RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.  THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.<br>
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added.  This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons. www.richplanet.net community built on miniBB / RICHPLANET.NET FORUM : WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
There is still no decision on whether new members will be added. This can only happen when suitable moderators are in place, who are not easy to find for obvious reasons.
/

ENVIRONMENT

 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  34  35  36  37  38  ...  96  97  »» 
dreamkatcher
Member
#526 | Posted: 10 Apr 2011 22:54
Reply 
Look............Is that a pig I see flying?
Starseed
Guest
#527 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 16:19
Reply 
Official: wind farms are totally useless

a new report on wind farms - perhaps the most damning I have ever read. What makes it even more significant is that it has been sponsored by an environmental charity. Normally the people most busily pushing these bird-chomping, bat-crunching, taxpayer-fleecing monstrosities
Starseed
Guest
#528 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 16:21
Reply 
University of East Anglia. They lost. We won

To its enormous credit the PCC stuck up for fair comment and freedom of speech. This is a massive victory not just for me and Telegraph blogs, but for bloggers everywhere – especially those doughty souls around the world who are battling against Establishment lies, bullying and cover ups to try to reveal the truth about the corrupt, mendacious Climate Change industry.
If it sounds like I'm overdoing it, consider this: the PCC's ruling must be among the first by any quasi-official body anywhere in the world to take the side of a Climate Change sceptic rather than that of the Warmist establishment. This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Now that ruling in full:


University of East Anglia v The Daily Telegraph
dreamkatcher
Member
#529 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 18:01 | Edited by: dreamkatcher
Reply 
Quote:

[b]They explained that Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews. They were concerned that a second blog post repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue,



Quote:
[b]The complainants emphasised that Professor Phil Jones and the other scientists discussed in the blog post had been cleared by a number of independent reviews.
[/b]

QUOTE:
The Commission emphasised that the articles in question were blog posts and were clearly identifiable as such to readers generally, as they were posited in the 'Telegraph Blogs' section of the website and written under the columnist's prominent by-line. The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist's own robust views of the matters in question.


1) Professor Phil Jones had been exonerated of any dishonesty or scientific malpractice by a series of reviews.
2) The complainants emphasised that Professor Phil Jones and the other scientists discussed in the blog post had been cleared by a number of independent reviews.

So far - ALL CLEARED BY A SERIES OF REVIEWS...... !!!!

3) They were concerned that a second blog post repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue,

then

4) the articles in question were blog posts and were clearly identifiable as such to readers generally, as they were posited in the 'Telegraph Blogs' section of the website and written under the columnist's prominent by-line.

5) The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist's own robust views of the matters in question.

Even though his accusations had been demonstrated as UNTRUE, he got away with lying because it was a blog !!

So Dellingpole gets praised for repeated accusations that had been demonstrated as untrue. ????

So YES, I criticise him. Anyone being fair minded would too.

Not something to be proud of.
Starseed
Guest
#530 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 18:25 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
These [/b]people had been exonerated & the Commission "emphasised that Professor Phil Jones and the other scientists discussed in the blog post had been cleared by a number of independent reviews."

You did not follow this story did you?

The committee's inquiry into the leak of private emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last November found no evidence to suggest that the hallowed peer review process had been subverted by Professor Jones, and no reason to question the scientific consensus that global warming is happening and that it is influenced by human activities.

However, the chairman of the committee, Phil Willis, said it was "reprehensible" that the UEA had refused to disclose information from within the CRU, a small unit of just three full-time scientists who had been inundated with dozens of Freedom of Information requests from climate sceptics.

-----------------------


Not guilty? My ARSE

Like the UK parliamentary committee, which issued a report claiming that Phil Jones and the CRU's scientific credibility remained intact after a rigorous one day hearing which featured no testimony from any skeptic or dissenting voice. After the release of the report, the committee stressed that the report did not address all of the issues raised by climategate and Phil Willis, the committee chairman admitted that the committee had rushed to put out a report before the British election.

Or the Oxburgh inquiry, chaired by Lord Ron Oxburgh, the UK Vice Chair of Globe International, an NGO-funded climate change legislation lobby group. The Oxburgh inquiry released a five page report after having reviewed 11 scientific papers unrelated to the climategate scandal that had been hand-picked by Phil Jones himself. It heard no testimony or evidence from anyone critical of the CRU. Unsurprisingly, it found the climategaters not guilty of academic misconduct.

Read it in full

============================

And here is James Corbett (As featured on the Starship)

[b]Climategate is Still the Issue


===========================

Once the Blogs have been silenced - these forums will be next. What are you going to do then? This is quite a good result for JD.

dreamkatcher:
I think its another way of saying that journalists/media get away with lying.

I think if you DISagree with that you are on the wrong forum?

dreamkatcher:
The scientists you praise so highly as being the only ones with "truth & proof" or the journalists/media you think are wonderful?

Will you ever understand the difference between the Scientific approach as opposed to scientists? THE APPROACH - the Scientific method I don`t care who proves what, as long as it is reviewed (properly not like the NWO climate lakky Jones) - repeated, Tested , controlled conditions... etc. etc. look it up for once. Anecdotal 'evidence' - hearsay - myth - IS NOT the same.

