Date: 2011-07-21 11:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] red-phil.livejournal.com
with the TV show article I got as far as ...
"The study assessed the values of characters in popular television shows in each decade from 1967 to 2007, with two shows per decade evaluated"

Then didn't bother reading any forther.

How can you even begin to fairly assess the TV of a decade based on 2 shows?

Date: 2011-07-21 11:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bart-calendar.livejournal.com
Right?

What if the two shows from one year were "Real Sex" and "Taxi Cab Confessions" and then the next year they picked "The Sopranos" and "Friends."

Considerably different results.

Date: 2011-07-21 11:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] red-phil.livejournal.com
"Dexter" and "Sons of anarchy" Vs "The Cosby Show" and Hill Street Blues"

Date: 2011-07-21 11:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bart-calendar.livejournal.com
"Game Of Thrones" and "The Gorgias" vs "MASH and All In The Family."

Date: 2011-07-21 11:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
Shale gas -- WTF?

How the hell is that carbon reduction, as claimed in the article's subheadline? Even further down, they say:

> Shale gas is still a "fossil fuel", but it's much cleaner than coal

and again, WTF? So what if it's cleaner the coal? It's still digging up more carbon from where it's buried even deeper and chucking it into the atmosphere.

The Register really is a POS lately.

Date: 2011-07-21 12:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] drainboy.livejournal.com
"The report, written by science writer Matt Ridley, was commissioned by the Global Warming Policy Foundation; Dyson sits on the Board."

Guess what the GWPF believe. That's right, no man-made global warming.

To be fair the article is just stating what Freeman Dyson thinks without saying "this is bullshit". Should they be saying it's bullshit? Do they give counterpoints when they print "Global warming is real" stories?

I honestly don't know. I certainly believe man-made global warming is real.

Date: 2011-07-21 01:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alitheapipkin.livejournal.com
I skimmed the original report and their argument is that it produces less CO2 per unit of electricity than oil or coal and is cheaper than renewables and nuclear, although the conclusion does concede that improved & cheaper nuclear or solar power would be even better.

I'm particularly amused that they claim Matt Ridley's connection to oil and coal production means he has the opposite of a vested interest, when the whole report is a justification for continuing to invest in fossil fuels over renewables... *sigh*

(And depressed by the eejit who used a dodgy methodology to overestimate the impact of methane emissions from it, nicely playing into the whole 'environmentalist conspiracy' nonsense.)

Date: 2011-07-21 07:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
> for reasons that escape me.

You noticed that nuclear plant in Japan, right?

Nuclear power is basically digging up *another* type of dangerous shit and having it and its consequences hang around where they cause harm.

Date: 2011-07-21 09:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
Ah sorry -- I totally misunderstood your comment just then; I thought you were remarking on my comment rather than clarifying yours.

Then 2, logically.

Date: 2011-07-22 06:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] momentsmusicaux.livejournal.com
I switch mine off, which is more than a hell of a lot of people do. And I haven't been in a plane for about 5 years.

Date: 2011-07-21 10:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] khbrown.livejournal.com
Or kill people in other countries before they use fossil fuels in the way 'we' do?

Date: 2011-07-21 08:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] octopoid-horror.livejournal.com
CO2 is being talked about like it's the only thing that matters in some places.

Water cost is also incredibly important and going to get much more so, unless you want your energy to come from very specific countries. Energy generation with a low cost in water would be a good thing to have.

Shale gas is cheap and effective

Date: 2011-07-21 06:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com
. . . if you don't mind your drinking water being flammable. But only until it's exhausted because of global warming,

Date: 2011-07-21 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ami-bender.livejournal.com
Guardian had a decent article on why Shale gas is around as dirty as coal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/shale-gas-green-message

Date: 2011-07-21 08:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ami-bender.livejournal.com
Good spotting, I had not looked through them. Some of the comments are interesting, but a lot of them seem to be more ideological than factual. And some of the factual ones seem to miss the point a bit. I did find what *looks* like a decent wikipedia entry on the environmental impact. I haven't tried to verify it yet, but it seems to be in line with what I have read elsewhere. It seems to agree about the C02 costs of shale gas being roughly the same as coal and raises an intersting point about the impact of the amount of water needed and the needing of lowering surrounding water levels that can have a local impact on forest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry

October 2025

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 1st, 2025 10:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios