Voici la question qui me guide dans mes recherches...

L’appât du gain manifesté par les entreprises supranationales et certains groupes oligarchiques, de même que le contrôle des ressources naturelles par ceux-ci, dirigent l’humanité vers un nouvel ordre mondial de type féodal, voir même sa perte. Confronté à cette situation, l’être humain est invité à refuser d’accepter d’emblée une pseudo-vérité véhiculée par des médias peut-être à la solde de ces entreprises et groupes. Au contraire, il est invité à s’engager dans un processus de discernement et conscientisation afin de créer sa propre vérité par la confrontation de sa réalité nécessairement subjective à des données objectives, telles que révélées par la science, par exemple.

The penalty that good men pay for not being interested in politics is to be governed by men worse than themselves. - Plato

mercredi 28 avril 2010

Stephen Wolfram: Computing a theory of everything

lundi 26 avril 2010

Five myths about green energy

Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302220_pf.html

By Robert Bryce

Sunday, April 25, 2010; B04

Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.

1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.

2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.

In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.

China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.

3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.

In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.

The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.

Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?

4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.

Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.

Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.

5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.

Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.

America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.

Good Nuclear In, Bad Nuclear Out -- Cause for Celebration on 40th Earth Day

Good article from Patrick Moore

This Earth Day, which celebrates the 40th year of its founding, is special for another reason beyond its anniversary date. On the topic of nuclear, 2010 is a good year for both the environment and world peace.

Earlier this year, US President Barack Obama announced an $8.5 billion loan guarantee to Georgia Power to support building two nuclear power plants, the first new US plants in 30 years. The President's February 16th announcement was perhaps the biggest boost for nuclear power generation since Earth Day was established in 1970.

Why is that good? In simple terms, every nuclear plant can be viewed as two fewer large coal-fired generators. That makes for large reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

In speaking about his administration's support of Plant Vogtle near Augusta, the President was clear: "Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. It's that simple. This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road."

Earlier this month, the President addressed the other side of nuclear technology at the Nuclear Security Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders in the US since the founding of the United Nations in 1945. Prior to the Summit, on April 8th, the President and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty agreeing to reduce active nuclear weapons by 30 percent.

The next day, the two leaders announced an agreement to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium each for a total of 68 tons equal to 17,000 warheads. This plutonium was in dismantled warheads or was stockpiled to build new warheads.

Russia has agreed it will burn its plutonium in two fast neutron reactors to make electricity. It is not clear how the US will dispose of its plutonium. Ironically, the sole US fast reactor, a 400 Mw unit at Richland, Washington, was shut down in 1993 in the name of preventing nuclear proliferation.

Following a 1993 agreement, Russia continues to sell 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to the US to be "down-blended" for use in nuclear power reactors. All of this uranium is from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads. You would be forgiven for not being aware of this largely unreported fact that 50 percent of US nuclear energy, 10 percent of total US electricity, is being produced from this uranium. It is time the two good news stories of nuclear energy for peace and the environment and nuclear weapons disarmament for peace and the environment were more widely celebrated.

For me the path from swords to plowshares began in 1971 when I sailed on the first Greenpeace campaign to stop US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. Greenpeace was born of the view that all-out nuclear war was the greatest threat to both civilization and the environment. President Nixon cancelled the hydrogen test program, and the H-bomb that was detonated on Amchitka Island that year was the last hydrogen bomb the US ever exploded. In retrospect it was a major turning point in the arms race and heralded the first US-Soviet SALT arms reduction talks in 1972.

On this 40th Earth Day I hope people recognize that we are moving in a positive direction by encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear technology and working to reduce the threat of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism. These twin accomplishments make 2010 the most significant year in decades of nuclear achievements.

Source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-moore/good-nuclear-in-bad-nucle_b_546705.html?view=print

jeudi 22 avril 2010

Is Iran developing nuclear weapons or only power stations?

Here's some new information from the "Iran developing nuclear weapons" side. Is this all true or another plot from some for a regime change?



From PJTV:
IRAN'S SECRET NUKE PROGRAM: CIA Agent Infiltrates Revolutionary Guard, Uncovers New Enrichment Site
While working as a double agent for the CIA, Reza Kahlili cozied up with Iran's Revolutionary Guard and discovered a secret uranium enrichment site hidden deep in the mountains of Northern Iran. He gives Roger L. Simon all the details, explaining exactly why the Mullahs can't be bargained with and will stop at nothing to gain nuclear weapons capabilities to start a religious war.

You can follow what he does on Twitter where you will find links to interviews

From "Reza Kahlili" web site:

REZA KAHLILI is the pseudonym of a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member who worked undercover as a CIA agent for several years in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

He spent an idyllic childhood in Tehran, the capital of Iran, surrounded by a close-knit upper middle-class family and two spirited boyhood friends. The Iran of his youth allowed Reza to think and act freely, and even indulge a penchant for rebellious pranks in the face of the local mullahs.

His political and personal freedoms flourished while he continued his education in America during the ’70s. He returned to Iran shortly after the Revolution eager to help rebuild his country, honestly believing that freedom and democracy would prevail and lead his country into a glorious future.

Even though most Iranians had enjoyed varying degrees of success under the Shah, the ayatollah Khomeini’s message resonated with a population weary of oppression and desperate for the political choice denied them under the Shah. To this end, Reza joined the Revolutionary Guards, an elite force that served Khomeini.

Instead of finding a new beginning for his country, he discovered a tyrannical ayatollah bent on plunging Iran into a dark age of religious fundamentalism and causing his fellow countrymen to turn on each other. Shaken to his very core after witnessing the atrocities at Evin Prison, atrocities that hit very close to home, a shattered and disillusioned Reza embarked on a mission that would change his life forever. He returned to America and emerged as “Wally,” a spy for the CIA.

Counterintelligence, coded communications, escape tactics and evasion, dominated his new life. He risked exposure daily and after several close calls, he managed to leave Iran. His CIA activities continued in Europe for a few more years before he and his family finally moved to America.

After the 9/11 attack, Reza Kahlili activated a handful of sources within Iran and once again contacted the CIA. He continues as an active voice for a free Iran and works toward ending the thugocracy of the mullah’s regime. He has written several articles for various media expressing his opinions and hope for a free Iran.

He now lives in California.

mardi 20 avril 2010

Gentilly-2 : Des incidents passés sous silence

Gentilly-2 : Des incidents passés sous silence | Mauricie | Radio-Canada.ca

Étant donné que les médias aiment les effets-chocs, je suis surpris de voir parler d'incidents que l'on verrait dans tout type d'industrie. Aucune mention de radio activité à la centrale dans les incidents citée.

Je serais curieux de voir ce type d'incidents dans les autres industries.. Font-elles les nouvelles?

Est-ce que les médias ont demandé la fin des mines et centrales au charbon, après les 25 morts dans une mine au États-Unis?

Est-ce que les nouvelles transmises par les médias de masse font preuve de transparence ou bien font preuve d'un choix très précis dicté par certains intérêts?

Commentaires?

lundi 19 avril 2010

Bottled Water: Can we do better?



Comments ?

Nice video of the Iceland volcano

Check the lighting, amazing violence.

dimanche 18 avril 2010

Radiation is not THAT special!

Another good article from Ted Rockwell.

Despite our detailed knowledge of the subject, nuclear technology still suffers from a belief that it is more dangerous than anything else--by an immeasurable amount.  This provides extra income for workers in the field, but it loads an unreasonable burden on its economic future.  This problem is well illustrated by a few paragraphs in the book, "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees, on the discharge of radioactive materials from power plants.  Tom has agreed to let me quote those words here.  I commend them to your thoughtful consideration.  This is an exact quote, but I won't encumber each paragraph below with quote marks.

