of the wind turbine.

I am no expert in wind power, but reading ecologist James Lovelock and eco-reporter Fred Pearce's material suggests caution before committing much of our LIMITED public tax credits and commercial incentives to wind farms. Substantial reliance on "free" wind energy may be too good to be true. As we build larger wind farms we need to avoid increasing the cost of our electricity and becoming (more) industrially uncompetitive with China and India - reporting on the real costs would be helpful.

Larger and larger wind farms over a significant portion of the eastern seabiord (or anywhere else) will tend to change weather patterns. In the great Atlantic bight around Cape Cod significant wind farming might change weather patterns downwind - perhaps in western Europe I don't know. I expect Europe would be unhappy if American wind farms somehow reduced the rainfall in southern Europe.

Large wind farms disrupt migatory bird populations. When I lived in New Mexico the big wind turbines there were knocking down flying birds (some endangered ones too) because the birds were unaware of the virtually invisible high speed thin blades.

Like wind farms, unbridled enthusiasm for ethanol farms needs to be curbed with research in a controlled ramp up of capability. Ethanol reduces our dependence on foreign oil and that's great. But large existing farms and significant new farms would mean loss of much of the remaining wetlands to monocultures and some TBD impact on the environment. We still need the same farmland for food production, so the extra land for ethanol comes from a small amount of available land.

_________________
Milou


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:05 pm 
 
Lieutenant

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:34 am
Posts: 2
Global Warming” has come to mean, “human caused” to many people with the United States as the main culprit. The fanatical environmentalist never takes into account natural cyclical mechanisms that may be at the root of any potential temperature change.

They claim that there is a “Consensus” among scientist that the data points to Man Caused climate change. Two points to that; first, Consensus is not science. It’s an amalgam of opinion. Albeit an educated opinion, it is still an opinion. Second, if the data is indisputable then why is the “Pro Man Made Global Warming Camp” trying to shut down the debate and shut up the opposition. When I have the data on my side of an argument I love to debate.

If In truth the Global Warming is not a political, social, and finical issue. Then can all you fanatical environmentalist answer this question?

If Global Warming is the greatest threat to mankind’s existence as Vice President Al Gore Contends, then why are the worlds greatest polluters China, India, etc, exempt from the Kyoto Accords?

IF man causes Global Warming, then why is Mars currently undergoing global warming? Are there too many rovers on mars?

When viewed through the spectrum of other mechanisms operating on the earth’s environment and the scale of their impact, such as the earths wobble on its axis, varying solar intensity, tectonic activity and magma vents heating the worlds oceans, etc, it seems ridiculous to compare mans activity as the main culprit to climate change. When historical and geological records are looked at we see that the CO2 levels have been higher and lower than todays level and that the earth has both been warmer and cooler than it is today. Remember the various ice ages?

In fact, current CO2 levels now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), please note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time — without exception.

tk


 
   
 
 Post subject: Gore's Own Inconvenient Truth
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:43 am 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 19
Here's a report on Algore's own carbon footprint for his mansion (the one in the report, anyway).

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/art ... cle_id=367

He goes on TV and claims he's "carbon neutral" but that just means he has enough money from selling his bogus book to pay for "offsets" that allow him to claim carbon neutrality. He wants you to think he actually personally creates less CO2 than you or me.

Let's face it, the guy flys all over the world, all year long, on private jets, rides in motorcades of heavily armored (5 mpg) vehicles, and has feel-good meetings with like-minded people all year long. He's like the starlett Kirt mentions in his posting.

Who among you will defend Algore's claims for his own carbon neutrality? He's a @$%@^ hypocrite!


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:04 pm 
 
General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:47 am
Posts: 84
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Awwww, come on and give him a break. If it weren't for his internet, you wouldn't even be able to criticize him!

I don't know if he is CO2 neutral or not but he sure isn't Methane neutral.
:P


 
   
 
 Post subject: An Algore Diet
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:16 pm 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 19
I see Algore must be on the Algore Diet since his face gets plumper every time I see his picture.

The Algore Diet works like this:

Al needs to loose weight so he finds someone else he can pay to eat less, while he himself continues to stuff his own face.

It's just like the carbon credits he pays for to "offset" his lardbutt energy consumption. Someone else gets less so he can have more. Ah, the Marxist elites are consistent, I'll give 'em that much.


 
   
 
 Post subject: Walk'n the walk, not just talk'n the talk
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:10 am 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:42 pm
Posts: 9
Got to chime in here guys:

Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune
Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home
by Rob Sullivan

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:35 pm 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:43 pm
Posts: 12
Location: U.K.
Gents,

Canada has the answer to all this global warming.

"UFO Science Key to Halting Climate Change: Former Canadian Defense Minister"


(apologies if the picture does not appear)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070228/wl ... 0228180440


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:51 am 
 
Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:13 am
Posts: 11
Ralph Zappa wrote:
(apologies if the picture does not appear)


Too bad the pic doesn't appear. I pasted the link into Firefox and it would have been a good funny one to go with the story.

What's with these "official" nutjobs? How do they get into office in the first place is what I want to know?

Ed


 
   
 
 Post subject:
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:55 am 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:42 pm
Posts: 9
This keeps getting better:

Gore's 'Carbon Offsets' Paid to Firm He Owns

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54528


 
   
 
 Post subject: Gotta love it
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:16 am 
 
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:51 pm
Posts: 19
Hey hey, just gotta love it.

Strongest Snowstorm Over Half Century Hits China's Liaoning Province

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?i ... e=National


Toronto February Was Coldest in 28 Years

http://www.thestar.com/article/188324






Posted  11/12/2012
Custom Search
More than 10,000 searchable pages indexed.

Your RF Cafe
Progenitor & Webmaster

Click here to read about RF CafeKirt Blattenberger... single-handedly redefining what an engineering website should be.

View the YouTube RF Cafe Intro Video Carpe Diem!
(Seize the Day!)

5th MOB: My USAF radar shop

Airplanes and Rockets: My personal hobby website

Equine Kingdom: My daughter Sally's horse riding website