or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

And what would tell all of those people who live in those areas that do have the greatest energy density and fewest cloudiest days? Sorry, we're going toput all of our plants here?
That's true too. But giving them information doesn't help, because they've made up their minds. As I said in another post, this is a political and economic position, not a scientific one.When I do show graphs and charts along with articles they can understand, I get; "I don't believe it, it's a lie." Why does this happen? Because they're told that if it doesn't agree with what they're being told, it's a lie from the environmental movement and industry.This isn't a...
Desert areas have a very complex and vigorous environment. Yet, they are among the most endangered of all environments because the balance is delicate. There is just enough food to keep everything stable. The slightest imbalance, and the whole thing can run down.
I find it hard to believe that you work in a scientific setting. The data is pretty substantial, and you should,d know that. The interpretations of that data are pretty solid, again, as you should know.The concept that food will become less nutritional, has been shown to be pretty likely, though not yet definately in all aspects. It's been shown with a number of well done experiments that more carbon dioxide causes more plNt growth, in most, but not every case. However,...
It's even worse than that. I have a few friends who get all of their "news" and scientific "knowledge" from talk radio. I've listened to some of those shows, and they just lie on the air. I'm amazed sometimes. But their audience believes everything they hear, because it's what they want to hear, it's bolstering their own beliefs.
No matter where you place these, the environment exists. There is no place on earth, except for a few areas in the Antartic, where life doesn't exist. Even the Sahara desert has an environment with life. Sure. We all have spots we think are not worthy of consideration. But that doesn't mean that any one particular spot is of more value than another.
The typical know nothing response. There is a vast amount of data that shows that we are a major cause of warming, if not the cause. Going back to the time thermometers were invented (I'll let you look that up for yourself) we can see how the world's temperature has risen along with the population and energy use. This isn't debatable. Neither is all of the information gathered since.
So, what REAL technology would you prefer now? After all, fusion won't be here for another, oh, 30 to 50 years, if ever. It ain't a sure thing.So, do you like coal, oil, gas, nuclear, or how about hydroelectric, which kills hundreds of miles of land? All of those have major problems of their own.
This is only a problem with very high IQ cameras. That problem comes from the use of CCDs. CMOS a chips don't suffer from that problem nearly as much.
That's another thing I've been yelling at them about. I could understand it when phones had little storage, but now, we can go to 128GB. Someone who wants RAW stills or video can buy that high storage model. Indeed, I'm sure that's why Apple has themFilters, yes, though I rarely use them. The big deal here is that none of the smartphones have a good auto light correction algorithm. The iPhone is better than it used to be, but it's still not too great. The good thing about...
New Posts  All Forums: