Comments on: Submission to the Henry Tax Review

By: Submission to the Henry Tax Review « JoNova: Science, carbon … | Solar Power Generation Ideas

Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:10:52 +0000

[...] the article here: Submission to the Henry Tax Review « JoNova: Science, carbon … This entry was posted in thermal solar power, thermal solar power generation and tagged thermal [...]

Report this

0 0

By: Dishwasher Engine Manual

Dishwasher Engine Manual — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 17:29:13 +0000

nice share and website..thanks for the tips.

Report this

0 0

By: Jorge Konieczka

Jorge Konieczka — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:35:40 +0000

Nice Website. You should think more about RSS Feeds as a traffic source. They bring me a nice bit of traffic.

Report this

0 0

By: Tax Man

Tax Man — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:57:31 +0000

The IRS e-flie system is now open, most W-2s and 1099s will be in mail in the next couple of weeks. Is everybody ready for tax time?

Report this

0 0

By: Coin

Coin — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:42:37 +0000

very good article. thanks for sharing. Just subscribed to your RSS. What seems to be missing in this article is the knowledge that it’s simply a jumping off point.

Report this

0 0

By: common sense

common sense — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:04:06 +0000

History will judge the AGW movement as an example of fear-mongering used to promote a hidden agenda, to grab power and to enrich a political and scientific elite. It will fail spectacularly after much damage will have been done. Not unlike the current failure of the financial system. It is a perfect storm when global complexity is exploited by a class politicians and financial/scientific experts with questionable ethics. Our only defense is for ethical scientists to speak out. And thankfully they do speak out in increasing numbers.
However, even after AGW will be history there will be an energy crisis.
Non renewable energy resources are finite. We are therefore well advised to use good science (i.e. 2nd law of thermodynamics etc. ) and sound economics to optimize efficiency in energy production (i.e. combined cycle ) and energy use wherever we can. And we need to create practical and commercially feasible technologies, build infrastructure and business models to harness smart renewable energy sources such as thermal solar power generation before it is to late. Carbon dioxide reduction will take care of itself and be little more than a footnote.

Report this

0 0

By: Pink Pig

Pink Pig — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:16:07 +0000

Jock:

Lastly, why do governments want to spend billions on a highly disputed hypothesis and faulty global circulation models (GCM’s)?

PP:

Because governments are run by politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers, who are always looking for a pretext to raise taxes and centralize control, since that is the source of their power and wealth. Science has nothing to do with it. Neither Gore nor Hansen has the standing to propose a hypothesis, and neither of them is interested in science per se. Gore is a lifelong politician, and Hansen is a lifelong bureaucrat.

I’m on the side of you and JoNova. Time is on our side, to coin a phrase. I suspect that within 10 years, the populace at large will look back and say to themselves, “Can you believe the number of idiots who fell for that tripe?” We probably can’t stop all the bleeding, but maybe we can make sure it is nonfatal.

I am a computer programmer by profession, and on one occasion in the late 90s, a friend of mine, who was in the money markets, prevailed on me to offer advice to a very wealthy friend of his who was being pressured by a company that wanted him to invest in stopping the Y2K “crisis”. I told him (in a conference call) that the Y2K threat was a load of crap, and that essentially everything that needed to be done for it had already been done 30 years earlier. The lawyers speaking for the company threatened to sue me. I didn’t care. I suppose if I had been cleverer, I could have made money betting against the Y2K crisis, but that sort of thing is not my bag. I don’t see much difference between Y2K and AGW, except that Y2K had a definite drop-dead date.

Report this

1 0

By: Retired U.S. Navy Fighter Jock

Retired U.S. Navy Fighter Jock — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:54:32 +0000

You give AGW hysteria too much credit. The scientific method consists of three steps. Stage 1 is the hypothesis stage, wherein an observation or evidence leads a scientist to formulate a hypothesis. His/her peers now critique the hypothesis and attempt to falsify it. If unable to falsify the hypothesis over a period of time, the hypothesis becomes a theory and enters into Stage 2. In the theory stage, additional investigation, experimentation, and attempts to discredit are conducted. When a consensus of scientists were praising Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, he informed them that consensus meant nothing and it would only take one to disprove his theory. Having endured the first two stages of the scientific method over a perior of time, the original hypothesis becomes a physical law; i.e., E=mc2.

There are now over 80,000 qualified and noted scientists who are shooting a million holes in the Gore/Hansen hypothesis that CO2 drives global warming that it is a disgrace to even call the Gore/Hansen opinion a hyhpothesis. It never reached the theory level and will never will become a physical law.

Lastly, why do governments want to spend billions on a highly disputed hypothesis and faulty global circulation models (GCM’s)?

Retired U.S. Navy Fighter Jock
Vancouver, WA, USA

Well said. Thanks. JoNova

Report this

1 0