Is it worth the risk ….

gimlet · 04-02-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Secondly, the rocket fuel was almost certainly not ‘carbon’ based.

I[/i]

The fuel used was in fact:

RP-1, a refined kerosene fuel + LOX for the first stage of flight, ie carbon based.

Super-cold liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX) further stages - used a lot of carbon in it's production.

There's no such thing as a carbon free space-flight!

youcanhandlethetruth · 04-02-2008, 03:42 PM

Clippo, I'm still trying to work out whether you're a misinformation merchant with scientific interest or totally blind as to the reality of the world we live in.
Answer me this - if the goverment care so much about us all (and the planet), why do they want you to have energy saving lightbulbs containing brain damaging mercury into your home so when it cracks you have to vacate the room pronto ?
Hmmmm ?..........

Have you seen this article too ? Yes the government want us all to have flouride in the water to "strenghten children teeth" - oh it for the children !
They care SOOOO much !

Alan Johnson: 'Supply fluoride to every family' - Telegraph

Shame most people don't realize flouride is a sedative that causes brain damage, reduces IQ and was put in the water by the nazis to control the population.

But hey why should I tell you this when you love your global leaders so much ? Just keep taking the vaccines, drink the water and love your government ok ?

tito · 04-02-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Mpkdavies wrote:-

A few technical inaccuracies there I think. According to various records, Apollo 8 flew in 1968 – when understanding of CO2 induced global or even universal warming was restricted to a very few meteorological scientists.
Secondly, the rocket fuel was almost certainly not ‘carbon’ based.

I distinctly remember at this time, some dear lady in the USA blaming these rockets for tearing holes in some mythical earth enclosure and causing most of the ills of modern society. Apparently she then went into some sort of trance, waved her arms in the air & uttered some mumbo-jumbo spell and declared she had repaired the hole by some sort of telekinetic ‘knitting process’.

(but was getting a bit fed up !!)

Tito wrote:-

You don’t appear to understand the situation. Several scenarios of the effects of AGW on the world have been put forward by the real experts. The extreme one, which you are blithely & incorrectly assuming ‘us lot’ say is the most probable, would lead to a mass extinction to rival the one at the end of the Permian geological period.
I would suggest that most of ‘us lot’ don’t want that to happen but consider unrestrained consumption of all the earths resources, to selfishly sustain ‘libertarian’ freedoms, is rapidly increasing the probability that it will.

I think it was Carl Sagan who said words to the effect :-

The probability that there are other Earth-like planets in the universe is quite high and therefore so is the probability of life ‘as-we-know-it-Jim’. However, there is only one place in the universe that we are certain that life exists. (guess where ???? nb my brackets)

Man owns his own life, and his purpose is to live it. I'm not going to be made to feel guilty for knowing that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ayn Rand

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

Clippo · 04-02-2008, 07:29 PM

Tito,
I see that Ayn Rand died in the early 1980's - perhaps she didn't know about the implications of GW,

Perhaps you need to study a more modern, living philosopher ...

tito · 04-02-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Tito,
I see that Ayn Rand died in the early 1980's - perhaps she didn't know about the implications of GW,

Perhaps you need to study a more modern, living philosopher ...

Ayn Rand often said that people would start calling her outdated after she died.

The implications of global warming don't alter logical philosophy.

Clippo · 04-02-2008, 07:57 PM

YCHTT,
I don’t see the relevance of your lunatic post to the subject of this thread, but in the best traditions of humouring the mentally unstable, I will give you my opinion on Fluoridation :-

On the one hand I am convinced of the efficacy in improving dental hygiene by the intake of ‘flouride’. I am further convinced of its’ safety at the dosages commonly applied & by the long usage, in many countries as an additive in salt or water.

On the other hand, I disagree with mass medication of this sort – people who don’t wish to take it should not be forced to. So you see YCHTT, I don’t really fit your crackpot descriptions – any of them - in your last post.

I know also that fluoride compounds are an ingredient of most toothpastes. Since I clean my teeth regularly, (and have only 2 extractions after a long life), I recommend you do the same. Of course, if you still think putting it in toothpaste is a conspiracy plot, then don’t bother to clean your teeth – (Oh, you don’t – uugh !!!)

(the teeth in this smilie are almost as good as mine )

Clippo · 05-02-2008, 08:48 AM

Tito wrote:-

Quote:

Ayn Rand often said that people would start calling her outdated after she died.

Outdated possibly yes –but criticism of her views were expressed while she was alive.
&

Quote:

The implications of global warming don't alter logical philosophy.

You are falsely assuming that ‘logical philosophy’ is immutably correct.

As for :-

Quote:

:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand
In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

What a load of W & P. Full of theistic epistemology of which the logical foundation has been shown to be highly flawed.

I prefer a different philosophical prospective :-

Humanity evolved the ability to use tools, including fire, and which enabled it to survive in ecological niches where almost physiologically identical species (e.g. other great apes), could not. A classic example of adaptive evolution. However, as with all newly evolved species, they can become dependent on the factor(s) which gave them that evolutionary advantage in the first place. Particularly so if the species doesn’t evolve further to become independent of those initial factors i.e. stagnate & die. When that dependency is discovered to be threatening to the species survival in any way, (for example by lack of availability, or 'overgrazing' aka over use of resources), the probable outcome is distinctly un-advantageous in evolutionary terms. Cf the Dodo effect.
So it is with fire in humanity’s case. It has been discovered that the over-use of fire now threatens the survival of the species – so therefore humanity, having the intelligence to understand all of the implications of using tools (cf, spears / guns / nuclear rockets) – needs now to ‘adapt’ (further), to survive.
Humanity and evolutionary successors will always be dependent on additional 'energy' sources, but we supposedly have the intelligence to realise that (well some of us have).

mkpdavies · 05-02-2008, 09:30 AM

Rand believed in freedom. Thus we require more of her kind today, to fight the fascist *******.

tito · 05-02-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Tito wrote:-

Outdated possibly yes –but criticism of her views were expressed while she was alive.
&

You are falsely assuming that ‘logical philosophy’ is immutably correct.

As for :-

What a load of W & P. Full of theistic epistemology of which the logical foundation has been shown to be highly flawed.

I prefer a different philosophical prospective :-

Humanity evolved the ability to use tools, including fire, and which enabled it to survive in ecological niches where almost physiologically identical species (e.g. other great apes), could not. A classic example of adaptive evolution. However, as with all newly evolved species, they can become dependent on the factor(s) which gave them that evolutionary advantage in the first place. Particularly so if the species doesn’t evolve further to become independent of those initial factors i.e. stagnate & die. When that dependency is discovered to be threatening to the species survival in any way, (for example by lack of availability, or 'overgrazing' aka over use of resources), the probable outcome is distinctly un-advantageous in evolutionary terms. Cf the Dodo effect.
So it is with fire in humanity’s case. It has been discovered that the over-use of fire now threatens the survival of the species – so therefore humanity, having the intelligence to understand all of the implications of using tools (cf, spears / guns / nuclear rockets) – needs now to ‘adapt’ (further), to survive.
Humanity and evolutionary successors will always be dependent on additional 'energy' sources, but we supposedly have the intelligence to realise that (well some of us have).

Indeed, but we never go backwards. Ayn Rand didn't mind choosing environmentally friendly products, and other such minimum inconveniences.
She wrote once about how the environmentalists don't like people purchasing green products, because it is still a purchase.

The overuse of resources is a nonsensical idea. They can be used just as much as their owner chooses, who is to say otherwise?

Clippo · 05-02-2008, 03:38 PM

Tito wrote:-

Quote:

The overuse of resources is a nonsensical idea. They can be used just as much as their owner chooses, who is to say otherwise?

Where would finite, non-quickly renewable resources fit into this philosophy?
And who is the 'owner' ?

05-02-2008, 09:30 AM	#18 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	Rand believed in freedom. Thus we require more of her kind today, to fight the fascist *******. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-02-2008, 03:42 PM	#12 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 1,664	Clippo, I'm still trying to work out whether you're a misinformation merchant with scientific interest or totally blind as to the reality of the world we live in. Answer me this - if the goverment care so much about us all (and the planet), why do they want you to have energy saving lightbulbs containing brain damaging mercury into your home so when it cracks you have to vacate the room pronto ? Hmmmm ?.......... Have you seen this article too ? Yes the government want us all to have flouride in the water to "strenghten children teeth" - oh it for the children ! They care SOOOO much ! Alan Johnson: 'Supply fluoride to every family' - Telegraph Shame most people don't realize flouride is a sedative that causes brain damage, reduces IQ and was put in the water by the nazis to control the population. But hey why should I tell you this when you love your global leaders so much ? Just keep taking the vaccines, drink the water and love your government ok ?

04-02-2008, 07:29 PM	#14 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,859	Tito, I see that Ayn Rand died in the early 1980's - perhaps she didn't know about the implications of GW, Perhaps you need to study a more modern, living philosopher ...

04-02-2008, 07:57 PM	#16 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,859	YCHTT, I don’t see the relevance of your lunatic post to the subject of this thread, but in the best traditions of humouring the mentally unstable, I will give you my opinion on Fluoridation :- On the one hand I am convinced of the efficacy in improving dental hygiene by the intake of ‘flouride’. I am further convinced of its’ safety at the dosages commonly applied & by the long usage, in many countries as an additive in salt or water. On the other hand, I disagree with mass medication of this sort – people who don’t wish to take it should not be forced to. So you see YCHTT, I don’t really fit your crackpot descriptions – any of them - in your last post. I know also that fluoride compounds are an ingredient of most toothpastes. Since I clean my teeth regularly, (and have only 2 extractions after a long life), I recommend you do the same. Of course, if you still think putting it in toothpaste is a conspiracy plot, then don’t bother to clean your teeth – (Oh, you don’t – uugh !!!) (the teeth in this smilie are almost as good as mine )