  • A typical power plant annually releases 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of fissile U-235...and 12.8 tons of thorium) 
  • Total U.S. releases for 1982 came to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of U-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.
  • Worldwide releases totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of (U-235) and 8960 tons of thorium...
By the year 2040, cumulative releases of radioactive materials from these plants will have reached the following levels:
  • U.S. releases: 145,230 tons of uranium ( including 1031 tons of U-235) and 357,491 tons of thorium.
  • World releases: 828,632 tons of uranium (including 5883 tons of U-235) and over two million tons of thorium.
  • "Daughter products" produced by the decay of these isotopes include radium, radon, polonium, bismuth and lead.
radiation from coal-burning power plants is over a hundred times higher than anything conceivably coming out of nuclear power plants
    Why is this not splashed all over the front pages?  Who in their right mind can consider this acceptable?
    [And then Blees springs his punchline, citing a well-known report by Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory  (Feb 5, 2008)] : These are the radioactive release figures for coal-fired power plants!
    Population exposure to radiation from coal-burning power plants is over a hundred times higher than anything conceivably coming out of nuclear power plants...[and then Blees quotes Gabbard:]
    "Large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste.  These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities.  Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner.  Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on [coal-fired] electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain."
    [Blees continues:]  If this isn't crazy enough for you, ponder this little factoid: The energy content of the nuclear materials released into the environment in the course of coal combustion is greater than the energy of the coal that is being consumed.  In other words, coal consumption actually wastes more energy than it produces...[End of Blees quote.]
    The important point here is NOT that the radiation from coal combustion is a public health problem.  It is not.  (Inhalation of the soot particles, production of acid rain, release of mercury, etc. are another story) But radiation from burning coal is not a hazard.  And thus, treating radiation released from nuclear plants, which is at least 100 times lower, as a problem, is not scientifically defensible, and concern over radiation release from nuclear plants is not rational.

    samedi 17 avril 2010

    The Nuclear Waste Scam

    Interesting article from Ted Rockwell's learning about energy web site:



    It seems that we've managed to convince people that nearly every one of nuclear power's unique advantages is an unprecedented, and perhaps unsolvable, problem.  I'm astonished that this could be accomplished, for even a fleeting moment.  But many people are solidly holding on to, and defending, these illogical conclusions, as the years go by without any support for them.
    1. Radiation is said to be scary and spooky because "you can't see it, or feel it or taste it."   But in fact, cheap and simple instruments can detect radioactivity down to the level of a single atom.  You simply cannot even envision doing better than that.
    2. Some people claim that nuclear power is somehow alien or unnatural, and that "being exposed to radiation" is the worst thing that can happen to you, whereas radiation has been a fundamental part of the natural universe since before the emergence of any life forms, and life apparently cannot survive in the absence of nuclear radiation.
    3. Some people express concern that nuclear technology is harmful to the earth, despite the fact that atomic fission does its job using a millionth as much material as any non-nuclear process.  No research can change that fact, which is based on the difference between the binding energy of the atomic nucleus , and the binding energy of the chemical molecule.  Of course, the derivative energy sources, like solar, wind and waves are even more dilute and inefficient.
    4. The early developers of nuclear power realized that one of its great advantages is that its waste problem is trivial.  Now we find that many power plants that should have been nuclear have been coal-fired, because people were afraid of "nuclear waste."
    5. "Nuclear waste" is a misnomer for an extremely valuable material made up of three components:  a) partially used fuel that will be recycled in breeder reactors to generate more fuel in the very process of generating electricity; b) fission products worth billions of dollars, that will be recovered; and c) a small amount of material that has no further use.  That material (about 2 pounds, produced from each persons's lifetime's worth of electricity), is in the form of a refractory ceramic, clad is stainless zirconium alloy, or other material that is fused into a hard glass.  We know from tests with millennia-old glass objects, that even primative glasses are impervious to efforts to leach anything out of them.  It is hard to see how this material could ever cause any harm to people or the environment.  So, in real world terms, just what is this "nuclear waste problem" that we keep hearing needs to be solved?
              It's hard to see why anyone was ever convinced that this was a problem, requiring a multi-billion dollar solution (except that one person's wasted money is another's bread and butter).
            Below is a link to a brief essay on "The Nuclear Waste Scam."
    Download The Nuclear Waste Scam

    jeudi 15 avril 2010

    The IPCC AR4 2007 report: 30% of it not peer reviewed

    Donna Laframboise did it again.  She and 40 others, scrutinized the report that tell the world that we, Humans, are responsible for all the calamities that we see around us and it is caused by CO2 and we should stop breathing (Yes we breath out CO2!).

