03/16/2010 12:18:58 PM EST

KenTX \ Rockulus Debate

posted by MRFred

The challenge has been delivered. Who will back out and who will man up and debate?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Rockulus has challenged KenTX ( subject of the kenTX Boycott) to a debate. Twice Four times KenTx has declined or ignored a challenge from Rockulus.  perhaps thats because the subject doesn't suit KenTX tastes .That is odd considering his oft stated purpose for participation on the TYT Forum.

These are KenTX quotes in regard to debate:

---"I enjoy debating politics with liberals, and that's why I'm here. (On the other hand, I do not enjoy trading personal insults. It's annoying, distracting, and a complete waste of my time. It's bad karma all around.)"

---"All exchanges between liberals and conservatives in the TYT forum should sound like this  polite and friendly conversation ( between O'Reilly and Stewart.)"

 

---What I do believe in is avoiding hypocricy(sic).

The new challenge is simple; Rockulus and KenTX will debate the following point:

 

   The global warming controversy is in dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include:

  • the causes of increased global average air temperature, since the mid-20th century,
  • Is the warming trend unprecedented or within normal climatic variations,
  • Has humankind has contributed significantly to warming.
  • Is the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements.
  • what the consequences of global warming will be.

We chose global warming because Ken TX claims considerable expertise in the subject. We wouldn't want him to be at a disadvantage.

Rules

Nether participant had input to the rules or to the selection of the subject or to the timing of the debate challenge.

 

1.Each debater should make an opening statement in the thread provided below.  : KenTX in the negative Rockulus in the affirmative.Each should adress the keypoints in the question.

2. Rebuttals and counter rebuttals should be made in the separate thread provided.

3.  All citations of fact or claims of expertise must be documented with a valid URL or document available on the web. Please cite the paragraph ( simple count) or quote from the article or website.

4. Opinion citations, ie quotes from opinion pieces must be documented by a separate URL as if the debater cited them himself.

5. Questioning sources  validity as "liberal or conservative" must be documented. 

6. Sources accuracy may be questioned by citing errors in their assertions along with proof. 

7. Scoring. A "minus" point will be awarded for violations of the rules.

8 The debate period will be 96 ( 4 days) hours form the Post date of this blog.

 9. The Winner will be decided by the least negative points awarded + a popular vote in a follow up poll attached to this blog after the 96 hour debate window closes.

We ask that Forum participants comment and respond to the debate on the Comment thread. Neither debater is obliged to answer or engage other participants.

 

 SEND KENTX A MESSAGE. WHERE'S THE DEBATE? BRING IT OR LEAVE! 

< To protest or not to protest... | Obama at the Bat >
 Display:
KenTX \ Rockulus Debate | 70 comments (70 topical, 0 hidden)
KenTX Opening Statement (none / 0)
Post below

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 12:19:48 PM EST

Rockulus Opening Statement (none / 0)
Post below

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 12:26:11 PM EST

Opening Statement (none / 1)

Claim:  There has never been any creature on the planet with the consumptive power of human beings.  We humans, thanks to our usage of tools and our dominance of the land, have left the biggest 'footprint' of our existence of any creature and thus, have the capability of causing the greatest impact (beneficial or otherwise) to the planet.

Support: There is extensive structural remains of most ancient civilizations, including China, Egypt, Greece, The Romans, hell even the Double Harbor of Carthage (which was utterly destroyed by the Romans) still endures.  I will gladly offer support for this, but I hope we don't have to debate on the existence of ruins from ancient civilizations.

Why do I start with this as my opening statement?

I choose to open with this because our consumption leads to waste and debris and it is my position that this waste and debris will be/is currently harming the planet.  It is a natural by-product of our way of life.  As Cpt Charles Moore says "Only we humans make waste that nature can't process."  This is critical

 We manipulate the environment (like all animals) to our benefit.  However, unlike other animals, we have the powerful tool of technology with which we sculpt the world.  

Roads girdle the globe; the construction of those roads requires man power, and tools and energy source.  As our ability to wield technology grows, so does our ability to affect change on a large scale.

Example 1:

We are seeing the impact of our plastic consumption in the North Pacific Gyre.  Here is Cpt Charles Moore talking about his experience in the gyre (he has led several expeditions

http://www.ted.com/talks/ca pt_charles_moore_on_the_sea s_of_plastic.html

additionally, here is support of Charles Moore's credentials and his claims.

<h3>"Why you should listen to him: </h3>

A yachting competition across the Pacific led veteran seafarer Charles Moore to discover what some have since deemed the world's largest "landfill" -- actually a huge water-bound swath of floating plastic garbage the size of two Texases. Trapped in an enormous slow whirlpool called the Pacific Gyre, a mostly stagnant, plankton-rich seascape spun of massive competing air currents, this Great Pacific Garbage Patch in some places outweighs even the surface waters' biomass six-to-one."

 This is also from www.TED.com

 

This is just one example of the footprint we leave on our planet that our planet is not equipped to deal with.  We create waste that our planet cannot break down; we synthesize chemical processes that do not naturally occur in nature (and therefore cannot be undone by nature).

These things are having a massive impact on the planet already, and we are only 160-200 years into the Industrial Age.  While people may debate about the 'warming' of the planet, they are ignoring something that is utterly irrefutable (although, this is supposed to be a debate, KenTX, so I hope you will try), The waste of man is already affecting the environment of the planet negatively.  Global warming, climate change.  Call it what you like.  It's the by-product of pollution, consumption and negligence coupled with a lack of a sense of responsibility and it can be measured.

 

Thank you.

 

-CMN


by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 03:38:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Debate rebuttals ( KenTX Rockulus only) (none / 0)
post below

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 12:26:37 PM EST

TYT Forum Comment Thread (none / 0)
post below

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 12:26:59 PM EST

uh oh! (none / 0)

by chrisandyasemin on 03/16/2010 12:42:21 PM EST

Any bets who shows up... (none / 0)

Since KenCryBabyTX has already accused Rock of being my "sockpuppet" I doubt he will have the nerve to participate in a real debate ...just some insults, straw men named AL Hominem ect.

 

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 01:20:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0)

Debate is not in the interest of the right wing, because their views are representative of the rich minority, which always leads to them looking bad in serious debates.

 

This is an excellent way of exposing his rhetorical cowardice though.. Well done, either way!

by icarrion on 03/16/2010 01:27:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As expected (none / 0)

As you can see Mr Debate is fabricating excuses to avoid what he claims is his purpose here at TYT.

He is right about one thing though , everything is bigger in Texas, bullshit and chickens.

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 09:16:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Meanwhile at Kens "Ranch" (none / 0)

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 09:23:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Alright! (none / 0)
"Cry HAVOC! and let slip the dogs of war!"

by icarrion on 03/16/2010 12:45:45 PM EST

Where's Ken? (none / 0)

Larry,

 

I agree with you.  

Ken doesn't stand a chance.  

and for the record, i have challenged him to a debate on 4 occasions over the span of a few days.

When you see him, tell him I say hi.

by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 02:02:13 PM EST

MrFred must be psychic (none / 0)
he predicted that ken the troll  who is " here to debate liberals"  would not debate  and toss out  insults

"like "96 hours? You have that long? Day pass from Nurse Ratched?

Debating a sockpuppet. You are a fucking joke. KenTx will not have any chance with the pro-socialist bias of this group of America haters."

the boycott is working great for me

I never click on threads started by trolls anymore

 


by Chinese Democracy on 03/16/2010 02:56:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
asshole ability to read and comprehend watch (none / 0)
I never click on threads started by trolls ANYMORE


by Chinese Democracy on 03/16/2010 09:49:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
re (none / 0)
Perhaps Ken just needs more time to jot down some notes on his hand? Then again maybe he is unsure as to what a debate is, I heard they removed it from the textbooks there. :P

by Tony227 on 03/16/2010 09:46:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Irrelevance 101 (none / 0)

Ken is now using the boycott as an excuse to avoid the debate.

Rockulus is not a participant in the boycott. The boycott is irrelevant in whether or not Ken practices what he preaches and debates Rockulus.More subterfuge and distractions

I have no need to debate Ken, again. 

My scalp belt is full.

Furthermore Ken now claims the Rockulus is my sock puppet. Another lie and excuse.

Now you now why we continue boycott the troll.

 

by MRFred on 03/16/2010 10:04:39 PM EST

Okay, (none / 0)

I am going to say this for you nice and slow.

I, Chris Novembrino (of 'David Duke Cock' - song fame) am not now, nor have I ever been either:

1) Mr. Fred (though he is a terribly nice guy).

or

2) a member of this boycott against you. 

So, your point is irrelevant because I challenged you to a debate representing myself and no one else.  

Interesting sidenote, you've posted your tripe everywhere but in that thread labeled 'KenTX Opening Statement.'  Why don't you get something up there, would ya?

As I have said to you before, don't sing it, bring it.

 

by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 11:11:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yup. (none / 0)
they do.

by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 11:36:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's really great... (none / 0)

and by great, I mean inaccurate. 

and really fascinating, and by fascinating, I mean droll. 

I will let others do their research about UNT.  It was an alright school, though I greatly preferred my time at UMASS.

But, now that you've lost the 'Rockulus is Mr.Fred debate' (whoops!), care to make it 0-2 in your official debate record against me?

because I've just went up 1-0 on you.

At this point, I await your opening statement.

Good Luck.

yr pal,

Rocky.

 

by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 11:48:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As you can see Rock (none / 0)

You have now that you have exposed his " sock puppet " ruse to avoid debate he is now your "buddy", posting irrelevant nonsense to divert attention from the task at hand. Keep in mind that if Ken's sock puppet count was accurate there would only be two participants at TYT, Ken and myself.

Unfortunately he also uses sockpuppet attacks to extract personal information for his opponents. Hewill use that information to find more personal data on you to create "connections" Like this one used on ProfRich

---"We have a lot in common. Our only real difference is the team we cheer for in politics. Rich doesn't realize it, but when he was in college, he used to frequently serve barbecue to me and clients from 3M at a place on the Colorado River."

Please note that his "friends" are subjected to the same dishonest behavior in his threads. He will spew some slightly less venomous insults, claim victory then disappear. 

 ---"Liberals like ProfRich and desertpair and ihavenofuckingclue are complete imbeciles on the subject of energy. What I mean by that is that these three individuals are totally mentally retarded when it comes to issues such as producing oil or converting energy from one form to another. And yet they continue talking about energy, as if they have something worthwhile to say on the subject."

In a later thread he will claim that it was all a joke.

Pathetic, and another reason the boycott continues to grow. His lively debates are limited to a very small circle of users. If the debate was a failure, it would be of no consequence and not worth insisting an official end be declared.

Why would anyone go to all of this trouble is the question?

The answer is very simple, he hates everyone who doesn't share his perverse personal values.

Misery loves company

 

by MRFred on 03/17/2010 09:46:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Debate Ken, it seems the boycott's over.... (none / 0)
Not to punch holes in the claim, but there is a difference between having an environmental impact and causing global warming.  I thought the debate was about global warming, not pollution.  Since man only creates 15% of the CO2 produced in any given year, good luck with that one.  If humans stopped producing CO2 tomorrow it would only change the cycle by 15%, thus slowing it down, what 15 years in a hundred.  All of the cap and trade schemes seek to limit production and try to reverse it, but nothing actually takes CO2 out of the air.  Voodoo science.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/16/2010 10:24:06 PM EST

where did you get your info? (none / 0)
Beck or Hannity


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 12:35:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do a bit of research and you will find out... (none / 1)

Most CO2 comes from the ocean, then it comes from the warming trend in the tundra areas, decay of plants naturally and finally human activity.

http://www.personal.psu.edu /jam5646/edg100/project2.ht ml

 Chart of Carbon Production

The great discussion is that human activity is upsetting the natural balance.  And if we only reduce our activities by 50% we will restore the natural balance.

http://www.drroyspencer.com /2009/01/increasing-atmosph eric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or -natural/

Let's say we do, the temperatures will still be increasing.  It's a feed back loop that started a long time ago, well before the 150 year hockey stick.  Yes, human activity is causing more CO2, but destroying our economy to buy 15 years is stupid.

Instead we should look for ways to naturally remove CO2 from the atmosphere. One thing is for sure, China and India are not going to reduce their emissions, punishing western consumers and businesses will only lead to more economic dislocation.

Planting a billion trees will create a natural sink for CO2.  Oil use will begin declining in the next 10 years as oil prices begin to double due to demand and supply restrictions.  Encourage conversion of cars to natural gas.  And even after all of that, the earth will still get hotter.

It is a natural evolutionary cycle.  The weatherman is only 50% right in most cases.  Could it be that he is only 50% right when it comes to climate change.

For those with open minds, read this article "It's the ocean stupid.":

http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.h tml

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 01:53:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
For those with an open mind, (none / 0)

Try to find out anything AT ALL about the author of those article.  Mr. Gary Novak (Mushroom Biologist) this is from that website posted above.

Scientist

Several decades ago, I got a masters degree at the University of Arizona researching a yeast which adapted to growth on trees. I then studied for a year on a Ph.D. degree at the University of California at Davis. But mental pain caused by distracting environments drove me out.

I refer to myself as a scientist, even though I have a masters degree and not a Ph.D. degree, because I do what scientists are supposed to be doing,

 

Well, isn't that special.  For those with an open mind, consider the credibility of the speaker, and how 'mental pains' got in the way of his advanced education.

 

I couldn't find a peer-reviewed article by this guy either.

by Rockulus on 03/17/2010 02:46:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You attack the author. (none / 0)

Instead of proving his theory wrong, you simply attack his credentials.  He has a point.  Water stores heat better than air.  The earth's surface is mostly water.  Sunlight will heat the water, why is it heating it or how it is heating it is more important.

The whole notion that CO2 causes global warming is backwards.  Global warming causes more CO2.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 03:50:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Feed back loop! (none / 0)
Exactly, you have that feed back back loop since the start of weather. Let's consider it as a perpetuum mobile. It keeps on going and maybe even accelerates over time. That's the nature of this system. When you add input to a system like that, you increase the output, which increases the output...
There are causes we can do nothing about, those will feed back regardless what we do. Addin additional input is what makes it dangerous.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/17/2010 03:41:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, but reducing CO2 will do what? (none / 0)
If we slow down the production of CO2, it will only retard the process, not stop it or reverse it.  It's like someone with lung cancer deciding to quit smoking to extend their life a few more months.  In the end you die anyway.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 03:52:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"In the end you die anyway." (none / 0)
So, why do you care about anything?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/17/2010 05:58:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I look for solutions. (none / 0)

I am looking for solutions, not band aids.  All this cap and trade crap is a way for bankers to make money and people to feel good.  it doesn't solve the main problem which is global warming.

To solve global warming, well we need to shield the earth from the sun.  Any ideas?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 09:51:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Still (none / 0)
The first step has to be to change our life-style. That's what I hate about the global warming debate: It's not only the temperature that is effected. Air pollution also increases many diseases and harms eco-systems in other ways than just by increasing the temperature.

Shielding the earth from the sun might at some time become necessary, but it can also only be a band aid.

