World's Largest Landfill Natural Gas ...

World's Largest Landfill Natural Gas Plant Opens in Livermore

There are 94 comments on the Http story from Nov 8, 2009, titled World's Largest Landfill Natural Gas Plant Opens in Livermore. In it, Http reports that:

Cutting the ribbon at the new landfill gas to liquefied natural gas plant at the Waste Management Altamont Landfill and Resource Recovery Facility in Livermore took a lot of hands.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Http.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#86 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just ignorance and false equivocation. There is nothing wrong with eugenics. Who wouldn't want to improve the stock of any population in any species? We all practice individual eugenics when considering a mate's reproductive potential, the only difference between eugenics and genocide is free will.
You have already demonstrated your "true nature" as a "budding maniac" so this may be way over your "Napoleon Complex" mentality.
-------
You said...
"There is nothing wrong with eugenics. Who wouldn't want to improve the stock of any population in any species?"

Who should determine what is an improvement in the stock of the human race?....Obviously, it's YOU?
------
You said...
"...the only difference between eugenics and genocide is free will."

Of course, you have already decided that the only "free will" that matters is YOURS.

You posted:
"The easiest way to control population is to control habitat and food supply. That's how you eradicate pests, for example, create an unfavorable environment and eliminate food sources. Not that humans are pests per se, but the control methods are similar. What's barbaric about that?"

"The difference is that one is called eugenics , or in more sinister manifestations, genocide, if you will, but its not the same thing as population control. There might be some
overlap as far as methodology, but again, not the same thing."

Eugenics and genocide were both practiced by Nazi Germany and led to the "Final Solution" methodology.

YOUR "Population Control Genocide" is to "control habitat and food supply", with the only "free will" being YOURS!
----------
I guess my description of you as a "budding maniac" was wrong.

It should have been a "Budding Homicidal Maniac".

How Pathetic.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#87 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
That is just ignorance and false equivocation. There is nothing wrong with eugenics. Who wouldn't want to improve the stock of any population in any species? We all practice individual eugenics when considering a mate's reproductive potential, the only difference between eugenics and genocide is free will.
Are you like a third column, saying this crap to get the warmists to endorse your views? Is that why you post absurd things?

I hope I didn't blow your cover.

“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”

Since: Oct 09

Safford, AZ

#88 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just ignorance and false equivocation. There is nothing wrong with eugenics. Who wouldn't want to improve the stock of any population in any species? We all practice individual eugenics when considering a mate's reproductive potential, the only difference between eugenics and genocide is free will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

Svante Arrhenius: Geocidal Eugenics FRAUD

Racial biology

Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute's board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Del Crappo

United States

#89 Nov 27, 2009
I have been experimenting with a home methane power plant that runs off a 10 ft. long 1/2" gas line for the last few years. I can run a toaster and a radio on certain days off of my device.

“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”

Since: Oct 09

Safford, AZ

#90 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, more unsubstantiated crap.
E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. what the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS were THINKING when they wondered what to call

T.H.I.S:

Quote:

" This is pretty obviously the same station (well OK.. apart from the duff early period, but I've
got used to that now). But look at the longitude! That's probably 20km! LUckily I selected
'Update wins' and so the metadata aren't compared. This is still going to take ages, because although
I can match WMO codes (or should be able to), I must check that the data correlate adequately - and
for all these stations there will be questions. I don't think it would be a good idea to take the
usual approach of coding to avoid the situation, because (a) it will be non-trivial to code for, and
(b) not all of the situations are the same. But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge
based on WMO code..

the trouble is that then I'm continuing the approach that created these broken databases. Look at this one:
...
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).

**********

What the hell is supposed to happen here?

Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed',

I can make it up.

So I have :-)

**********

If an update station matches a 'master' station by WMO code, but the data is unpalatably
inconsistent, the operator is given three choices:

<BEGIN QUOTE>
You have failed a match despite the WMO codes matching.
This must be resolved!! Please choose one:

1. Match them after all.
2. Leave the existing station alone, and discard the update.
3. Give existing station a false code, and make the update the new WMO station.

Enter 1,2 or 3:
<END QUOTE>

You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to
assign false WMO codes!!

But what else is there in such situations?

Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance

(which, er, they all are and always will be). "

__________

“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”

Since: Oct 09

Safford, AZ

#91 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, more unsubstantiated crap.
Yes and here's MORE of it from THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS,

John

"You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false
WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master'
database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
**********
False codes will be obtained by multiplying the legitimate code (5 digits) by 100, then adding
1 at a time until a number is found with no matches in the database. THIS IS NOT PERFECT but as
there is no central repository for WMO codes -

especially made-up ones -
**********
we'll have to chance
duplicating one that's present in one of the other databases. In any case, anyone comparing WMO
codes between databases - something I've studiously avoided doing except for tmin/tmax where I
had to - will be treating the false codes with suspicion anyway. Hopefully.

Of course, option 3 cannot be offered for CLIMAT bulletins, there being no metadata with which
to form a new station.

This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect
nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -
to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted).
**********
In other words, what CRU usually do.
**********
It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to
become bad,
**********
but I really don't think people care enough to fix 'em,
**********
and it's the main reason

the
project is nearly a year late."

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#92 Nov 27, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, more unsubstantiated crap. Education and cultural literacy stemming from it is not inversely correlated with socioeconomic status. Post a link if you think this outlandish claim has any merit.
Industrial farming has enabled a transition from agrarian lifestyles into other occupations, freeing people from the responsibility or need to raise or produce their own food, but all of the efficiencies derived from innovations (from fertilization, irrigation and genetic modification of crops), have offsetting problems of their own, and they don't change human nature, which of course is at the root of the problems both leading to, and stemming from , overpopulation.
Were it not for the charity and efforts of strangers, entire regions of the world, containing many millions of people, would be left unable to secure needed food supplies. These subsidies are direct evidence of "Malthusian conditions", as are the existence of global commodities markets trading in the derivatives of food products, in which the only way to make money is to accurately predict the magnitude and the chronology of the next shortage of some component. These are Malthusian conditions. Input subsidies are more direct evidence of a Malthusian condition.
Why do we work so hard trying to believe that death by CO2 is legitimate when there is practically an “addition” in ClimateGate that the planet is not dying after all? It’s like we wish for this misery to happen.
Are we off the rails here or what? We are losing sight of our goals and doubling our efforts anyways and history will not be kind to us wishing for doom for every human on the planet. I’m seeing now that motivating by fear could have been excusable at some point but when we started promising “death” of the planet, we set ourselves up for this big fall we are experiencing. The longer we wait to abandon this CO2 mistake turned outright criminal, the less that fall will hurt environmentalism.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#93 Nov 28, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, more unsubstantiated crap. Education and cultural literacy stemming from it is not inversely correlated with socioeconomic status. Post a link if you think this outlandish claim has any merit.
Industrial farming has enabled a transition from agrarian lifestyles into other occupations, freeing people from the responsibility or need to raise or produce their own food, but all of the efficiencies derived from innovations (from fertilization, irrigation and genetic modification of crops), have offsetting problems of their own, and they don't change human nature, which of course is at the root of the problems both leading to, and stemming from , overpopulation.
Were it not for the charity and efforts of strangers, entire regions of the world, containing many millions of people, would be left unable to secure needed food supplies. These subsidies are direct evidence of "Malthusian conditions", as are the existence of global commodities markets trading in the derivatives of food products, in which the only way to make money is to accurately predict the magnitude and the chronology of the next shortage of some component. These are Malthusian conditions. Input subsidies are more direct evidence of a Malthusian condition.
Of course it is crap to you. Those who live with money have the funds to spend on various gaming systems, big TV's and various means of reproducing video while the poor do not. But what many poor do have is a libary card and with that they have access to thousands of books and other reading material. Try something even better than a link. Try actually going to your local libary. You might be surprised even to find out that they have nearly as many as your local video store and while they are not as up on the new releases they have a wider selection. Then you have all the rest including books on paper, tape, and CD not to mention music.

As for your idea that the answer is for everyone one to go back to an agrarian lifestyle you should lok at the results of the last time it was tried by a goup called the Khmer Rouge under the control of someone named Pol Pot in a little place called Cambodia. They tried your idea. Pay close attention to the body count and consider what it would be world wide.

The number one reason for food shortages in this world has little to do with agraculture and much to do with politics. Politics resulted it situations where a small group would decide that they didn't like another and destroy thier ability to feed themselves in order to starve them out. Of course there are groups who are dedicated to using peacefule means to stop the hunger by bringing in food but unless they either hire guards or are willing to bear weapons themselves the warlords just take the food at gun point and the problem continues. That is until they let rought men in guns go in and deal with the warlords or at least allow a few armed aircraft to spoil the warlords day.

The world has seen your type before. And the remains of those ideas have resulted in moutains of dead while the believers walk away complaining that someone like an ag corp or Exxon pulled strings to keep it from working. Why not gaze on the hills of skulls while the smell of decaying flesh fills the air. After all that is what your ideas always ends. With the poor dying in massive amounts. Of course you would consider it crap dispite the fact that it has been tried and some have tried to show the pictures of it's victems.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/04/15/wor...
Anon

Pleasanton, CA

#94 Nov 29, 2009
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you like a third column, saying this crap to get the warmists to endorse your views? Is that why you post absurd things?
I hope I didn't blow your cover.
WTF is a "warmist" and why would I care if they endorse my views or not?
Anon

Pleasanton, CA

#95 Nov 29, 2009
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it is crap to you. Those who live with money have the funds to spend on various gaming systems, big TV's and various means of reproducing video while the poor do not. But what many poor do have is a libary card and with that they have access to thousands of books and other reading material.
As for your idea that the answer is for everyone one to go back to an agrarian lifestyle you should lok at the results of the last time it was tried by a goup called the Khmer Rouge under the control of someone named Pol Pot in a little place called Cambodia. They tried your idea.
The number one reason for food shortages in this world has little to do with agraculture and much to do with politics. Politics resulted it situations where a small group would decide that they didn't like another and destroy thier ability to feed themselves in order to starve them out. Of course there are groups who are dedicated to using peacefule means to stop the hunger by bringing in food but unless they either hire guards or are willing to bear weapons themselves the warlords just take the food at gun point and the problem continues. That is until they let rought men in guns go in and deal with the warlords or at least allow a few armed aircraft to spoil the warlords day.
The world has seen your type before. And the remains of those ideas have resulted in moutains of dead while the believers walk away complaining that someone like an ag corp or Exxon pulled strings to keep it from working. Why not gaze on the hills of skulls while the smell of decaying flesh fills the air.
I don't see anything about biofuels in your link. No link about how poverty is a good indicator for higher literacy or educational attainment either. And if you will refer to past posts, I have repeatedly lamented the evils of agribusiness and globalist interests. I didn't say everyone should return to an agrarian lifestyle. Only that the model for food production is broken and has deleterious effects - on the environment, economically, nutritionally, and on the human population. A lot of people can raise food locally, either on their own land or community gardens. Even inner cities have land that could be utilized for local food production. The burbs have even more. You don't have to live on a farm, live an agrarian lifestyle to grow fruit and vegetables or even to raise chickens. My neighbor had chickens, except for a little clucking now and then it didn't bother anyone. And he had eggs fresh daily. If you need red meat on the table, well, there are alternatives to our current reliance on the broken model, I guess it would require some adjustments, but its not an impossible task..here in Livermore, we are surrounded by meadows and pastureland on which many cattle are freely grazed. Even a small rancho, just a section of good land, can support near to 1000 head.
Nobody has to move out to the sticks, knock out a tooth, get a mangy dog, and a pickup, to make changes. OF course it can't happen all at once, but there is no reason why we can't undo *some* of the urbanization of the last 50 years and the destructive systems that are spawned by metropolitan sprawl. And taking some positive steps towards solving the population crisis will make that transition easier.
Anon

Pleasanton, CA

#96 Nov 29, 2009
I Am DigitaP wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Svante Arrhenius: Geocidal Eugenics FRAUD
Racial biology
Svante Arrhenius was also actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been planned as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute's board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909. Swedish racial biology was world-leading at this time, and the results formed the scientific basis for the Compulsory sterilization program in Sweden, as well as inspiring the Nazi eugenics in Germany.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Eugenics is just a tool. Can be used for good or for evil like any other tool. Nowhere is this more true of human invention than in the sciences. Virologists have the training to create both vaccines and new viruses. Psychiatrists can provide therapy or use their techniques for brainwashing and torture. I mean, literally anything, whether its knowledge/info or an actual thing, can be put to a poor use.

“Team YOU'RE D.E.N.I.E.D.”

Since: Oct 09

Safford, AZ

#97 Nov 29, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Eugenics is just a tool. Can be used for good or for evil like any other tool. Nowhere is this more true of human invention than in the sciences. Virologists have the training to create both vaccines and new viruses. Psychiatrists can provide therapy or use their techniques for brainwashing and torture. I mean, literally anything, whether its knowledge/info or an actual thing, can be put to a poor use.
And we've seen the usage it's been put to.

SOVIET ethnic cleansings
Serbian ethnic cleansings
Turkish ethnic cleansings
Rwandan ethnic cleansings
German ethnic cleansings
Chinese ethnic cleansings
US/American Indian ethnic cleansings
Iraqi ethnic cleansings
Swedish ethnic cleansings

And you think it's perfecly fine to bribe some back woods president who's also a tribal chief, to "control population" as "he and his advisors" see fit, through 'incentives.'

you can't see much could go wrong.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#98 Nov 29, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see anything about biofuels in your link. No link about how poverty is a good indicator for higher literacy or educational attainment either. And if you will refer to past posts, I have repeatedly lamented the evils of agribusiness and globalist interests. I didn't say everyone should return to an agrarian lifestyle. Only that the model for food production is broken and has deleterious effects - on the environment, economically, nutritionally, and on the human population. A lot of people can raise food locally, either on their own land or community gardens. Even inner cities have land that could be utilized for local food production. The burbs have even more. You don't have to live on a farm, live an agrarian lifestyle to grow fruit and vegetables or even to raise chickens. My neighbor had chickens, except for a little clucking now and then it didn't bother anyone. And he had eggs fresh daily. If you need red meat on the table, well, there are alternatives to our current reliance on the broken model, I guess it would require some adjustments, but its not an impossible task..here in Livermore, we are surrounded by meadows and pastureland on which many cattle are freely grazed. Even a small rancho, just a section of good land, can support near to 1000 head.
Nobody has to move out to the sticks, knock out a tooth, get a mangy dog, and a pickup, to make changes. OF course it can't happen all at once, but there is no reason why we can't undo *some* of the urbanization of the last 50 years and the destructive systems that are spawned by metropolitan sprawl. And taking some positive steps towards solving the population crisis will make that transition easier.
YOur repeated whining about how the current system is broken and the waxing about how people could grow thier own food even in a city is the best proof of who you are. Your not intrested in biofuels since you would need a ag corp to raise it. Nor are you really interested in people and how they live since the times your referring to were times when famines were a common occurance. Times when people around the world starved to death.

The human population is doing better than anytime in it's history. More people are being fed per acre than couldbe dreamed of a hundred years ago. A hundred years ago beef was considered cheap and chicken was expensive for the simple fact that a cow could take care of itself when turned out in a field and chickens required a daily effort. And then the eggs they produced was considered more valuble than the meat. A few roosters that were considered extra would end up on the dinner table in the fall but that was it and chicken was hard to cure where beef and pork could be salted or smoked and would keep for a long time that way. Of course the salt content would make the modern doctor cringe but it was better than nothing.

Wake up and realize that we cannot go back to the past. The kinder gentler times your dreaming of were nothing of the sort. They were back breaking endless toil that killed those people early. The ills your blaming on modern agraculture are true. Because people can get enought to eat to live long enought for those things to kill the. Before people didn't suffer from those problems because they died long before.

Next you will be talking about cutting down trees to heat our homes.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#99 Nov 29, 2009
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Eugenics is just a tool. Can be used for good or for evil like any other tool. Nowhere is this more true of human invention than in the sciences. Virologists have the training to create both vaccines and new viruses. Psychiatrists can provide therapy or use their techniques for brainwashing and torture. I mean, literally anything, whether its knowledge/info or an actual thing, can be put to a poor use.
Unlike any other human invention including nuclear, eugenics has never been used for good. It has been repeatedly championed by those like yourself who believe that they have all the answers but whenever they try those answers it always end up as a disaster. A gun can be put to poor use while eugenics has never been put to a good use.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Biomass Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bill supporting renewable energy advances Apr '17 Solarman 1
News Scientists harness solar power to produce clean... Mar '17 Solarman 1
News Biomass, no-till could play major role in limit... Feb '17 maybe 1
News More UK electricity 'from wind turbines than co... (Jan '17) Jan '17 Solarman 1
News Costa Rica Ran On Renewable Energy For Over 250... (Jan '17) Jan '17 Solarman 1
News Claim: Reservoirs play substantial role in glob... (Oct '16) Nov '16 Earthling-1 4
News The ethanol in your gas tank should come from a... (May '16) Jul '16 longtail 3
More from around the web