For those of you who still believe we have a free and independent press the following:

At the risk of once again being labelled a “conspiracy� nut, I would like to tell you about “hydrogen on demand�.

This little video was published last weekend on the Reuter News agency news site available to all who are subscribing to it.

http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/water-fuel-c ar-unveiled-in-japan/

This means our main stream media had access to it. This of course should be on every front page, on every TV sender, shouted of every street corner and yet this did not happen.

Why should this be on every front page?

Because this car drives on water.

More specifically; it drives on H2O meaning two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule gas. What is even more spectacular is that you don’t need to go to a tank station to get your fill of this gas, you just fill the tank with any old reasonably clean water. You can use tap water, well water, salt water, hell even cold tea.

The hydrogen/oxygen gets produced on demand. In other words if you buy the car you never have to buy a litre of fossil fuel again. What is even more amazing is that the H/O gas returns back to its more stable form: Water. In other words it is a more or less an infinite resource.

So why was this not on the front page of every bloody news paper?
Let me give you a hint: George Bush(Big Oil) and Murdoch(Big media) were sharing a cosy dinner at Downing street courtesy of prime minister Gordon Brown last monday. With a bunch of historians by the way, no doubt talking about how to falsify history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/16/antiwar.georgebush

Now before you bin this water fuelled car idea because you still think that we have a free and independent media and they would surely tell us about something that would obviously benefit mankind like nothing has ever done before therefore this car must be a hoax, I suggest you Google “hydrogen on demand� and be amazed at what is out there.

My husband is an industrial electrician/engineer. As this news came out this weekend he was installing our first “Hydrogen on demand� booster in our old Honda Civic. It is the first step to a complete “Hydrogen on demand� driven vehicle. The booster produces enough Hydrogen/Oxygen to save up to 40% on Fossil fuel and we hope with a few minor adaptations it will save up to 80%. That is this weekends job.
Did I believe that this was possible when he showed me what a couple of Google searches yielded? Shit no, it took a long time before he convinced me.
But there you have it: I have seen water burn ladies and gentlemen.
Well actually more correctly I have seen water explode rather violently.

Don’t believe me: Google and ye shall find. You’ll also find some pretty out there ideas, so be careful about those. Use your common sense.

And then perhaps you will finally realise that we are deliberately kept in the dark about some truly amazing inventions that could liberate all of us from the tyranny of big oil and allow this planet to clean up and rebalance itself without a cent of carbon tax.

Why is this not suppressed seeing as “they� control everything you ask?
Well it started very small, via e-mail and then via free forums that spread like wild fire around the globe making control impossible.
This knowledge is already quit old and a lot of patents were freed up and put into the public domain online recently. In fact my 82 year old father-in-law knew about this way back in the sixties.
People then made the mistake of patenting it and trying to earn lots of money with it. Now everybody just seeds this knowledge on all kinds of sites in order to get the knowledge out. It is ironic that the one thing that can save this planet and us is the only thing that
cannot be monopolised. Perhaps someone out there is trying to tell us something.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As Mr Monbiot says:

“Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.

Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example.”

http://tinyurl.com/5ye79g

Although what we do have is:
Wolfowitz ‘tried to censor World Bank on climate change’
http://tinyurl.com/4awww6

and from the Monbiot article:

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words “climate change”, “global warming”, or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that “changed the meaning of scientific findings”; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

and

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him
http://tinyurl.com/dwvd2

(that was the NASA press office, not scientists).

The moderation here is a little odd, yes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

In other words. For most, their PAYCHECK does not depend at all on the results of their research, only that the research is good enough to get published, and for the headliners the dependency is related to how much additional work they do as speakers. Not on their research.

…how I should have put it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

keep the hook simple..

(we all have short attention spans..)

and green/white..is too polite..

i’d go with black on red..or red on black..

..and don’t forget the exclaimation mark..!

(i’ll bill you for the consultancy..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Make it white lettering on green and a second one green on white. For me I might well add “Dues Paying Green” which has a subtle double meaning.

I always like those, especially when both can be fairly applied.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

‘don’t diss the scientists!’

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

(and a nice ‘turn’ in green-passive-aggression there..bj..)

“..With all due respect which is damned little at this point..”

(heh..!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You keep repeating that canard. With all due respect which is damned little at this point, I WORKED at the NASA Jet Propulsion Lab, I KNOW scientists who are on “state salaries” and the state has damned little to say that would influence their opinions or their research. It did however, influence their public speaking and access as the NASA Inspector General recently found the Public Affairs office did a few years back.

Unlike your surmised influence, THAT was real. Perhaps it is different in this country but I really doubt that that is the case. Scientists do not go into science to make lots of money..

This aspersion you are casting at the scientific community is both insulting and erroneous. There’s money in it for the headliners, but it doesn’t get paid to them as salary. They have to work for it same as any other speaker on the circuit.

In other words. For most, their PAYCHECK does not depend at all on the results of their research, only that the research is good enough to get published, and for the headliners the dependency is related to how much additional work they do as speakers. Not on their research.

