Ocean News

Not todays children. Grass grows magnitudes faster than sealevel rises. Kids grow even faster, like weeds!

 

See how it goes? You're caught out in fabrication and all you do is obfuscate. It was not obvious that 1 billion $ was a worldwide expenditure, as you didn't post the whole statement. You continue in your dishonest fashion by comparing a false American expenditure for defense to a supposed, undocumented, world wide expense as if that was what America spends per day on GW r+d.

I agree that the ability to measure the oceans rise by hundredths of an inch per year sounds unbelievable, but "anyway" also sounds unbelievable as an explanation for posting misleading data.

 

I'm sorry you were and still are confused.
Although some of your pals post long, complete articles, you are supposed to post excerpts and the url. Interested folks go to the url and read the whole thing!

The Scientific American article wasn't about the budget or defense, but about US science spending. It just happened to have a budget diagram with a defense block, and I gleaned the 56 billion figure from that.

So, I was in error trusting Scientific American was accurate. It IS a well respected publication.

If you had read the other article in my post, at the posted url, you MIGHT have been less quick on the attack trigger, by not wrongly assuming it was USA expenditures I was posting.

I glossed over your attacks on the accuracy of figures, and restated the INTENT of my post, in response to your fussing.
That the money spent on digging up new propaganda science, would be better spent on eliminating the cause of contention. Develop clean affordable energy, and everybody should be happy!

I've stated it three times now! THAT is the point I was trying to make!

Now.
My turn to shoot.


You should learn the meanings of words you try to use.
I got the 56 billion from Scientific American. I didn't invent (fabricate) the figure.
I tried to carefully deliberately make my point, where the effort and money would more productively be spent, in three separate posts.
That is the OPPOSITE of obfuscation!
But still, YOU miss the whole point!
and
Here's your words for today, and your head:

ob·fus·ca·tion
/ˌäbfəˈskāSH(ə)n/

noun

1. the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.


fab·ri·ca·tion
/ˌfabrəˈkāSH(ə)n/

noun

1. the action or process of manufacturing or inventing something "the assembly and fabrication of electronic products" synonyms: invention, concoction, (piece of) fiction, falsification, lie, untruth, falsehood, fib, myth, made-up story, fairy story/tale, cock-and-bull story, white lie, half-truth, exaggeration, tall tale, whopper, manufacture, creation, production, construction, building, assembly, forming, fashioning

Powered by Oxford Dictionaries

 

Mine won't. Others will go first. Many others.....

Where's that 1m of sea level rise anyway? I think I'll need it real soon now.

PDW

 

Quote
Japan begins work on 'world's largest' floating solar farm
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ns-work-on-worlds-largest-floating-solar-farm

The Japanese electronics multinational Kyocera has begun work on what it says will be the world’s biggest floating solar farm.

The power plant is being built on a reservoir in Japan’s Chiba prefecture and is anticipated to supply enough electricity for nearly 5,000 households when it is completed in early 2018.

Space-starved Japan has already seen several floating solar farms built as part of the country’s drive to exploit more renewable energy in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. The shutdown of nuclear plants has seen Japan increasingly reliant on fossil fuel imports that have hit its emissions-cutting ambitions.

Ray Noble, a solar adviser at the UK-based Renewable Energy Association, said that the technology was relatively straightforward but the only reason to build floating farms would be if land was very tight.

 

Quote
Natural' gas not as good as solar – despite the gas industry's best efforts.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-solar-despite-the-gas-industrys-best-efforts

Let’s not forget here that so-called ‘natural’ gas is a fossil fuel, and is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, or that domestic gas is increasingly derived from coal seam gas through fracking that affects groundwater and agricultural production, or that the price of gas is steadily increasing.

Yet the gas industry claims that gas is as good as solar: “For households that have adopted solar energy to reduce their emissions, gas also plays an important role when the sun is not shining.” But a variety of analysis tells a different story, and shows that gas is not needed for houses with rooftop solar.

