Free Republic

Ah yes.... we truly are living in the Age of Deception.

Another good link from a professional engineer this time... http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/03/03/wind-power-the-worst-kind-of-mirage.aspx

I think that the problem created by trying to add wind generated power into the grid is far worse yet than any of the most negative projections have suggested. I have worked around a lot of coal, nuclear and gas powered plants and the one observation that I can tell you is that plants work far better when their electrical production is even, predictable and slow to change either up or down. There is absolutely no question that the life of the vast majority of the equipment in these plants is sharply curtailed by such things as a regular and rapid fluctuation of heating and cooling, speeding up and slowing down, parts getting wet and then drying out, pressurization followed by depressurization, constant changes in PH levels etc etc etc. A lot of the fallout from constant changes can be lumped under the umbrella of one basic engineering fact of life concept.... fatigue (in whatever form is applicable). And this is just one area... I could rant for a long time on this subject about the stability of the rest of the infrastructure and the vast increase of sophistication that has been required to deal with all these unpredictable new electrical sources coming on and dropping off, the damage to the grid itself and so forth. It cannot do anything other than result in reduced overall reliability. As one of the other posters commented, we may very quickly see towers going up but may just as quickly see them coming down. As for me personally, my above comments are as a ratepayer... Frankly, the more idiocy that goes on that continues to wreck this system, the better it will be for my business. I really do believe that the introduction of wind plus the longterm impact that environmentalists have had in delaying new projects will ultimately result in a totally unreliable system....and with that in mind, we all should be taking steps to protect ourselves to the greatest extent we can.

Watch for an increase of clandestine indoor pot farms busted with smart meters.

In British Columbia where it seems that indoor pot farms are a dime a dozen on every street, I believe that bypassing the meter is the MO for these operators.

A “right,” in the traditional American lexicon laid out by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, is something that exists by virtue of our humanity. It is “inalienable” and we are endowed with these rights by our creator. No government or institution has the power to take away these rights. You exist, therefore these rights exist. In the leftist sense of the word, though, a “right” is something very different. In fact, it’s not a “right” at all: it’s a handout provided to you by government, often at exorbitant costs to society.

The ones who control the language end up controlling the agenda and that is why it is so important to stop such nonsense right in its tracks. Your definition of what is a right and what the left defines as a right should be ingrained into our youth along with a zillion of other 'agenda seizing words'. The words 'tolerance' and 'diversity' come to mind...along with 'choice', and so on....

Thanks for posting the link to the full paper. I just read through much of it and found it to be quite interesting. As I said in an earlier comment, it's actually a fairly complicated issue as far as how any of the information can be used to help one base a decision.

It appears that the mandate of the study was to just examine the issue of 'screening'. What the report does not do is get into the topic of health alternatives and other related aspects of prostate health.... Things such as foods which men should stay away because of accelerating or aggravating the condition, dietary supplements that men should take, activities that could be related to the frequency of problems or ways of alleviating/delaying the problem, an analysis of all the treatment measures for those men for whom the problems is so serious that it must be dealt with etc. This reporting just deals with the screening issue and the other issues were not examined. I think that most men would at least like to have good information on some of these other issues as well. If for example all one had to do was increase the amount of a particular vitamin to increase the odds that the problem never arises at all, I think most men would want to know that.

So your point is we don't screen for them? Fast or slow you can't treat them if you don't know they exist.

As pointed out in Post 18, the issue is quite complicated. I don't think I could lay my fingers on it right now but I remember an article posted here on FR about a research study which looked at the prostates of teenage boys that had been killed in accidents. It turned out that something like 25% of them were found to have cancer. So... if you are a guy, you say "now what"? There are a few points that are difficult to rationalize so that a reasonable decision can be made: 1. Virtually all men age 50 or so likely have prostate cancer cells, 2. It is well known to be so slow growing that something else will likely kill you first, 3. A screening test such as a multi-point biopsy (grid of 16 samples) will actually do harm to the prostate, 4. That same screening test may actually miss the cancer cells.