SCIENCE is not political. Blogs are political, Politicians are political… Science is not political and Engineering is not political. You get the right answer or you get proven wrong or a bridge collapses. It isn’t a subtle difference. Politics satisfies people. Science and Engineering must satisfy Mother Nature and the laws of Physics.

—————–

Now FINALLY we get to climate science. The effects of a Sunspot Cycle (11 years) and El-Nino pattern (a year or two) are not “Climate” which gets measured over AT MINIMUM, 30 year chunks, an entirely different timescale. Milankovitch cycles, a different timescale again.

No scientist discounts the effects of the Sun on climate the way you discount the effects of Greenhouse Gases. The problem is that the effect of the Sun over the past several hundred years, has very little explicative power by itself, with respect to climate change. CO2 and Population numbers are statistically more powerful… the Combination of all 3 is statistically even MORE powerful.

The term the scientists tend to leave off is population, as it is not an area of scientific study. Atmospheric Chemistry and Solar Physics get scientific funding. There is no “science” of population.

Maybe there should be.

In any case, the problem here is that there is a lot more to the science than to the blogosphere. I have posted enough real data and links to make that clear. Once more into the breach.

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=arti clesu6.html

In particular this view…
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2007-2/fig_21.html

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut 2004.pdf

Current Data… Digestible form.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Less Digestible and linked to some harder
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

Powerpoint
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/20080227_UAH.ppt

Now the point I am making here isn’t that the Sun has no influence or that it has scant influence on the science of climate change… it is that POLITICS has scant influence and that scientists are doing their damnedest to give you the truth.

I’ve observed that the blogs of critics of the science are often run by Libertarians… and I have come to a conjecture about their motivations being political. The thing is that IF we are correct and AGW is a fact then we have shown that there is a crude thermostat in place. Once that is shown to be true, the question of who CONTROLS the thermostat becomes real and there is no answer to that question that does not entail government interference in our lives. Libertarians do not respond well to such challenges but in their efforts to avoid this one they have (in general) embraced every half-baked, unprovable, incoherent speculation of some OTHER theory as the revealed truth. Not saying YOU are a libertarian, but I am sure that no small percentage of the blogs from which you bring us these opinions are basically oriented that way.

We aren’t Libertarians. Minds here are for the most part, open. It is possible that Solar has more influence than we realize. There’s no strong evidence of that, but it is possible.

Just remember… the GGWS was itself, a swindle. I believe that I have already hammered it quite thoroughly. If you have more questions I am happy to have a go at them…. but don’t diss the scientists.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I apologise, my last posting was in reference to your “in addition: posting, which appeared before that which you were adding to did. If fact, I’ve just seen the original post this morning.

I’d like to quote your first message if I may

>
>>I was born in the early 1940’s, and had a highly educated/qualified mother who spent -my childhoos right through school, even though I was at boarding school – life as an “at homeâ€? parent for her – three – children.

That (amended) quote now refers to me, so I understand your background and fully empathise with the priviledge you and I had back then.

My (2nd) wife is from a ‘3rd world country’, pehaps one of the worst to live in because of a bitterly fought civil war that has gone on for over 25 years. We have a home there, and visit regularly. When we are there we go to a local village (population 850) that we have ‘adopted’ the children of, and so I see first hand the people and talk to them about their lives. (Our adoption only involves providing the kids with the ‘things’ they need for school (paper, excercise books, pens, pencils, textbooks, cloth for uniforms, shoes, etc.,). It costs little (about $2000 a year for EVERYTHING for all the kids,) by our standards, but a lot by theirs (average wage is $7 per week) .

When I’m in the village, my spirits are always lifted. The people are happy. The children run around and play on the ’streets’ (like most children of ‘our era’ did,) they don’t need or desire ‘computer games. The mothers are smiling and going about their business, they grow or barter for most of their food and don’t see the value in THINGS the way ‘we” do, their olders sons and daughters are working in garment factories, manufacturies and the army, and bringing in more wealth than the family has ever known – all of which is put into buying land or building/extending homes.

In many ways, the majority of the third world (I don’t include most of Africa in this) have a better quality of life than we do, even though the standard of living is way below us. No one in the village has died of a stress related illness – ever

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

For who? Not for the scientists Tommy, and the implication that they alter the data to fit the funder’s fundamental beliefs is insulting AND untrue. Politicians do that sort of cr@p but usually NOT scientists.

I tend to regard that both sides are misplacing the emphasis on money though. Most of this boils down to a fundamental problem.

The scientists are telling us all that our activities have an influence on climate. In other words, the planet has a thermostat we can to some degree control. It is a very imperfect control and we can’t see the results of any change to it for decades, but the scientists are quite sure it is there.

For POLITICAL reasons there are people who would rather this control not exist, because if it does then SOMEONE has to control it. This cannot be permitted.

It entails more government AND economic changes.that will be unpalatable to those who currently have all the money and power.

These are arguments that have to be settled… but because they are very difficult arguments there is a minority who instead attack the scientists for telling us there is a problem.

That’s simply BS. The scientists don’t give a rats rear end what solution the society uses… they are describing the PROBLEM. Select someone supreme ruler of the entire planet with absolute power to command action and let him/her make the decisions… scientists DO NOT CARE… as long as effective decisions are made.

Attacking the science is a symptom of a misdirected suspicion.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I worked at NASA and I have NO idea what “a certain line” signifies in this context …. the folks there work on instruments and experiments and they report their findings… perhaps you mean that they are geologists and so work on earth-studies and so forth? I am seriously not clear about what you meant.

If you are referring to the NIWA strategic direction PDF from 2007 I might point out that all crown research organizations share that bit of political jargon at the top. It would not however, make a profit if it didn’t do good science.

The strategic statements are always political. The research outcomes are not dictated by those statements.

Is there something WRONG with these goals? Working for NZ?

• mitigating and adapting to climate change;
• ensuring a secure and sustainable energy supply;
• achieving high returns from aquaculture by farming
high-value species;
• ensuring the wise allocation of freshwater resources
and protecting water quality;
• improving responses to impending weather-related
hazards by using new real-time technologies for data
capture and forecasting.

Salinger isn’t the boss of NIWA… he’s the head of the “Climate Variability” division… and as such he’d BETTER have a diploma saying something like “I studied real science” from somewhere where science is actually studied. One does have to understand that while it is TRUE that he is a climate scientist, his position is by no means the top of that particular heap and is such that he’d better have that background.

I know that the NZ Herald and a broad subset of amateur hour analysts feel certain that they could do a better job of the science than actual scientists who are FOREVER drawing the same faulty conclusions from their data. SURELY we don’t have to change a thing and growth is good, just like it was for great-grandpappy back in the 18th century.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m nor sure Eredwen

People born post 1945 are now starting to retire in droves, though we all only start to hit the Magic 65 in another 2 years. So typically, the people moving away from their family homes, etc. are the ‘pre-baby-boom’ lot (though theyt’ve mostly the same views on life as we have). Certainly I recently sold off the old “family home’” a rambling six bedroom place built in 1914, as it was too big for two people to rattle around in, two expensive to heat (compared to what we could manage with in a smaller place,) and not a place that any of the four chldren would want to live in because of its age.
We set our children on life’s path as well as we could; we still support them in many of the things we do; I think (if there’s enough notice – wich I hope there isn’t,) they and their partners anc children will all be there to say goodbye when the time comes.
I don’t think you can call us the first “me first” generation, because in the main we sacrificed a lt for our children, particularly in the early days. I know we would have been MUCH better off if my wife had worked instead of being a “home mother”, but our priorities were different. As an example, I met a couple a few days ago who were moaning that it was impossible for them to buy a house as a 10% deposit was expected; they said this in the lounge of their rented apartment in Wellington, with two large flat-screen TVs, frniture that would have looked good in House & Home magazine, and with two less then 2 year old german cars in the basement! We used ‘hand me down’ furniture and public transport until we got on the housing ladder, and even then it was three years before we bought any furniture,
Expectations are different, that’s all.

ANyway. Good on ‘ya for being there for your folks! You a great tribute to them and their ways.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

In our family, in return for my parents’ care of us when we needed them, my children and I we were “there for them” in their old age, living nearby and enabling them to stay in their home until the end of their lives.

I had the great privilege of being with each of my parents as they died. I find that my (female) friends have done, or are doing, the same.

However, I do agree with Strings that there is a move away from this expectation of family care.

It is not necessarily one sided however.

Many retirees / senior citizens now seem to move away from the family and the family home to a new life elsewhere, leaving their kids and grandkids to cope without them? (This is particularly noticeable among those who are more affluent … )

Could it be that the dreaded “Baby Boomers”, conceived after the WW2, are now showing tendencies of being the first “Me First” Generation in their older age, and that their kids are just following suit ?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I suspect we “talked past each other”.

I was referring to the roles of women in families of “the Third World” (now euphemistically called “the Developing World”) and NOT those in Western Society as we know it.

My personal experience? I was born in the early 1940’s, and had a highly educated/qualified mother who spent most of her life as an “at home” parent for her two children. Her talents and “know how” were used in the Community, with some part time work or relieving work in her profession from time to time (when my grandmother took over the role of “being there for us” when we came home for school.) … Thus I know first hand, from the female perspective, the pros and cons of this approach/situation. (My father was a very good parent and partner to his wife, but he was often absent because the responsibilities of his job.)

Unlike my mother, I ended up having to juggle work and the care of my two young kids without the support of a partner (because of a marriage breakup which led to their father living overseas) … NOT an easy life for either parent or children! (However, my parents made sure that they were there to help.)

Despite its challenges, overall my life when my children were young was VERY easy compared to that of many women in the Third World!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

http://tinyurl.com/oet3t

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)