If we don't decrease the amount of waste and poisons that we produce it will always be like a guy getting a lipusection every year, so he doesn't have to take care of his diet.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/17/2010 10:26:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They seem to be missing the main point (none / 0)
It doesn't matter if the contribution of man-made CO2 is a small percentage of "natural" CO2.  The important aspect is that CO2 is naturally released and absorbed year by year, almost as though the world is breathing in and out annually, while that small human leak is additive.   It works like a small gas leak in your house.   It isn't a problem for several days,  you may not even notice it when you close the door and leave on vacation, but if the house stays closed it eventually goes BANG.   Now the climate won't just go bang on a human time scale, but on geological time scales a change of a few degrees in under one century is actually a pretty rapid explosion.

by bfaul on 03/17/2010 04:01:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Blast from the past (none / 0)

Some will recognize this rebuttal from 2+ years ago..he spewing the same old BS after being whacked like a cheap piñata numerous times

 -------

"There are a couple of facts we can be certain of"

These are "facts" that aren't relevant to the argument..just pointless spin:

"1. If every American started driving a Prius tomorrow, the net effect on man-made global CO2 generation would be insignificant."

A Prius, and especially the new plug in model reduces fuel consumption ( which does reduce carbon emissions) and dependency on petroleum based fuels are the number one reason people buy them, hence your ridicule.

"2. Environmentalists are not in favor of more nuclear power plants."

Some are , some aren't. A fallacious line of argument that assumes nuclear power plants are the only solution. A meaningless statement.

"3. Global cooling from diminished solar activity will render this entire discussion moot."

The global cooling you were referencing in the previous posts ( above) was in a discussion on aerosols in the atmosphere counterbalancing CO2 emissions heating effect, in another blog the "proof "  was due to orbital forcing or Milankovitch cycles. Now magically it's due to "diminished solar activity." Things are dimming alright...but its not the sun. At least in the next few thousand years anyway By the way,

"The next message will be flashed to you in code, by my brother-in-law, who was a radio operator 1963-1968."

Morse code communication is still practiced by our Russian and Chinese friends, who know that if the balloon goes up,HF and LF Morse is the most reliable form of long haul communications and will be around long after our satellites , cell phones and terrestrial coms are piles of fused plastic.

You really shouldn't make fun of things you don't understand."

by MRFred on 03/17/2010 06:18:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
"Things are dimming alright...but its not the sun"

You're probably not right on that one. Last year many sunspots were expected, but they didn't show. This is responsible for the current relatively hard winter, if the next years the occurance of sunspots doesn't rise it could once again mead to a "mini-ice-age". This has happened in Europe a few hundert years ago, with terrible consequences for about 30 years. This is what makes the problem worse. This lack of sun-spots is only a temporary incident, but it may lead to enormous cooling in the short term. Then when the sun-spot activity normalizes global warming will come back with a vengence.

The problem is that the temporal cooling will be used to discredit global warming. # cold winters in a row and everybody will laugh about global warming, without realizing that it was only masked by a temporal lack of sunspots.

I hate it that the discussion is nowadays mainly about global warming, without mentioning all the other problems pollution causes. Why is nobody talking about the astma and cancer cars cause in our cities?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 07:14:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ah, but you are being alarmist (none / 0)

It's not a few degrees every century, it's .5 degrees every century.  I believe the world can adapt to that.

Global warming might be bad for some, but it is good for others, namely the US, Europe and Russia/China.  Given that the bulk of economic activity occurs in these areas, global warming should be welcomed.  With longer growing seasons, these areas can produce more food and use less energy to heat their homes.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 09:32:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Estimates are considerably higher than that (none / 0)
Besides, when you look at the world wide retreat of high altitude glaciers in the last 40 years, the decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, the increased melting and acceleration of glacial ice in Greenland, the decreasing thickness and rapidly accelerating summer melting of the Arctic ice cap, the collapse of large ice shelves in the Antarctic and the corresponding acceleration of glaciers there and the decrease of overall mass of Antarctic ice I hardly think that anything I say is more alarmist than what is already being reported year by year.

by bfaul on 03/17/2010 11:20:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You can't be serious! (none / 0)
Global warming does not mean that the temperature climbs steadily .5 degrees every year. It also means that the weater in general becomes more extrem. You will have more hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.
Nobody is yet able to predict the consequences.

"Global warming might be bad for some, but it is good for others, namely the US, Europe and Russia/China.  Given that the bulk of economic activity occurs in these areas, global warming should be welcomed."

Let's use the allegory of the overeating guy again. If someone eats a lot of sugar that raises his blood sugar level and makes that person more active so this person becomes fitter. That's where your thought process ends when it comes to global warming. You just look at the short term benefit and ignore the long term consequences.

Keep thinking that everything is ok, as long as it doesn't negatively influence America in the next ten years. I wouldn't expect anything else from a typical American.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 07:21:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What's your point? (none / 0)

Greenhouse gases are a scam foisted upon the west to justify a new tax regime to transfer payments to the developing world and support US military imperialism.  Yes, the earth is slowly, I emphasize slowly warming up.  Do the math, .5 degrees every 100 years.  Further, we will run out of petroleum in less than 100 years.  Technology will continue to advance and alternative energies will be cheaper.

Larding up the economy with new taxes that don't generate tangible benefits is a non-starter.  How many more Americans do you want to see in the unemployment line?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/18/2010 10:20:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Greenhouse gases are a scam" (none / 0)
Any evidence for that?

" .5 degrees every 100 years."

Where did you get that number?

My point is still that pollution is bad.
If you want to deny that please go into your garage and close all doors and let your engine run for a few hours. Can't do any harm, can it?
If you don't deny that pollution is bad than give some solutions about how to minimize pollution. Doctoring the symptoms without adressing the causes will not help in the long run.

"Larding up the economy with new taxes that don't generate tangible benefits is a non-starter."