====================

Starseed:
This is a massive victory not just for me and Telegraph blogs, but for bloggers everywhere – especially those doughty souls around the world who are battling against Establishment lies, bullying and cover ups to try to reveal the truth about the corrupt, mendacious Climate Change industry.

You have a problem with my quote from the article?
dreamkatcher
Member
#531 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 18:54
Reply 
Yes, but Im bored with this one now - you know like you do to us.....

I stand by what I said.

Discussion over
Starseed
Guest
#532 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 19:08 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
Yes, but Im bored with this one now - you know like you do to us.....

I stand by what I said.

After so many contradictions in one post it`s best to leave this one alone, possibly delete your post before anyone else reads it actually?
dreamkatcher
Member
#533 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 23:21
Reply 
Read the words I actually cut & paste from that blog. It was fact.
Starseed
Guest
#534 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 23:28 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
dreamkatcher:
Read the words I actually cut & paste from that blog. It was fact.

"Fact?" You just slagged off Delinpoles Blog! Then you refer to his blog as 'fact' ?!

FACT - first time that`s appeared in any of your posts LOL - either way - you are red faced on this one regardless of the facts that came back to bite you.
Unless you disagree with all of the above ?

#530 | Posted: 11 Apr 2011 18:25 |

Personally I like Corbett and his reporting - as does the Starship. Send him an email - or Alex Jones - they might even read it?

What was that again...? Oh yes - discussion over
dreamkatcher
Member
#535 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 00:25
Reply 
I did NOT slag off Delingpole, I quoted how unfair those scientists had been CLEARED, & he was quoted as telling untruths. He got away with it because it was a blog ! Its either truth or lies.

I never mentioned Corbett, YOU DID. Get your facts right.



Starseed
Guest
#536 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 07:07
Reply 
Point is - and you should know this, is that the reviews were a joke (if you read what went on) The whole thing was a deliberate cover up to keep the public believing the same lies and on track with the AGW agenda.

Delingpole and a few others are battling daily msm propaganda and whatever he says (like whatever Richard says in his abrasive news items) serves to bring to the public attention some of the truth.
dreamkatcher
Member
#537 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 08:00
Reply 
My point is......... whatever I believe, they were cleared, he wasnt.

Comes down to scientific -v- media. Who would the public trust?

eg. Fukushima ? Who is telling the truth? Scientists saying its safe OR the media who say its not ?
dreamkatcher
Member
#538 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 09:01
Reply 
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/science/plastic--oil-the-valueof-plastic-g arbage.html

Awesome Solution to the Plastic Problem

Pastic to Oil - Fantastic
by Carol Smith
August 27, 2010

Many think that this type of recycling is not a solution, but that instead the world should be seriously focused on the first "R" — which is reduce. We should shun single-use plastic (such as your average PET bottle or disposable container) altogether, they argue. The world's oil resources are diminishing; does technology like this enable our denial of that fact, or is it a hopeful and constructive step in the right direction?

Others have concerns about pollution or toxic residue from the conversion process. Blest tells us that, if the proper materials are fed into the machine (i.e., polyethylene, polystyrene and polypropylene — PP, PE, PS plastics), there is no toxic substance produced and any residue can be disposed of with regular burnable garbage. They also explain that while methane, ethane, propane and butane gasses are released in the process, the machine is equipped with an off-gas filter that disintegrates these gases into water and carbon.

Lastly, commenters from around the world are anxious to know if and where they can purchase a machine. Though the company still mainly produces larger, industrial-use machines, Blest Co. will be more than happy to hear from you. Please contact them directly at info@blest.co.jp.

==

Below is the original article, published on April 14, 2009.

We are all well aware of plastic's "rap-sheet." It has been found guilty on many counts, including the way its production and disposal raises resource issues and lets loose extremely negative environmental impacts.

Typically made from petroleum, it is estimated that 7% of the world's annual oil production is used to produce and manufacture plastic. That is more than the oil consumed by the entire African continent.

Plastic's carbon footprint includes landfilling and incineration, since sadly, its recycle rate is dismally low around the globe.
Plastic trash is also polluting our oceans and washing up on beaches around the world. Tons of plastic from the US and Japan are floating in the Pacific Ocean, killing mammals and birds. Perhaps this tragedy is best captured in the TED presentation by Capt. Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation.

Using less, or use it better?

Thankfully, there are those who fully appreciate that plastic has a higher energy value than anything else commonly found in the waste stream. A Japanese company called Blest created a small, very safe and easy to use machine that can convert several types of plastic back into oil.

"If we burn the plastic, we generate toxins and a large amount of CO2. If we convert it into oil, we save CO2 and at the same time increase people's awareness about the value of plastic garbage."
—Akinori Ito, CEO of Blest.

Though Japan has much improved its "effective utilization" rate over the years to 72% in 2006, that leaves 28% of plastic to be buried in landfills or burned. According to Plastic Waste Management Institute data, "effective utilization" includes not just the 20% that is actually recycled, but also 52% that is being incinerated for "energy recovery" purposes, i.e., generating heat or electric power.

"If we burn the plastic, we generate toxins and a large amount of CO2. If we convert it into oil, we save CO2 and at the same time increase people's awareness about the value of plastic garbage," says Akinori Ito, CEO of Blest.

Blest's conversion technology is very safe because it uses a temperature controlling electric heater rather than flame. The machines are able to process polyethylene, polystyrene and polypropylene but not PET bottles. The result is a crude gas that can fuel things like generators or stoves and, when refined, can even be pumped into a car, a boat or motorbike. One kilogram of plastic produces almost one liter of oil. To convert that amount takes about 1 kwh of electricity, which is approximately ¥20 or 20 cents' worth.

The company makes the machines in various sizes and has 60 in place at farms, fisheries and small factories in Japan and several abroad.

"To make a machine that anyone can use is my dream," Ito says. "The home is the oil field of the future."
Perhaps that statement is not as crazy as it sounds, since the makeup of Japanese household waste has been found to contain over 30 % plastic, most of it from packaging.

Sources: Kohei Watanabe, Reference material provided for the talk, "Waste and Sustainable Consumption", Capability and Sustainability Centre, St Edmund's College Cambridge, March 2005; Association of Regional Planners and Architects, Detailed Sorting and Measuring of Household Waste, Kyoto 1998.

Continually honing their technology, the company is now able to sell the machines for less than before, and Ito hopes to achieve a product "that any one can buy." Currently the smallest version, shown in the videobrief, costs ¥950,000 (US $9,500). [Note of 30 November 2010: Blest informs us that, since we visited them last year, improvements have been made to the machine and the price is now ¥1,06o,000 (around US$12,700) without tax.]

Changing how we think

But it is the educational application of the small model of the machine that Ito is most passionate about. He's taken it on planes on many occasions as part of a project that began some years ago in the Marshall Islands. There he worked with local government and schools to teach people about recycling culture and the value of discarded plastic, spreading the Japanese concept of mottainai, the idea that waste is sad and regrettable.

In such remote places, the machine also serves as a practical solution to the plastic problem, much of it left behind by tourists: the oil produced is used for tour buses or boats, Ito says.

Plastic's carbon footprint includes landfilling and incineration, since sadly, its recycle rate is dismally low around the globe.
"Teaching this at schools is the most important work that I do," Ito reflects. In Japan too, he visits schools where he shows children, teachers and parents how to convert the packaging and drinking straws leftover from lunch.

If we were to use only the world's plastic waste rather than oil from oil fields, CO2 emissions could be slashed dramatically, he says. "It's a waste isn't it?" Ito asks. "This plastic is every where in the world, and everyone throws it away."

A mountain to climb down

The wonderful invention of plastics has spawned a huge problem that we are struggling to solve. With peak oil looming, things are set to change, but we find ourselves on top of an oil and plastic mountain, and the only way forward is down.

So while many solutions like this are not without hiccups or detractors, they are a step forward in coming to terms with our oil and plastics dependence and help raise awareness of the carbon footprint of its production and use. Somehow we all know that plastics is a habit we need to kick. But that doesn't seem to make it any easier.

Perhaps the best thing you can do is to look more deeply into this issue. A good place to start is the 2008 Addicted to Plastic documentary from Cryptic Moth productions. You can watch the trailer online and maybe request it at your local video rental store.

According to the blurb, "the film details plastic's path over the last 100 years and provides a wealth of expert interviews on practical and cutting edge solutions to recycling, toxicity and biodegradability."

Next it is just a matter of taking action to break our love affair with plastic.

For more Science videos, click here
quark1
Member
#539 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 19:36 | Edited by: quark1
Reply 
This is a maritme nation and as such 'should' be sufficient iodine via fish etc - Lidl are selling Iodine Salt for the mere sum of 15p for 500g - it would not be stupid to 'indulge' this additive in view of the recent fallout from Fukishima (god rest their souls)?

You won't taste the difference on your fish 'n chips!

Safety first - unless this is another false flag?!
Starseed
Guest
#540 | Posted: 12 Apr 2011 20:34 | Edited by: Starseed
Reply 
quark1:
unless this is another false flag?!

Nail - Head ? (good observation) We shall see...

In the meantime - Tin hats on and head to the bunkers.
 Page:  ««  1  2  ...  34  35  36  37  38  ...  96  97  »» 
Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Image Link  URL Link 

   
» Username  » Password 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please enter your login/password details upon posting a message, or sign up first
TO JOIN THIS FORUM: WE ARE NOT ADMITTING NEW MEMBERS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THIS IS DUE TO PREVIOUS TROLLS ATTACKING THE FORUM.
We may be considering adding new members on a "block basis". We will collect new member requests and then introduce a new batch. The new memebrs will be identifiable by a prefix in their username as a "new member". Anyone considered to be trolling or causing trouble will be immedialtey removed. To be put on the list please email richard@richplanet.net AND GIVE YOUR US NAME, A USERNAME, PASSWORD. I would imagine a new batch of new members will be added in January 2012.
 

Forums are powered by miniBB®