Google Tech Talk
May 26, 2009
Presented by Robert Hargraves.
Mankind's fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution. Natural res...
Google Tech Talk May 26, 2009
Presented by Robert Hargraves.
Mankind's fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution. Natural resources are rapidly being depleted by world population growth. Safe, inexpensive energy from the liquid fluoride thorium reactor can stop much global warming and raise prosperity of humanity to adopt US and OECD lifestyles, which include lower, sustainable birth rates.
Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
It's too expensive anyways. A 1GW kitegen would cost 80-100 million. No fuel needed and no decomissioning costs. Only maintainance work which would create a local industry.
u'r right about the fertiliser part but increasing co2 is also causing problems...................... .......even plants breathe out co2..........everyone needs to breathe to live......understand?
No offense taken, I meant pretty much what I said though.
In 1963 - 1969, the NASA budget was about 3 - 5% of the US Federal budget. This has slowly been whittled down to 0.52% for 2010.
And it shows - back then NASA built a rocket platform from scratch and put men on the moon. Nowadays it accomplishes very little in comparison.
It just seems like whenever someone needs money for a pet project, they propose taking the funds from NASA because they know that not very many people will object.
I agree, it's BS. Everyone picks on NASA because they don't realize how much technological innovation NASA generates; everyday technology everyone takes for granted wouldn't exist but for NASA.
How about taking some money from the defense budget instead? (over 514 billion$, nearly as much as the rest of the world combined). Do they really need laser planes? I don't think so.
Remember back in the day (60's) when James Lovelock popularized gaia theory... all followers of the global warming ideology were anti-establishment, pot smoking, left wing, free sex, sitar playing idiot commies intent on bringing down the west's financial system?
.. well now if you believe in it you are a right wing lying establishment butt-hole intent on getting rich out of this fake trumped up unbelievable fantasy green pseudoscience which will end up bringing down the global economy.
you can prove its not a deadly pollutant by putting a plastic bag over your head... when the co2 builds up you get horny and have a big wank... co2 is obviously good dude! Ask David carridine or michael hutchence
That's no more relevant than saying water is a "deadly pollutant" because you die if you seal your head inside a bowl full of it. The fact that a particular substance was never meant to be breathed by humans is not enough to make it a "deadly pollutant".
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Only maintainance work which would create a local industry.
Man, the Church of AGW is full of scientific illiterates, isn't it.
In 1963 - 1969, the NASA budget was about 3 - 5% of the US Federal budget. This has slowly been whittled down to 0.52% for 2010.
And it shows - back then NASA built a rocket platform from scratch and put men on the moon. Nowadays it accomplishes very little in comparison.
It just seems like whenever someone needs money for a pet project, they propose taking the funds from NASA because they know that not very many people will object.
How about taking some money from the defense budget instead? (over 514 billion$, nearly as much as the rest of the world combined). Do they really need laser planes? I don't think so.
.. well now if you believe in it you are a right wing lying establishment butt-hole intent on getting rich out of this fake trumped up unbelievable fantasy green pseudoscience which will end up bringing down the global economy.
sigh!
Ask David carridine or michael hutchence
Wise ass.