If people switch to electric cars and public transportation faster than slower that will save thousands of people in big cities from dying of cancer or asthma. To me this sounds like a benefit, but that's only me. Who cares about people dying, as long as it isn't you, right?
If the revenue of that tax is invested in green enrgy applications and research, it will create many jobs and make America more competitive.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 10:34:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Focus (none / 0)

CO2 is not and never will be pollution.  It is a vital chemical needed by plants for the purpose of breathing.  CO2 in O2 out.  If it were pollution then everyone on the planet would need to pay a breathing tax.

Higher CO2 levels are good for plant growth.  In fact let's double the CO2 in the atmosphere and watch out plants become ever greener and hardier.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/18/2010 11:51:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Come on (none / 0)
The dose makes the poison!

Of Course CO2 is necessary, but currently it plays an important part in climate change. It is one of many factors, but it adds to the positive feedback.
Plants can only use a certain amount of CO2, they don't become greener the more CO" they get.
Humans on the other hand can suffer from CO2 poisoning. And CO2 plays an important role in the growing asthma and cancer rates.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/19/2010 01:40:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Do your homework (none / 0)

Higher CO2 levels increase yields, I'm a farmer I should know.

Large-Scale Greenhouses Attached to Power Plants for the Productive Use of Waste Heat and CO2 emissions
In the United States, there are approximately 800 large power plants that burn natural gas or coal. Power plants are usually situated
away from population centers because of cost of land, pollution, noise and aesthetic. The area surrounding a large power plant often
consists of substantial buffer land to separate the plant from housing developments. Power plants typically need to be located near
water sources to facilitate plant cooling requirements. Currently, there are not enough industrial customers that can use the low-
temperature waste heat from most power plants. The efficiency of power plants in converting thermal energy to electricity is less than
50%. Therefore, for each 1MW of power output another 1MW of thermal power is wasted to the environment. This represents waste
on a grand scale.
We believe that the large quantities of low-temperature waste heat from power plants can be used in large-scale greenhouses that
are integrated with the cooling systems of power plants. Furthermore, we propose to use the emissions from large power plants as a
source of CO2 for large-scale commercial greenhouses, boosting productivity and quality of high-value crops such as vegetables and
flowers. The specific aim of this plan is to develop a prototype pilot for interfacing a power plant and a greenhouse. The pilot project
will be used to demonstrate the potential of this concept, as well as allowing novel investigations into fundamental engineering
processes relevant to clean energy technologies, environmental science and plant metabolism. The pilot program will use the waste
heat and emissions from a natural gas combined cycle power plant. Calpine Corporation, a power company that operates
nationwide 89 power plants is a strategic partner for this venture. Calpine is providing now in-kind engineering support.
Large-scale greenhouses operating in the vicinity of power plants will substantially increase revenues of power companies through
sale of waste heat and emission gases and increase the commercial value of land surrounding the power plants that is now unused.
Greenhouses will be leased, rented or sold to growers. The agricultural output from the greenhouses is expected to replace a
substantial portion of the currently imported high-value greenhouse vegetable crops.

http://docs.google.com/view er?a=v&q=cache:7uyHQ87m gb0J:alamaro.home.comcast.n et/~alamaro/GreenhouseConce pt.pdf+waste+co2+power+plan ts+greenhouse&hl=en& ;gl=vn&pid=bl&srcid =ADGEESgz8Iyys5zcNSsw5VCCjj ocTsB6r_ON9ZYvQ1qnoZb37tGS4 eydGdWkFHIaB_INQ3xtk3M_Z-TY LhErw1ECFP5xiwY_za-RzLipC0l CdqcZ2xPNPK8IxH3MCPrInlbVsB RkS_Cs&sig=AHIEtbRnuZ06 az9iqMU91q9W1TbXeOzS8A

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/19/2010 10:23:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Not over (none / 1)
Kens claims to want to "debate" are over.

by MRFred on 03/17/2010 10:04:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you sure? (none / 0)

Because my opening statement has been up all day, friend.

C'mon Ken, you got your snarky comments up before you could get your opening statement up.

In the future, this thread might be the only 'credibility check' anyone ever needs when dealing with you.

by Rockulus on 03/16/2010 10:26:02 PM EST

We don't always agree. (none / 0)
But I have no tolerance for politically correct speech.  Fire away Ken.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 12:06:38 AM EST

Yeah. (none / 0)

She is definitely hot.

Halle Berry 

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 01:19:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clever, but the timestamps (none / 0)
will give you away every time, ladies and gentlemen.  Greetings.

Many of you interacting with this thread may have already seen that Mr. Kenneth has already arranged a proposal for his own rule set for the debate suggested here.  However, one should be mindful of the inclusion of the judges' panel indicated. 

By viewing the member profiles alone of the users suggested, one might be inclined to believe that a 2-and-2 balance has been struck.  But not quite so.

Mr. Bobo1 and TWBA are clearly like-minded gentlemen who are often in alignment with Mr. Kenneth's mindset and statements/suggestions.&nbs p; The users hazmat and mcamelyne, not quite so much, seeming to come from the opposing direction.

However, at 12:06:38 (timestamp attached to comment), mcamelyne seems to have indicated here that he supports Mr. Kenneth and is eager to read his side of the debate. 

At 12:38:42, Mr. Kenneth puts forth his own proposed set of rules in a seperate thread, not even half an hour after receiving this 'go get 'em' from user mcamelyne. 

