Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:WUWT (Score 1) 441

by bane2571 (#47348169) Attached to: Researchers Claim Wind Turbine Energy Payback In Less Than a Year
I'm willing to accept the 35% on face value as it is referenced. I still can't find what the total GW cost of each turbine is according to the paper, nor any method for calculating it.

The main claim the media is making about the paper is the energy return, but that seems to be a very minor aside as opposed to the full environmental impact the paper is actually discussing.

Comment: Re:WUWT (Score 2) 441

by bane2571 (#47347603) Attached to: Researchers Claim Wind Turbine Energy Payback In Less Than a Year
I've just spent my lunch break reading this paper, and I like what he's done as far as calculating the environmental impact. I don't think I've ever seen something like this and wish more was published in the media.

I suck at reading scientific literature though so I can't find where he defined the total energy cost of the wind generators. Could you please tell me which page it's on? I'm looking for the GW number that was used to compare with your quoted GWh number to give a payback time.

Comment: Re:You know ... (Score 1) 358

by bane2571 (#47311511) Attached to: Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones
I've heard mention multiple times of studies that state driving on a cell phone is more dangerous from a drive competence point of view than driving while under the effects of alcohol,

Now I don't have any facts to back that up and I assume that is low range DUI rather than high end but it definitely rings true for me. This is not an endorsement for pushing the limits on drunk driving by the way, as a non driver I strongly believe everyone should operate any kind of vehicle only while stone cold sober.

Comment: Re:Haha, nobody will do this. (Score 1) 208

by bane2571 (#47311061) Attached to: The Simultaneous Rise and Decline of <em>Battlefield</em>
Unfortunately that is not the case, The computer gaming demographic may have shifted somewhat in recent years but it's still approximately a window of 5-10 years. In such a small window you can keep making the same mistakes and people that get sick of it are going to be leaving out the top of the age range anyway. There will always be new, young audiences that come in at the bottom.

Best case scenario is you draw a line for yourself and live happy ignoring companies that aren't doing what you want. The overall landscape of the world won't change but you only need to see the parts you like.

Comment: Re:Obama's police state? (Score 1) 272

by bane2571 (#47176861) Attached to: US Marshals Seize Police Stingray Records To Keep Them From the ACLU
Jack booted thugs don't think they are Jack Booted thugs, They're having too much fun wearing cool looking boots.

One of the first mistakes people make is to assume everyone has the same moral code as them and they are then confused when people act against that code. The Jack booted thugs of the world are operating on a completely different level than you and I.

Comment: Re:I gotta better name (Score 3, Insightful) 568

You've missed his main point though: in a price driven world, cheaper things have a cheaper cost because they require less resource input. His example may be extreme in it's impact but the general fact is that everything you do is going to have an environmental impact and without being sure of the actual total life cost of a product most people are very likely to make incorrect assumptions about what is "better" for the environment.

Comment: Re: Why? (Score 1) 269

by bane2571 (#46291943) Attached to: Asia's Richest Man Is Betting Big On Silicon Valley's Fake Eggs
Because according to the article the fake egges are cheaper to produce, healthier and actually taste better. Now that all may be marketing BS for a new product but if true is a perfect justification for the things to me.

Also, egg allergy is a thing so if you are manufacturing the eggs you might even be able to do something to remove the allergenic portion, which would be nice.

Comment: Re:There is no uncertainty (Score 1) 249

by bane2571 (#45852253) Attached to: Reducing Climate Change Uncertainty By Figuring Out Clouds
A lot of the problem with the stories on global warming is that they respond immediately when warming indicators occur but rarely when cooling indicators do, they also rarely if ever publish the later corrections when mistakes are made.

The image that got me thinking the most is this comparison of climate models to reality; the dots and squares are reality: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means11.png?w=640&h=480

Another good example is page 102 of: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf where recent observations are less than the majority of the models that are predicting extreme rise in temperature. That document is from the IPCC.

There are quotes from a climate scientist (sorry I'm not sure which) specifically stating that 17 years without a change in global temperature anomaly would indicate that the models are wrong. We've had 17 years of no change: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1997

Comment: Re:Fuck religion. (Score 1) 903

by bane2571 (#45843197) Attached to: US Justice Blocks Implementation of ACA Contraceptive Mandate
The thing is you are not paying to be insured against pregnancy, you're paying to be insured against medical conditions unspecified. As has already been said, your at risk of pregnancy women are also paying for your risk of prostate cancer.

You need to not look at it as what you are paying for that you don't need but what you are getting cheaper that other people don't need. I'd imagine that it evens out or even comes down favourably on the white middle class over 50 male side of things.

Comment: Re:There is no uncertainty (Score 0) 249

by bane2571 (#45842991) Attached to: Reducing Climate Change Uncertainty By Figuring Out Clouds
Greenhouse gases' actual impact on climate cannot be definitively shown and the climate sensitivity value is often revised - usually downward. Despite emitting HUGE quantities of C02 over the last 20 years, temperatures have not risen outside of quoted error ranges. 100 years ago, the prediction was for global COOLING, and the more recent (25 years) predictions of warming have been so badly wrong that they have need to be revised down every time they are republished.

When it comes to climate science, there is nothing but uncertainty and fanatically denying that just makes people more dismissive of lay person AGW supporters.

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...