High efficiency electrical appliances, such as induction cookstoves and reverse-cycle air conditioners for heating and cooling, mean that there is no longer any need to use gas for cooking or for heating. When a home is powered by solar, these cooking and heating appliances are powered by 100% renewable energy. These are real alternatives to gas, are much more efficient, cheaper to run, and mean that the householder has control over their energy bills.

Renewables will always beat coal and gas, and new solar and wind are cheaper than new coal and new gas. The world has reached a turning point, and is now adding more power capacity from renewables every year than from coal, natural gas and oil combined. Over 1000 mayors from around the world have seen the writing on the wall, all committing to 100% renewable energy in Paris. And high efficiency electrical cooking and heating appliances powered by rooftop solar are widely available. Energy freedom is ready and waiting for every Australian household.

 

It seems British children rise with the sea level, but seeing the thought to be potential reasons I'm not sure this also happens where they need it . . .

 

Quote
California Researchers Set Up A Study: Meat Eaters vs. Vegetarians
http://growingtallerguide.com/index.php/648/who-grows-taller-vegetarians-or-meat-eaters/
Back in 1991 at the Department of Epidemiology at Lomo Linda University at the School of Public Health in California, four researchers – J. Sabate, K.D. Lindsted, R.D. Harris, and A. Sanchez decided to see what was causing children to grow taller from a diet perspective.

They found two populations – one which was a Seventh-Day Adventist school of 870 children aged between 7 and 18 years old, and the other, a state school with 870 children of the same ages.

They thought these populations were perfect to examine to see who could grow taller because the major difference in diets of the children was that those at the Seventh Day Adventist school ate a lot less meat than students at the state school.

More specifically, the Adventist children ate meat less than once a week. They were vegetarians.

Thus, the researchers believed they were testing the effect of a vegetarian diet versus a meat containing diet of children and its impact on growing taller.

On average, the Adventist vegetarian children were 2.5 centimeters taller than their meat-consuming classmates who only grew 2.0 centimeters during the time of the study.

Quote
http://www.petakids.com/parents/vegetarian-family/healthy-vegetarian-kids/

Dr. Charles Attwood, author of Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription for Kids: One Diet for the Whole Family, writes that vegetarian children often grow taller than their meat-eating friends, noting, “Children on low-fat diets of mostly vegetables, fruits, grain, and legumes, when consuming adequate calories, not only grow normally, but have actually been shown to attain greater height than meat-eating children.”

 

Hey boy, you forgot to quote the below part of that link, as it didn't suit you to tell the whole story here . . .

 

And to add to Angelique post,

"So as you see, this research is one more example of research that doesn’t really tell us much – and possibly has wasted a lot of time and a lot of people’s time."

 

Hey Girl
I also gave a part of the http://www.petakids.com/parents/vegetarian-family/healthy-vegetarian-kids/
as is another small part below.

“Children who are raised on whole grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes will have a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and many obesity-related illnesses compared to their counterparts raised on the average American diet.”
Dr. Charles Attwood, author of Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription for Kids: One Diet for the Whole Family, writes that vegetarian children often grow taller than their meat-eating friends, noting, “Children on low-fat diets of mostly vegetables, fruits, grain, and legumes, when consuming adequate calories, not only grow normally, but have actually been shown to attain greater height than meat-eating children.”

Doing what the moderator has asked when quoting

 

On this one I only have to refer to the below comment on your linked page . . . :idea:

 

I gave the link another read and it still confirmed children who do not eat meat grow taller as vegetarians do drink milk

 

You didn't read it properly or you are deliberately misleading here with partial quotes which omit the essential outcome of the study, the article you linked to eventually says the kids grow taller because of the milk and not because of any vegetarianism . . :idea:

​

 

Its obvious no one places a loan comment from a link, especially a opinion know to be untrue by millions of vegetarians, I have two sons never eaten meat and they are taller than most other children and extremely healthy and most of all very good conscience and kind, they could teach you a thing or two.
Please take your nitpicking to a nitpicking forum and do not bother me any more as this thread is about Ocean news
Thank you