    Here some excerpt:


    Of the 44 chapters in the IPCC report:
    21 received an F - 59% or fewer references are peer-reviewed
    4 received a D - 60-69% of references are peer-reviewed
    6 received a C - 70-79% of references are peer-reviewed
    5 received a B - 80-89% of references are peer-reviewed
    8 received an A - 90-100% of references are peer-reviewed

    UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card 
    • all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
    • 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
    • IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
    • each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
    • 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
    • 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
    • full report card here
    • detailed results here 
    "Make no mistake about how central the IPCC is to the global warming debate. The IPCC's reports are why ours and other governments...are calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions...[those] attacking the IPCC...have never researched nor published any climate science in peer-reviewed journals - and peer review is how science works." - ABC News, Australia, November 2009



    UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card

    for release 14 April 2010

    TORONTO -- 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card released today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.

    Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."

    "We've been told this report is the gold standard," says Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who organized the online crowdsourcing effort to examine the references. "We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal."

    Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As.

    In November, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri disparaged non-peer-reviewed research in an interview with the Times of India (see the end of the article):

    IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the
    data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then
    accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.

    mardi 13 avril 2010

    3 ways to look at the temperature, one is scary.

    Source


    Figure 1

    Change in the US annual temperatures, 1895-2009. Data from the US Historical Climate Network (USHCN DATA)




    Figure 2


    US yearly temperatures by month, 1895-2009. Each line represents the record for a different year. Red line is the temperature in 2009. Data source as in Fig. 1. Photo is Vernal Falls, Yosemite




    Figure 3

    US decadal average temperatures by month, 1900-2009. Red line is the average for the decade 2000-2009. Photo is Half Dome, Yosemite.


    Michael Specter: The danger of science denial

    Al Gore the two-faced men




    Here's a two-faced men... 

    Al Gore



    lundi 12 avril 2010

    Vidéo de mon fils Samuel et ses amis à Avila dans les Laurentides

    Vous allez le retrouver aux temps suivants:

    • 0:46 Reverse Back flip
    • 2:02 Sur la rail
    • 2:37 Sur le dos pour se refroidir


    aviLOLz from xavier mayrand on Vimeo.
    3last dayz of the season . yeah!

    China produces first home-grown maglev train

    When are we going to start building those in north America?




    China's first home-grown sample maglev train has been completed, making China the third country able to design and produce the trains after Germany and Japan.


    This maglev train has a maximum speed of 500 kilometers per hour. It is expected to take its pilot run on the maglev line in Shanghai during this year's World Expo.

    Wu Xiangming, Engineer, Maglev Train Dev’t Project’s expert Group, said, "This is the first domestically-designed and produced maglev train in China. We own the independent intellectual property rights. We will make a pilot run to test whether the train has any flaws.

    Maglev trains are the fastest mode of ground transportation in the world. The vehicle contains materials that are used on airplanes.

    China used to import maglev technology from developed countries, but after years of learning and innovation, the country has now mastered the entire range of production from building the rails to developing the control system.
    Dai Ganchang, Engineer, Aviation Industry Corporation of China, said, "We had a deal with Germany. They introduced technology to us and we digested it. Currently, we only import some parts from Germany. The design and manufacturing are totally home-grown. "

    China's first maglev line officially opened at the end of 2002 in Shanghai. The trains were imported from Germany. The line has transported a total of 23 million passengers since its introduction. It travels at a speed of 430 kilometers an hour.

    Source

    mercredi 7 avril 2010

    Are gaming points coming out to real world application?

    Video Description: Carnegie Mellon University Professor, Jesse Schell, dives into a world of game development which will emerge from the popular "Facebook Games" era.

    mardi 6 avril 2010

    New study shows long cycles in the climate of the planet

    This new study confirm what other found about natural cycles in the earth climate linked closely to many parameters.

    Link to full PDF of the study
    Link to WUWT and comments

    Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar

    Very good analysis and commentaries on the cost of the prevalent forms of energy that will power our societies now and the near future.

    The full article can be found here. You will also find in the comment section other links to other reports.

    This graphic show a good summary of the article can be found with this graphic


    Another good source of facts on energy can be found from this site.  Here the latest PDF of "Fact report april 2010".

    Amazing video on "Wear your seat Belt"

    samedi 3 avril 2010

    Un Vautour fauve blessé par une éolienne

    Il semble que ce problème soit répandu à travers le monde où sont installées les éoliennes.




    Rayon X de l'aile cassé.


    L'oiseau sera soigné

    Et remis en liberté.
    Source

    Une chorale virtuelle par webcam

    Montage virtuel de 185 voix, 243 pistes, 12 pays réunis en une chorale



    Source

    vendredi 2 avril 2010

    How to combat modern slavery - 27 millions in 2010

    In this moving yet pragmatic talk, Kevin Bales explains the business of modern slavery, a multibillion-dollar economy that underpins some of the worst industries on earth. He shares stats and personal stories from his on-the-ground research -- and names the price of freeing every slave on earth right now.

    Earth Hour participation in Canada fell 14.7% this year.

    On average the participation to Earth Hour lost 14,7% in 2010 compared to 2009.
    Only Québec when up 1%, all other provinces fell.



    I am not a big fan of those events myself. This article by Donna Laframboise and Ross McKitrick will give you a sense of how I feel about those type of events.

    Poll Source

    The Climate Peer-Review Process: Hopelessly Broken

    Source

    The Climategate scandal showed how several of the world's top climate scientists were hell bent on keeping "skeptical" views out of the scientific literature and in particular, the IPCC reports.  If you wanted an illustration of how this actually worked in practice, then economist Ross McKitrick has a doozy for you.

    Ross realized that one of the IPCC's central claims, one that could be regarded as foundational, was fabricated and provably false.  He wrote a paper demonstrating this and proceeded to be given the run-around by every climatic journal he submitted it to, despite mostly positive reviews.  In the end he had to publish it in a statistical journal, where it will likely be ignored by the climate science clique community.

    Ross concludes:

    In the aftermath of Climategate a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public. The public seems to believe that climatology is beset with cliquish gatekeeping, wagon-circling, biased peer-review, faulty data and statistical incompetence. In response to these perceptions, some scientists are casting around, in op-eds and weblogs, for ideas on how to hit back at their critics. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point.

    Read the whole thing by downloading Ross's paper here (PDF link).

    Roger Pielke Jr agrees with Ross here, noting:

    This is exactly the situation that has occurred in the context of disaster losses that I have documented on numerous occasions. In the case of disaster losses, not only did the IPCC make stuff up, but when challenged, went so far as to issue a press release emphasizing the accuracy of its made up stuff.

    no_consensus_scr

    Cartoon from Cartoons By Josh.

    We are afraid that "Guam will tip over" because of overpopulation!!!

    WARNING: This is not a JOKE!!!

    Congressman Hank Johnson asking questions to an Admiral about environmental concern on the use of the Island of Guam by the military.

    Could this be the most stupid question ever asked.

    You wonder how those people in office can take decisions when they believe an island could tip over!!!

    Listen to the video... It is funny in a way but very worrying

    That was an elected official. The man has no more concept of reality than does a child.


    jeudi 1 avril 2010

    Nuclear: YES we can recycle.

    Here's a nice virtual tour of the La Hague reprocessing plant in France.

    They explain how the reprocessing plant work.


    Want to understand why the USA is not recycling?
    Listen to the latest podcast from Rod Adams