To me I think both groups play a key role in human development. If you can see liberals as the guys who wants to advance as fast as possible towards a goal and you see the conservatives as trying to undersand where we are better. Then you can understand how important each group is.

Look at one of the key subjects of our time. Such cloning, liberals are more likely to say go ahead while conservatives are more likely to say don't do it. Now I think cloning there is not much risk but think about biotech in general. Sometimes I think we should be more conservative in key subjects such those and more liberal in subjects such green energy.

Such you do not want to have more power than your ability to control it.

>> ^Irishman:
^
Global warming is different. It's political.

It shouldn't be.

Its common sense, as bright as daylight, why the fuck arnt the politicians all getting off their collective asses pushing for a switchover to full electric cars, a full DC renewable energy grid, and getting off the dependance on foreign oil ?

What is there to lose in that, other than the trillions of currently unbought business sitting in the ground yet to be sucked up and burnt off...but then, the govt. should'nt be be-holdin to corporations and their profit/loss statements, they serve the people.

Ida thought that putting legislation into place that helps foster a new green energy industry would be good for the people. Ida thought that long-term virtually free energy / transport would be good for the people.

Corruption, its a wonderful thing.

For someone who says the sky is falling, [Al Gore] does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
USA Today


But our current President, George W. Bush, owns a sustainable home that’s off-grid, that features geothermal cooling and heating, passive solar, and greywater systems.

“Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground; one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called graywater, and one tank for black water from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well. The Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume. Several holes were drilled 300 feet deep, where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees.”
Off-Grid.net

Even portions of the home are made from waste materials from a local quarry!

If we use Al Gore as our role model for being environmentally friendly, Planet Earth is screwed.

eric3579:

Well, by watching the videos, we can fairly straightforwardly see that the World Trade Center towers didn't collapse at free-fall speeds. Keep an eye on the outermost debris as the collapse takes place. It clearly falls notably faster than the main mass of the structure. So, unless we are to think that this debris is falling faster than free-fall speed (which would be impossible), it's reasonably clear that the main mass of the structure is falling appreciably slower than free-fall speed.

You state that you have "no doubt" that "hundreds of physicists" would be "explaining how this can occur if it was at all possible". However, this is an example of the fallacy of appealing solely to your own personal incredulity. Further, regarding collapse times and energy transfer, you ask for a "physicist that says different". Well, here's physicist Dr. F. R. Greening: Energy Transfer in the World Trade Center Collapse.

As to your last post, in my experience, the more prosaic explanations for the events of 9/11 are supported by overwhelming evidence. The conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are supported by no compelling evidence whatsoever; they're nothing but pseudo-science, ignorance, lies and deceit. I by no means wish to colour you with this assessment, but even within the limited confines and fleeting nature of this thread, we have seen a veritable microcosm of it.

Pho3nix, I believe that is German, not Russian.

As everyone has stated, the Chernobyl disaster was caused by gross misconduct on the part of a Soviet nuclear engineer. While I can understand people's fears about this occurring somewhere in the U.S., we are much more rigorous with standards. We don't have the Simpson's nuke plants hanging around.

As someone pro-nuke, I second Gluonium's post - we need to use the material better in the reactors. As with any technology, the old should be updated/replaced with the new (with breeder reactors hopefully). France is a great example of a country successfully using nuclear power.

For those who are strongly anti-nuke, what alternatives do you propose? A coal burning plan produces quite nasty stuff (when left unfiltered). Natural gas is better, but not great either. Honestly, I wish we could have green energy but it does not produce the amounts necessary. We should not keep spending money on nukes if we are not adequately funding future research into fusion/improved green power.

Great find Gluonium.