Telling Abbott the truth

9 03 2014

Go the Greens……. the Prime Moronster has to go………

Café Whispers

Green’s Senator Scott Ludlam welcomes Tony Abbott to Western Australia.

And Ludlam nails it. Seven minutes of hard-hitting truth.

Naturally, Tony Abbott won’t bother to listen to this speech. But thousands will.

View original post

Advertisements

Actions

Information

16 responses

9 03 2014
Eclipse Now

“Consider the way Ludlam lumps gas fracking in with the nuclear electricity industry without understanding that the two are inversely related, meaning that the reason we have fracking is because nuclear power got blocked by the anti-nuclear movement. If the nuclear roll out of the 1970s had continued, there’d be little or no gas fracking today”

“By rejecting both gas and nuclear as a package, Ludlam is throwing the baby out with the fracking bath water.”

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/03/08/scott-ludlams-viral-video/

9 03 2014
Lee

Love Ludlum

9 03 2014
hopdavid

Hey Mike, I addressed Murphy’s reply in more detail here:
http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2014/03/murphys-reply.html

I hope to make you the poster child for the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

9 03 2014
mikestasse

Firstly, you have slightly misunderstood the appeal to authority fallacy which is ‘if an expert says something, then it must be true’. This is a fallacy because obviously an expert can still be wrong, however it is widely accepted that even though an authority can be wrong they still have a higher chance of being right than someone with an unknown level of knowledge. So while Murphy is not an expert on orbital mechanics, a physicist may still have a good reason for not discussing the xenon ion thrusters which you bring up to try to disprove the point. At the point you have shown you know more than Murphy about orbital mechanics, which I believe you have now done, then I am committing the fallacy if I keep suggesting he knows better than you.

Now, a discussion on Ion thrusters.

Ion thrusters have extremely low thrusts as stated on , on the order of a few newtons for the most powerful thrusters. I’ll be nice and assume we use the experimental VASIMR thruster (which uses argon), being BY FAR the most powerful ion thruster available (though it has never yet been used on a mission). VASIMR can produce ~5 Newtons of thrust, but doing so requires 200kW of power, more than twice the 84kW maximum ISS currently produces. To rendezvous with an asteroid using such low thrust is no joke, but if you do you can accelerate a 1 tonne asteroid at (F = ma -> a = F/m = 5 / 1000) = 0.005 m/s^2 or about 5E-4 g. To change an asteroids velocity by .17 km/s would require thrusting for (dV/a = 170/0.005) = 34000 seconds or about 10.5 hours, during which time the asteroid may have moved out of the area for the most efficient ‘burn’, increasing the real delta V cost. Remember how VASIMR uses so much power? The current design spec calls for trickle charging a battery so it can be used for 15 minutes at a time, to power the drive would require either an enormous solar array or a nuclear reactor, both greatly increasing the cost and weight of the vessel and increasing fuel requirements while decreasing available (excess) thrust. For every asteroid you capture this way you still need to launch the fuel from earth using chemical rockets for the initial 10 or so km/s delta V to LEO, and all this only allows you to retrieve the smallest and slowest asteroids.

Can we retrieve a few asteroids? Probably. Can we sustain ourselves on asteroid mining indefinitely? Very doubtful.

23 03 2014
hopdavid

I recently purchased a Cintiq drawing tablet. You should be honored, your portrait is one of the first things I made with it: http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2014/03/murphys-reply.html

23 03 2014
mikestasse

I notice you never bothered publishing the lengthy reply I sent to your blog…… and I stupidly never thought of saving a copy before sending it.

9 03 2014
Graham Palmer

It is interesting to read the comments on YouTube expressing vitriol verging on sheer hatred of the Greens and Ludlam’s speech. Is it an irrational fear of this minor party or do those expressing these views unwittingly know what the Greens say makes sense but is against all the things they stand for and wish can continue into the future?
Either way it is at least getting people to watch a video of a politician making a speech which must be good for the Greens. Go Scott, all the best for the rerun Senate election. We need men like you rather than the other Doolally candidates on offer who have absolutely nothing to offer.

9 03 2014
Cheryl

Considering I am not a Greens supporter although I do agree with SOME of their views, I have to mark Ludkum with the following marks :-
On delivery – 9/10.
On content – 7/10
On credibility – 8/10
On covert nastiness – 10/10

And I don’t like Abbott !!!!!
Hoping the WA election will help sort things out and in general bring us back into balance, which unfortunately the Greens appear to lack.

9 03 2014
mikestasse

REALLY?? Nastiness……. I’m dumbfounded….

9 03 2014
brennie

i was moved by scott’s speech – very, very good. i’ll keep voting for the greens.

10 03 2014
Lindsay

This speech was “typical” leftist progressive champagne socialism. He was not an environmentalist talking passionately about how we can reverse the destruction (at best) and (at worst) presenting ideas as to how we can make Australia more resilient as climatic times get tough. One things for sure, a population of 40 million plus in the next 20 years does not a green utopia make. A true Green has a platform of less economic growth, simpler living, and smaller localized communities existing within a larger but substantially smaller national populace. That’s what its going to take. And no one has yet been elected to parliament, state or federal, on that ticket.

10 03 2014
CherylT

Lindsay – you have “hit the nail on the head”. Couldn’t have said it better.
Now WHERE are our politicians to do it ??? Not a thing in sight at present.
I for one will VOTE for them – CAMPAIGN for them and DONATE to them.
Can I send out an SOS !!!!

10 03 2014
mikestasse

Well there IS the Stable Population Party. The Pirate Party’s pretty good too. I’d give any of those my vote well ahead of the laborals….

10 03 2014
Idiocracy

The Stable Population Party IS a better pick – they’re the only one addressing the white elephant in the room…

But then again there is the Pirate Party, not to mention the Sex Party, and who doesn’t love either of those!? 8-D Tough Choices…

I do agree when it comes to the Laborals too, however there’s always one party beneath even them on my ticket – the Family First Party. The Coalition has it’s fair share of Christian Zealots, but the FFP is a whole party of them!!!

10 03 2014
Cheryl

Already vote for the Stable Population Party. Just feel that for the voters who would not vote for the majors and those who have same grave reservations on some of the Greens ideologies, it would give us another voice out there that would entice many voters to support us and thus even if not successful outright, would at least give us the numbers to support someone who does represent and truly reflect the wishes of the voters. A RARE one indeed. But I DO still live in hope.

11 03 2014
Sitar

cheryl, how about you standing as an independent candidate? give us more of a choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s