So with the four above points in mind, what is a reasonable course of action for a man of age 50? No easy choices there, let me tell you.

Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more?

The issue is actually quite complicated. Dr Thomas Stamey was the doctor who in 1981 wrote up the medical paper that declared that PSA was a good marker for prostate cancer. In 2004, after looking at the data from the intervening years, he declared that while PSA was an indicator of prostate health (and specifically a condition called BPH)it was not a good marker for prostate cancer (this was written up in the New England Journal of Medicine in July, 2004). In other words, Dr Stamey essentially refuted his own study.

Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind’s history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama’s administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, “I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real.”

This is the one lie that is sooo easy to refute. There never were 2,500 scientists standing behind the conclusions of the IPCC report and it’s mindboggling that people that throw that out don’t get called on it more often. As has been shown many times (including articles here on FR), there might have been 2,500 people that the IPCC report in question was sent to so that it could be said that they were ‘involved’ but that is where the stretching and fudging starts..... Very few of these people were ‘scientists’ per se (most were bureaucrats) and of the ones that could actually call themselves scientists, on a fraction could be called ‘climate scientists’. Regardless, the 2,500 (and let us for the moment make the leap that there really was this many) were split up to deal with specific sections of the IPCC report... I forget how many sections there were but it was more than 10. Assuming that it was 10 means that there were say 250 involved with each section and since the controversial issue of mankind causing temperatures to rise is contained in one specific section, this means that there were really only 250 people that were involved with the part of the report that really mattered. Then there is the fact that many of those 250 had virtually nothing to do with it.. they were just reviewing it. Then there were those who quit in disgust after their comments on the earlier draft were ignored and not included. The bottom line is that it might actually be difficult to find more than one actual ‘climate scientist’ that had anything to do with the writing and conclusion about manmade glowbull warmongering that made it to final copy..... and yet they want to keep hiding behind this 2,500 number. Good grief.

Somebody is behind Al Gore. Al isnt smart enough to work this scam on his own. Who is the guide behind Gores stupid actions?

Listen to the interview of Senator Inhofe that was posted on Hot Air Yesterday... Inhofe offers his theory about the answer to your exact question about half way through the second piece where he discusses the roots of the scam (the interview is posted in two halves of approximately 7 minutes each.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/23/exclusive-hot-air-interview-inhofe-to-release-report-blasting-ipcc-on-climategate/

Here's the Readers Digest of it...Inhofe figures it was ALL hatched by the UN. Since the biggest funder of the UN is the United States, being able to live off the avails of the climate scam would have let the UN call their own shots on their activities without being beholden or needing to worry about the opinion of the States on anything. He didn't say this but in my view, if the UN hatched the plan and then brought the Goracle in as a partner... and we know that the UN is principally made up of country states that are at complete cross purposes to the US, that means that the Goracle is not only a scam artist, he’s a traitor, no?

Serious article about algore; the hoax he perpetuated that made him a millionaire several times over; and...

According to Senator Inhofe in the interview posted yesterday on Hot Air, he says that the Goracle is the first 'environmental billionaire'... yes, with a 'b' and he wasn't talking about the future, he was talking about now.

Sure sounds like a desperate man, doesn't it?

On a related subject, I sure enjoyed the interview with Senator Inhofe that is currently up on Hot Air. The Senator makes an interesting comment about half way through the second half of the interview where he offers his thoughts about the roots of the climate scam. He figures it was ALL hatched by the UN.....they weren't just there to take advantage of it when somebody else proposed the scheme, they were the proponent from the get-go Since the biggest funder of the UN is the United States, living off the avails of the climate scam would have let the UN call their own shots on their activities without worrying about what the United States says ... and potentially yank funding. The Senator didn't’t say this but in my view, if the UN hatched the scheme, they sought the Gorecle out to bring him on board... and we know that the Gorecle has go very rich over this (Inhofe calls him the first environmental billionaire). As well, since the UN is principally made up of country states that are at cross purposes to the US, that means that the Gorecle is not only a scam artist, he’s a traitor, no?

Frankly, the American Institute of Architects could do themselves a favour and post a note on their homepage divesting themselves of having anything to do with Richard Gage and his 'nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' crowd of nuts.

However, let’s all be aware that from a broader engineering perspective, there is always something valuable to be learned from a failure....even horrific ones such as the collapse of the Towers where it already is clearly understood by any reasonable person as to why they fell. It should be mandatory that every engineer entering the workforce read ‘To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design’ by Henry Petroski. It is not until there is a precise understanding of the exact nature of the 'why' that steps can be taken in the future to make something better. I have no insight into what has all gone on with the post-9/11 studies in this case but I will bet that much failure analysis has already happened with the Trade Towers. What will it yield? Perhaps a requirement for more steel columns? Perhaps an upgraded standard for steel beams that retain higher yield strengths at higher temperatures? A change in the standards and materials used for column insulation? Recommendations for alarm systems that will inform occupants to get away from a side of the building and toward exists on the other side if a plane gets within say a few minutes of potential impact? Recommendations for different methods for extinguishing flames? All are possibilities plus many more.... not just for the objective of having a building withstand a crash but for it to remain standing longer. Think about it..... if the Twin Towers had of been able to stand for double the length of time they did, how many additional lives would have been saved?

There is much to be learned. However, none of it will come from the agenda of nuts like Richard Gage.

You know that they are reaching when they bring up Katrina....This particular hurricane will of course be long remembered because of the damage it did but in the grand scheme of things, there have been worse ones that have made landfall. Katrina did a lot of damage in Mississippi but it was the flooding of NOLA that it will forever be associated with... and that event had far less to do with the ferocity of the storm than it had to do with levies that that were totally inadequate.

Well, there are 2,800 athletes, coaches etc at the Vancouver Village and another 2,400 at the Whistler one. Assume each athlete there is for say two weeks. Well, I'll let somebody else work through the math...

We need to fight back and send letters of support to all his current advertisers and ones who have been forced to remove ads.

Looks like there are problems with the list but assuming it' correct, fine... show your support. Tell you what I've done when an advertiser withdraws after caving in to leftist thug boycotts... I've called the company up and told them that boycotts work two ways. By their actions of caving in, they definitely lost me as a potential customer since I don't support companies that cave in to leftist thugs.

Newsweek is still falling all over itself to give credibility to the hoaxers and denigrating many of the “deniers” as rank amateurs who are just trying to poke holes in climate change without real science.

Yeah, not surprising that there is a plaintive wistful tone about the article....sort of a 'I can't believe it all came crashing down with a thud'. Hopefully, they and the Gorecle will be able to come out of their state of denial and move on... and as for the Gorecle himself, we can only wish him well in his future endeavours.

Personally, I think that the real heroe (well, there are quite a few actually)...but at least the most influential is the one for whom we will never know his/her name. This is the leaker/hacker of the emails which we have come to know as climategate. Now that is one individual who I think deserves great honour.... a statue in fact. Let's call it ‘The Unknown Leaker/Hacker’.

McKitrick has been on to this scam for a long time. In 2002 he was a co-author on a terrific book called ‘Taken By Storm: the troubled science, policy and politics of global warming’... second edition released in 2008. Well worth the read.

This is not a comment on whether the airline did the right thing but obviously it's not something that one would want to do or take lightly. I used to work with a guy years ago who could telegraph his presence from the moment that anybody else walked in the front door (and that was an office that employed say 100 people to give some idea of scale). Anyway, there were so many complaints that his boss took him aside... the upshot of it was that he had some type of medical problem - he was healthy but he had terrible BO. The problem for the company was that he was also the best draughtsman that they had by a long shot.....

I think that there should be a monument built to ‘The Unknown Leaker/Hacker’..... I would donate to that.