Solar flare threatens to disrupt Earth's communications and power

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:21:48 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice
wrote:

This true but only cover 0.1% of the land area and you still have
45.2 Terra Watts. Total UK energy demand (electricity, gas, oil,
everything else etc) is reckoned to be only 0.3 Terra Watts. UK
electricity only, peak, mid winter, is about 0.06 Terra Watts.

Oh dear, there are still people in this thread who are mixing up
power and energy, which is hardly a clever basis on which to argue.
Not just your good self though...

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:14:26 +0100, SpamTrapSeeSig
wrote:

To continue to promote resource-guzzling technologies such as
photovoltaic generation, 'low-energy' lightbulbs, and electric vehicles,
is in essence lying to a gullible public, on the 'spend-now-pay-later'
principle. Yet, if we only remain on this planet, we simply will not be
able to pay.

Do you ever see this intelligently debated in the mass media?

Of course not, much like the problem of global over-population.
That is the root cause of almost every current woe and it is only
going to get worse.
It needs to be tackled, sooner rather than later, but no-one seems
to want to. The planet will force us into doing it ourselves in a very
nasty way if we don't have it forced on us by governments in a less
nasty way.
Discussing anything else is utterly pointless as it is merely delaying
the inevitable.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 19:40:55 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
wrote:

snip

Of course not, much like the problem of global over-population.
That is the root cause of almost every current woe and it is only
going to get worse.
It needs to be tackled, sooner rather than later, but no-one seems
to want to. The planet will force us into doing it ourselves in a very
nasty way if we don't have it forced on us by governments in a less
nasty way.
Discussing anything else is utterly pointless as it is merely delaying
the inevitable.

The governments of countries whose majority populations endure a
subsistence lifestyle look at the affluence of the "developed" nations
and want a piece of the action. Shelter from the elements, warmth,
light, food, good health and the attendant life expectancy without
backbreaking daily grind - who would not want this, given a chance?
However, the planet cannot possibly sustain "developed country"
lifestyles for the whole of the global population. When the
"developed" countries point this out, it is perceived as the haves
telling the have-nots that they must remain where they are.
Unsurprisingly, this causes massive resentment amongst the have-nots,
especially so when there is the undertone of "and stop having children
as well."

If we really wish to create a more egalitarian global society, that is
one in which the difference in living conditions between the poorest
and the richest is less than it is now, it follows that a
levelling-to-somewhere-in-the-the-middle process is required. This
runs counter to the self-interest of the politicians of the
"developed" countries who are cute enough to realise that it is
electoral suicide to point any of this out.

On Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 19:40:55h +0000, Paul Ratcliffe expounded:

Of course not, much like the problem of global over-population. That is
the root cause of almost every current woe and it is only going to get
worse.

It needs to be tackled, sooner rather than later, but no-one seems to
want to.

You have overlooked the fact that the groups who engage in ethnic
cleansing are tackling this problem.

Should General Ratko Mladic be given a medal rather than be put on
trial for reducing the excess population?

Should efforts into finding cures and for containing the spread thereof
of Ebola, HIV, H1N1 be halted in order to allow these diseases free reign
to reduce the excess population?

Should the compulsory one child policy of the People's Republic
of China be held up as the model of "sensible" government?

Was Pol Pot the greatest Cambodian who ever lived because he reduced
the population of Cambodia by millions?

Repeat this question for Mao and Stalin who reduced world population
somewhere in the region of 70 - 100 million?

Surely they must be the heroes of the 20th Century for their supreme
efforts in reducing excess population?

Since you do not think they did such a good job at tackling the
overpopulation, how many people do you think they should have had
killed?

In the noble name of reducing world excess population which you clearly
espouse, would you care to volunteer to have your life terminated tomorrow?

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 17:13:53 +0000 (UTC)
J G Miller wrote:

On Thursday, June 9th, 2011 at 15:08:10h +0100, Davey wrote:

I would like the see the sun as well as the underside of a cell.

How about putting some of those panels in space positioned such that
they do not block the sun rays heading to earth?

Very long power cords would be needed though.

PS Have you booked your ticket on the next NASA flight to Mars
in November?

http://www.dawn.COM/2011/04/04/after-delay-nasa-preparing-mars-rover-for-launch.html

If this flight is delayed, it will be another 2 years before they can
try to launch again, because of the orbital paths.

No, I have already owned a Rover, so don't need to ride another one!
--
Davey.

"Rick" wrote:
It seems that a bigger potential asset may well, post oil, turn out to be
the desert itself, problem is that such a huge investment would require an
'absolute' guarantee of long term political stability in the region.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,764877,00.html


So the answer is to invade the region, and re-colonise it.

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

Do you ever see this intelligently debated in the mass media?

Of course not, much like the problem of global over-population.
That is the root cause of almost every current woe and it is only
going to get worse.
It needs to be tackled, sooner rather than later, but no-one seems
to want to.

A fair way to control population is to stop
suppressing influenza. Stop making flu vaccines
and stop killing infected animals.
..
..
--

Davey wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
PS Have you booked your ticket on the next NASA flight to Mars
in November?
http://www.dawn.COM/2011/04/04/after-delay-nasa-preparing-mars-rover-for-launch.html
If this flight is delayed, it will be another 2 years before they can
try to launch again, because of the orbital paths.


No, I have already owned a Rover, so don't need to ride another one!


A Rover? Nothing is more fun than a Beagle 2 ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_2

"lessgovt" wrote in message
...
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

Do you ever see this intelligently debated in the mass media?

Of course not, much like the problem of global over-population.
That is the root cause of almost every current woe and it is only
going to get worse.
It needs to be tackled, sooner rather than later, but no-one seems
to want to.

A fair way to control population is to stop
suppressing influenza. Stop making flu vaccines
and stop killing infected animals.
.
.
--

I think it was an American politician who said something along the lines of,
'that maybe we spend far too much time trying to legislate against Darwinism
for our own good'..

In article , Rick wrote:


I think it was an American politician who said something along the lines of,
'that maybe we spend far too much time trying to legislate against Darwinism
for our own good'..

Yes, American politicians are known for their stupidity.

-- Richard