This, I believe, is not coincidence.  While bringing hazmat and mcamelyne to the judges' panel appears to be an act of balance and fairness, Mr. Kenneth already has the timestamped encouragement of one of these two judges, thus attempting to circumnavigate the original debate and 'play with a loaded deck', to use simple parlance. 

This is precisely the sort of subterfuge which leads to certain members of the forum, or of the outer community, lending no credibility to others.

by DrTrentHayes on 03/17/2010 02:04:35 AM EST

100 to 1 (none / 0)
Yes, I did see that.  I believe that's what's known as a majority, sir, a concept which individuals of the conservative and Republican party seem to be having some considerable trouble dealing with. 

Yourself, apparently, included.

In the case of this forum, Mr. Kenneth, I don't believe immersion therapy is going to work for you, though I would recommend it for any number of lesser phobias.  But this particular psychoanalytical treatment does not work for those individuals suffering from a persecution complex.

Good day, sir.

by DrTrentHayes on 03/17/2010 03:06:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
sock puppet bullshit (none / 0)

wow this sock puppet bullshit is getting really out of hand.  Frankly this is a big reason I stopped wasting my time here for most of last year.  Seriously this place reminds me of an elementary school playground sometimes. Can people please just grow the fuck up! 

I wish there was a way to show who was a paid member and at what level.   I know Ken and Fred are probably petty enough to buy extra memberships just to make their sock puppets seem more credible, but at least TYT would benefit and we'd have a better idea who were real posters.  Of course if we had mature adults participating in the forum none of this would be necessary. 

 

by alphasigmookie on 03/17/2010 11:09:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sockpuppet Bullshit indeed (none / 0)

Since you haven't been around you missed Kens sock puppets wishing for my early death due to my medical condition. Cancer is oh so hilarious.

The sock puppet problem could be solved simply by establishing and enforcing rules of conduct, appointing or hiring a proactive moderator, adding an ignore function and fixing the rating system.  No rules breeds anarchy. Ken has dominated this Forum by sheer repetition (about 20% of ALL posts )and applying his life philosophy to his blogging: I don't care about you ( Or in his terms Go Fuck yourself" ), I got mine.

For the record I have never claimed that membership gave me extra privileges.

On the other hand here is your friend expounding on "Paying" for TYT. ( BTW are you "converted" yet. That was Kens claim for a while... )

[editor's note, by MRFred] TYT membership is not required for Forum participation. The forum has been varously described by Mr Koller as a fan site for TYT.

---I have never joined TYT, but I would be delighted to hit a PayPal button from time-to-time in order to make a contribution. Dave, why don't you add this feature?

--I don't care if the new guy served in the Coast Guard, or he served as a Candy Striper, or he served as a Rubbish Removal Specialist, or he did something much less dangerous and served in the Canadian Navy.His opinions on political issues are no more valid than mine, because I'm the guy in the forum who has been paying for all of these services.

---Dave the Moderator was just being nice to Tiny the Homo. He didn't know how to tell him that Ken The Texans pays a lot of money to post in the Forum.He should have answered like this:Gay Guy go bye bye?Well, bye bye Gay Guy

---The stupid motherfucker has five total posts to his name, and now he's trying to make rules of engagement on who to can talk with whom at TYT

---I've been blogging here for four years. You've been blogging here for a few weeks.I pay for the privilege of blogging.

---That means the only person who can make me leave is Dave Koller, and all he has to do is ask.That means that I have to continue paying Dave a lot of protection money if I want to stick around.That means that I will outlast "Whipped Topping".


by MRFred on 03/17/2010 12:43:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
its the internet (none / 0)
get real

you can go now


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 05:14:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
nostalgia for a simpler time i guess (none / 0)

Believe it or not there was a time where this was a relatively civil place where adults could discuss political differences calmly and rationally without resulting to insults and accusations of sock puppetry.  It was a time before Ken became so narcissistic and shrill and Fred became so bitter.  Then again I'm sure there are plenty on this board who love it the way it is and actively seek to antagonize and drive off anyone who espouses an option contrary to the DNC party line.  The only thing worse than a petty, catty forum is one where there are no dissenting opinions. 


by alphasigmookie on 03/18/2010 09:29:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I cant stand conservatives (none / 0)
I wouldnt mind if they went away

along with "lbertarians" that make excuses for them  like say

YOU


by Chinese Democracy on 03/19/2010 10:52:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Guns and Ammo (none / 0)
I've been a member of the guns and ammo forum for almost as long as I've been here.  I get about the same level of respect over there that you get here.  There are a few that I can have a reasonable discussion with, but the rest just spout tired, thoughtless talking points they heard on Rush or Beck.  I don't however ever resort to personal attacks or childish games that you seem to enjoy getting caught up in with some of the less cerebral members of TYT forum. 

by alphasigmookie on 03/22/2010 11:18:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Please don't classify me as a conservative. (none / 0)

I am a progressive liberal, I just happened to have a warped reality that recognizes that the capitalist banker scum have hijacked the global warming movement and turned it on its head to support their unquenchable thirst for profits.

I believe that CO2 is a shill for collecting higher taxes to benefit the US military industrial complex with higher and higher defense spending to support the US imperial overreach.

Instead I support a gasoline tax to support alternative fuel development and allow alternatives to be competitive with petroleum products.  This is a regressive tax, but it is the only way to get people to change their behavior.

If someone can show me how nuclear is less polluting than coal, have at it.  Nuclear waste takes 10,000 years plus to decay.  Dumping it in the pacific or burying it in a hole is lunacy.  Instead we should build large greenhouses around every power plant and pump the CO2 into the greenhouse to enhance the growth of plants.

It's only with great hubris that  we as Americans, the greatest polluters, can tell developing countries not to use their coal resources.  Instead, we should let them be.  We must be the leader that everyone follows.

Instead of spending 350 billion a year for our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should spend 100 billion a year building large solar mirror power plants in Arizona and Nevada.  We should spend 100 billion a year on true high speed rail to replace planes.  Finally we should spend 150 billion a year building new cities that build factories and shopping malls underground and housing on top.

I bet we could create 10 million jobs this way.  Invest in America, not in our next war in Iran.

As for Ken, let him have his say.  Even conservatives are right once in awhile.  Listening to ideas that only support your ideas causes group think and logic loops. 

Christianity is a good example since Christians only use the Bible as their source of reference they ignore anything else which might contradict their perceived truths even when it is staring them in the face.  People don't want to hear things that question their world view or they question their sanity.

75 years ago Eugenics was the science of the day.  That was voodoo science and CO2 is today's voodoo science.  Anyone want to go back to Eugenics?

Global warming is the new religion of liberals desperate for something to believe in.  The temperature records were manipulated.  The ocean isn't warming dramatically, the air temperature is up .5 degrees and plants just love the extra CO2.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/17/2010 09:56:47 PM EST

Yeah, right, whatever (none / 0)

Global warming is the new religion of liberals desperate for something to believe in.

Oh horseshit.   It took me 20 years to be convinced by the relentless accumulation of new evidence.   There's decades of science and millions of patient man hours of research behind the current theory.  Against that all you seem to have is an opinion you're pulling out of your behind.   I'm going with the science.


by bfaul on 03/17/2010 11:34:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
papa dont preach (none / 0)


by Chinese Democracy on 03/17/2010 11:36:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Godwin! You lost! (none / 0)
"75 years ago Eugenics was the science of the day.  That was voodoo science and CO2 is today's voodoo science.  Anyone want to go back to Eugenics?"

Why don't you call people who believe in climate change just environmenazis?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 07:25:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Good idea (none / 0)
When anyone tries to discredit the whole global warming game, they get heaps of derision cast at them as if they just declared Jesus never existed to a bunch of Baptists.  Global warming is today's religion, when it passes, there will be a new one.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/18/2010 10:23:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I've already called Godwin! (none / 0)
You've lost this discussion!

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 03/18/2010 10:35:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You've discredited nothing (none / 0)

"When anyone tries to discredit the whole global warming game"

The only way to "discredit" current theory is to accumulate data that clearly demonstrates other causes for the changes that have been observed for the last 40 years or demonstrate why CO2 can not be the culprit and present it in a peer reviewed paper.   If there is such compelling evidence I guarantee it will be produced and scientific opinion will change.  Political arguments about it are completely useless.

We've seen this kind of bullshit again and again when some commercial or political or religious interest doesn't like where the science is leading.   "Evolution is just a theory", "The world is only 6000 years old",  "Cigarettes aren't what causes lung cancer",  "The stars and the sun revolve around the earth".

If you're not convinced you're not convinced, that's fine, but don't run around yelling that anthropogenic global warming is a "liberal religion".   It's the fucking conservatives that have changed it from a scientific issue (which is what it should be) into a political one because they don't like where the evidence is pointing.

You gave a lot of actions that you thought ought to be taken, most of them pretty good suggestions.   When people want to know why you think these actions are necessary what do you tell them?  "Just 'cuz"?

by bfaul on 03/18/2010 11:59:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Antarctic ice, the media lies, of course they do (none / 0)

Antarctic Sea Ice for November 2009 Higher Than 1979 - December 10, 2009

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand.  Ice totals for November 2009 are significantly higher than 1979 when measurements began.  The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small area of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact it is gaining ice.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

 

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe.  We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story.  They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the "computer models" predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased "interior ice" due to increased snow fall.  None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic.  Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in November of 2009 than what we had in November of 1979 when measurements began.  This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice.  Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic.  If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reasons why.  When it gets very cold the air becomes drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more.  Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow to fall.  Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice.  But that is not what is happening here.  We're seeing increases in "sea ice", this ice is over the ocean.  Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall.  But we hear nothing from either MSM or the scientific community.  Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the artic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

Antarctic Sea Ice for November 

Year     ;   Coverage Area     ;    Ice Concentration

2009     ; 16.3 million sq km    11.6 million sq km

1995     16.0 million sq km    11.4 million sq km

1979     15.9 million sq km    11.2 million sq km

This continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted.  According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1 degree F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004.  All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the MSM has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions.  They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part).  The MSM and certain elements of the scientific community truly must hav no shame.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/18/2010 10:14:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Forget the media (none / 0)

This is a phenomena peculiar to the location and conditions.   Antarctic sea ice hasn't been "growing", there were simply a couple of years where it hadn't receded in the summer as much as predicted. 

 

Here's the USGS in February:

Research by the U.S. Geological Survey is the first to document that every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating overall from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990. The USGS previously documented that the majority of ice fronts on the entire Peninsula have also retreated during the late 20th century and into the early 21st century. 

 

Here's NASA in 2008:

Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.

In a first-of-its-kind study, an international team led by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine, estimated changes in Antarctica's ice mass between 1996 and 2006 and mapped patterns of ice loss on a glacier-by-glacier basis. They detected a sharp jump in Antarctica's ice loss, from enough ice to raise global sea level by 0.3 millimeters (.01 inches) a year in 1996, to 0.5 millimeters (.02 inches) a year in 2006.

 

Here's NASA again:

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

 

A good discussion of the subject can be found here.

by bfaul on 03/19/2010 12:04:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You haven't proven anything. (none / 0)

Your first one was the USGS for the Southern part only.  It's a big continent.

The rest are for 10 or less year periods which can be caused by natural weather variability.  Again they are picking the data points that best suit the argument.

My article took the last 30 years, the period which represents the supposed warming after the cooling period  during the 60's and 70's.

Yes, the earth is heating up.  Man may have a small, miniscule responsibility.  It is the natural ebb and flow of the earth to heat up and cool and return to ice.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/19/2010 08:38:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, it's too short a timeline (none / 0)

Everyone likes to pick their time lines to make their case.  It is absolutely true that since 1860, temperatures have been rising.  Albeit by a very small amount.  The issue is whether this is caused by man or whether it is caused by natural earth cycles.

Most people are ego-centric and believe the universe revolves around them.  When in fact we are just minor historical footnote in the galactic scale.  Yes, we are polluting, yes we are making the "so called" greenhouse gases in ever greater numbers.  The truth s a bitter pill.  It doesn't matter in the grand time scale.

Every 100,000 years there is a new ice age epoch.  Whatever we do will be insignificant to effect the outcome. Whether this ice age has started, will start in 10 years or 200 years, it will start.  God isn't going to come to our rescue, alter the orbit of our planet and prevent the next great ice age.

http://itsrainmakingtime.co m/2009/climate-part1/

Destroying our economies with transfer taxes isn't going to change that.  The goals and aspirations of environmentalists are noteworthy.  However they must be honest about them.  Using pseudo science to support a green agenda and a global agenda to redistribute wealth is simply dishonest.

Scaring the west into doing something they couldn't sell at the ballot box is criminal.  The end doesn't justify the means.

Recently the sun has started to behave in an abnormal manner.  Scientists may have to reevaluate the whole solar sun spot theory.  Whoops.  Did the scientists get it wrong?

http://www.independent.co.u k/news/science/the-missing- sunspots-is-this-the-big-ch ill-1674630.html

The solar conveyor belt has been linked to sunspot activity.  Faster belt, more sunspots, more energy going to earth, however sunspot activity is at a 100 year low and the belt is running at top speed.  See the excerpt below:

"However, in 2004 the speed increased to nearly 30 mph and has remained that fast since."

The faster pace is a revelation because it occurred during the deepest solar minimum in almost 100 years and indications that the next solar cycle will be a weak one.

This contradicts some theories that say a fast pace results in increased sunspot production. But it agrees with others that say a fast pace results in decreased sunspot production.

The faster rate of currents on the sun and the expected weaker solar cycle have affects for those of us here on Earth.

One affect is the temperature increase of the Earth could slow down, there would be fewer auroras, and to the extent that we depend on satellites, GPS, and cell phones there should be less disruption in service.

http://www.spacedaily.com/r eports/Solar_Conveyor_Belt_ Runs_At_Record_High_Speeds_ 999.html

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/19/2010 09:57:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0)
If you drive fast enough and hit a strong enough building!

Nothing personal, but we are all part of the problem and could help in that way.;-)

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 05/07/2010 02:57:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
because (none / 0)
trying to claim that there is no gobal warming is in the same class as claiming Obama was born in Kenya.

It cries for derision


by Chinese Democracy on 03/19/2010 10:54:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
There is global warming (none / 0)

Unfortunately man is not the cause, it's the sun.

As for Obama, he couldn't have been born in Hawaii or Kenya.  He was in Washington state attending university with mom 2 weeks after he was born.  Who takes a 2 week old new born on a plane in 1961?  No one.

Take your pick, born in Washington state, Oregon state or British Columbia.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 03/19/2010 11:09:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Puppet Master (none / 0)
All of you are my little puppets!!!!

So dance for me, Ha Ha Ha!

No really, all of you people seem pretty wierd to me. Go out to your local bar and have a brewsky and talk to REAL people.

by Dresden101 on 03/19/2010 11:46:53 PM EST

Wow, 91 comments (none / 0)
And he still won't debate?

He can throw insults all day but can't find a spare moment to actually defend his point?

Nooooo, he's not scared...

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 05/07/2010 01:28:11 AM EST

Oh well (none / 0)

 I'm just frustrated, I could have simply said "I like fish tacos and global warming is bad because I ate a salad" and won this debate because Ken recoils from any sort of formalization.  He couldn't even attempt; it's anathema to him. 

He's like the amateur artist who doesn't want to go to art school but thinks he'll make money doodling.  Or the shitty poet who only writes perverted limericks and thinks he'll get paid to write a book about it.

by Rockulus on 05/07/2010 02:45:35 AM EST

KenTX \ Rockulus Debate | 70 comments (70 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: