Update on the above video.  [highlight]Stan Meyer poisoned[/highlight].  Should have took the money, Stan.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

That methane guy is probably Jean Pain.  Strangely the article about him that comes up early in a search is an old Reader's Digest one (first link).  If your French is pretty fluent you might be able to get a book--the English version seems to be long gone.

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/methane_pain.html

http://www.jean-pain.com/

(the late Al Rutan was our methane guy)

Knowledge Publications has a reproduction (a lot of their books are reproductions) of a book on how to make and store methane intended for African farmers.  It seems right doable.  A pair of metal drums and an inner tube.  Biogas volumes one and two--put into one.

http://knowledgepublications.com/methane/methane_uses_and_fuels.htm

Amanda you never cease to amaze me...

Great links by the way...I ordered a couple of books I hope that they are fascinating... Thank you

Thank you!

I've bought from him before, am on his mailing list.  

You have figured out that some of the hydrogen is wood-gas--what is burned away to leave charcoal.

pretty fascinating the industrial hydrogen that is generated making chemicals...

Not sure I want to mess with suphuric acid and nasty stuff like that for hydrogen

I do think that the solar panel hooked to a device that is hooked to the garden hose is pretty much what I would like to see developed and improved upon...

People could make their own Hydrogen from the sun and the garden hose...Store it in containers and then use it to generate electricity when there was a shortage or to fill up their car.

Play with it - if you blow up I didn't tell you that.  Note that some say it doesn't work.  Only one way to find out.

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/savings.html
Hydrogen-Boost

http://oupower.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1275
OUPower.com :: View topic - Do you have a car running ONLY on water?

http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html
Hydrogen Booster

http://better-mileage.com/memberbonuswateradx.html
better mileage

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stan.html
Stan Meyer's Files

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=zyxso48t7j
StumbleVideo - Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995)

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2229511748333360205
googleplayer.swf (application/x-shockwave-flash Object)

IPCC to release "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" report
It is the second in a series of IPCC reports coming out this year
http://www.theworldnews.com.au/region.php?id=136107&region=3

The first volume of "Climate Change 2007; Summary for Policymakers" released on 2 February Can be found here. (PDF Warning)
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf

Hmm.  The first of those links suggested "only" "up to" a 4 degree warming by the end of the century.

Some of the projections have suggested 6, but maybe past the end of the century.  Mark Lynas believes that with 6 the only thing that will thrive will be fungi.  And even with four, there may be enough feedback loops/blowback that the 6 degrees (C) warming will be just a matter of time.

Last night the local Eco-film festival showed The Power of Community: How Cuba survived Peak Oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Community:_How_Cuba_Survived_Peak_Oil

I was not as impressed as I'd hoped I would be.  Maybe too many warm fuzzies about how Cuba pulled together, not enough specific details about exactly how they did it.  Too many pictures of lettuce and people hoeing earth that looked as if it would wash away with the first sign of rain.

But one of the bits that didn't make this cut was reported as "If this had been Germany people would have been eating each other."  One that did make this cut was--"when we were told that there ld be less electricity, and what there was would be higher, we said that we could use less.  But people in the US would be more likely to say 'but I am paying for it.'"

even faster?http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/07/content_845498.htm

Naahhh....that's what people have been saying for years.  

But a two or three degree rise is not trivial, because the temperature rise is extremely uneven, because water in the form of both rain and ice not to mention lack of water, is also involved.

Also somewhere in there there are feedback loops--e.g. lack of ice at the North Pole causes more summer warming up there, which melts more ice, which....  (Polar ice that's floating will not--by itself-- cause a rise in sea levels.  That will take glaciers and permafrost and I guess swamps and inland lakes drying up as well)

Given that the average  temperature has varied by at least this amount in the documented past- an average 3 degrees C more in the 800's permitted vineyards in Scotland, for example, it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. As for sea level rise, there are any number of middle-ages and older seaports now submerged, so that is nothing new, either. And the doomsayer credibility of Stern, an economist, not a scientist, with the World Bank, the organisation which, along with the IMF, has done more harm to more parts of the global financial network than Adolf Htler and Ghengis Khan combined, it is, in my opinion, non-existant.

I agree.  A natural occurrence - there used to be dinosaurs here but lots of variance besides that.  Follow the money takes you here.

Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/140307hysteria.htm

Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/280307globalistslove.htm

That's it, Glenn.
Paranoid, Moi? Yep, you bet- the amount of freedoms willingly given away by Aussies in the last thirty years, with gun ownership in the forefront, is sickening.

How is that gun ban thing working out? I haven't paid too much attention to the AU status but I was horrified when the legislation went through and I saw pictures of them cutting up firearms. Do the bad guys still have guns? I would think so.  :-?

(I'm originally from Canada, 22 years ago, and they've gone stricter and stricter in recent years as well, but not that far. Even my wife has gotten used to firearms now... she never used to "like" them, but tolerated them/me. However, we now go target shooting (revolvers) together and last year she came on an elk hunt.)

The Aussies are in bed with Bush as is England and the New World Order crowd.  Look to give up nearly all freedoms you have and live in fear if you don't keep yourself aware of what they are up to.  They'd have to kill me before I'd lick their boots.

The sky is falling -- the sky is falling --- help me big brother-- save me -- I pay you all my money and give you all my freedom -- just keep the bad ole ice from melting and drowning everybody who built on the beach.....    My a$$.  Give me a break.  Give me my money and give me my freedom.  Now get out of my face.

Not you -- I was talking to big brother.

...and I'm sure he is listening, Glenn, that's the scary bit. A national ID card comes in next year down here, with almost nary a whimper from the brainwashed masses. Chaney was welcomed down here recently as a hero, and civil liberties are almost a thing of the past- strangest of all, it is illegal not to vote in any election- State, Federal or Local Government- .

Not really a gun ban.
The death of 35 people and serious injuries to almost 20 others at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996 prompted the Australian government to urge a meeting of the eight state and territory police ministers to introduce a new and stricter range of gun controls. Three major changes were introduced.
(a) Gun registration was introduced to all eight jurisdictions
(b) Attempts were made to have uniform gun laws throughout Australia
(c) A new standardised gun-licensing scheme was put into practice.

The main thrust of the "Australian Gun Laws", in regard to gun registration, bans on certain semi - auto guns, genuine reason for gun ownership, safety training, safe storage, etc where taken on board by these states and territories.

The new scheme allowed non-self-loading guns to be readily available but placed restrictions on high capacity self-loading rimfire rifles, self-loading centrefire rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns. These were the types of guns mainly used in Australian gun massacres, There were about four million guns in Australia. One million were no longer in the legal category so a gun buy-back scheme was introduced to purchase these. About 640,000 guns were offered for purchase, 40% of Australian gun owners did not obey these laws.

There is good reason to believe that these changes contributed in a major way to the fact that today about 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds compared to the situation in the 1970' and 1980's.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2003/march03html/phbmarch03.pdf
Look for the deaths from firearms.

QuoteDo the bad guys still have guns?

Probably, but so do the good guys.

Don't read this PEG --- remember your blood pressure.  

That is almost a mirror image of gun laws they enacted around here.  Near the same results.  Criminals will not give up their guns.

A mandatory vote law would mean they would have to shoot me also.  I will in no way approve of or be made an accessory to the criminal activities of our elected officials or even our installed leader and vote machine tampering retained White House resident and his cabal.

I'm afraid Australia failed the US by allowing Cheney to leave without trying him for war crimes. :'(

Published: August 2000 Author: Ron Owen, President, Firearm Owners Of Australia
 

Dear Mr Owen

The 1996 national gun laws have been shown in research to have significantly reduced the level of gun related crime in this country. The number of offences where a gun has been used has decreased significantly. Guns were used in 18.6% of armed robberies in 1998-99, compared with 26.8% the year before.

As a result of the national gun laws 640,000 guns were collected and destroyed. It is not only murder rates that have fallen, but all firearm related deaths. Total firearm related deaths in Australia fell from 523 in 1996 to 328 in 1998.

The guns targeted in 1996 were those that a member of our community had little justification in owning. The Government of South Australia took the view that the safety of our community was under threat by these weapons and took action to address this situation.

The studies you have referred to ignore the high level of gun violence in the United States in comparison with Australia. The easy availability of guns directly relates to the level of gun violence. The Government of South Australia considers the responsibility of owning a gun a serious one, and has sought to make the conditions of ownership strict. Responsible gun owners have nothing to fear from the national gun laws. The community is safer because of them.

Yours sincerely

JOHN OLSEN
Premier (the equivalent of Governor in the US), South Australia

To Premier of South Australia

John Olsen

In reply to your letter dated 2/5/2000, Ref Number 00P01231

From Mr Ron Owen, National President,

Firearm Owners Association of Australia

Dear Mr Olsen

Reading your letter and considering the amount of well researched information that has already been dispatched to your office, and the breadth, of the research information within the Parliamentary libraries in Australia, the only conclusions I can deduce from your correspondence is that you are either an ignoramus or a charlatan. You either cannot read or cannot be bothered to read or really know the truth and still ignore it.

When you say, "The 1996 national gun laws have been shown in research to have significantly reduced the level of gun related crime in this country". You omit to say, whose research it is and what that research was. We are left in the dark as to what figures and where those figures are from, that you consider to be significant. Are they figures concocted by public service staff left over from the 'Buy Back fiasco' as usual ,trying to justify their past failures as public looters and parasites.

On the other hand we understand you have already received the following information in detail:-

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."

Police Commissioner South Australia Mal Hyde 23/12/99 - The Advertiser - Adelaide

Robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 per cent over the previous financial year.

South Australian Police Annual Report - tabled in State Parliament 27/10/98

"I apologise for the error (in Attorney-General's letter to SSAA (Sporting Shooter's Association of Australia) member) that was made in extracting the ABS figures."

Dianne Gray - Senior Legal Officer - SA Attorney-General's Department - 27/1/99

To SSAA Researcher Paul Peake after it was claimed by the SA AG's Department that SSAA figures were wrong.

When you say, "The number of offences where a gun has been used has decreased significantly. Guns were used in 18.6% of armed robberies in 1998-99, compared with 26.8% the year before" You are discredited. by:-

"Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in Australia Release Date: July 15th, 1998

Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.

The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the increases in some other States were also quite substantial.

Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%, Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.

Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that "they suggested that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New South Wales were probably national rather than State-based."

Abbreviations
AIC - Australian Institute of Criminology
ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

"AIC define robbery as unlawful taking of property, accompanied by force or threat of force"

In 1998 8% were committed with a firearm, 38 % with another weapon, and 54 % unarmed

There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997.

This figure was included in the category 'Other Weapon'. It is possible that this 9% used in these robberies were firearms.

So it looks like without the public being able to defend themselves crime soared - it's just that thieves didn't need to use a gun part of the time because there was no resistance.  Give me the wild wild west.

Statistics are easy to play around with. A few years ago I read a book by John Lott (and several more since). Mr. Lott did some very exhaustive statistical analyses on the topic of gun control / availability. He went into the project with anti-gun beliefs but his research made him do a turnabout. Basically when everything is taken into account counties where guns are more readily available saw a significant drop in crime.

One other statistical difference I find interesting when comparing Canada to the USA is that Canadians (with tougher gun laws) are significantly more likely to suffer a home invasion than people in the USA.

There's 2 sides to every argument/story. I happen to favor being able to own a firearm if I desire. Several of mine would be illegal under laws like those in AU. Also registration requirements are the first step toward confiscation.

Registration requirements are the tip of the iceberg- for example, if I have an argument over something as minor as a parking spot, the person perhaps wanting to cause trouble can go to the police and take out an Aphrehended Violence Order against me- no proof of any type required- and the police, if I have a registered firearm, can enter and search my home and/or place of employment without a search warrent and remove the firearm..indeed, they are required to do this.
This article is almost ten years old, there are a raft of figures all giving the same dismal picture and things have gotten far worse since it was published, but it gives an oversight of just how much gun control has re-directed firearms from legal to illegal use. There are a large number of automatic weapons which were diverted and on-sold to tribal leaders in PNG in exchange for bales of New Guinea Gold, a very potent ganja, that are now causing considerable problems, as well.

Our government has been involved in guns and drugs deals for years and it's not over yet - just hidden better.  Same criminals in office now who were in on the old stuff.  No wonder they want to control the guns of the public.  

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH12Ak03.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020311/corn

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1076

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/index.html

QuoteStatistics are easy to play around with.

I think you hit the nail on the head there, MountainDon.
Interestingly the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) who's statistics Mr. Ron Owen points to, is considered by the gun lobby to be a stooge of the government.

[The role of the AIC in connection with gun control in Australia has been to use statistical methods, the government's prestige, and the peoples' money to produce scientific-looking propaganda.]
From one of their own publucations

Link to the AIC document on violent crime in Australia.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti61.pdf

While doing some research on this issue I came across this from the National Coalition for gun control. (Worth a read)
http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v1/n2/peters_browne.pdf

While I don't agree with a lot of the stuff our fearless leaders get up to, I have no problem embracing these laws. I have at various times been a sporting and professional shooter and at no time have I had a problem obtaining the tools I needed to do my job. I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
I have owned a number of rifles over the years, (all bolt action) and have never felt the need to have a high capacity self-loading rifle. But, maybe that's just a product of my years as a professional shooter and an aversion to wasting ammo. Never owned a handgun, for my work such a weapon would be virtually useless (no range). For close quarters work (wild hog) I prefer a good hound and an 18" bayonet. (Works a treat)
I am also of the opinion that owning any of these weapons would not afford me any real protection in the case of a home invasion by an armed intruder. My thinking is that if such a person where to poke a gun in my face with the intention of blowing my head off he is hardly likely to wait round while I fetch my weapon.  If his intention were just to relieve me of some of my possessions, it would be far safer for me to simply wait until he leaves and get the cops to deal with it.  

My personal opinion is that the gun lobby is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I've had people tell me that their guns protected them--when asked if they carried them--loaded with nice fresh ammunition, safety off, at all times, they looked at me as if I had rocks in my head for suggesting such a thing.  

But since then, carry permits have become a whole lot easier to get.

(this was even true of my mother.  Once when she was visiting, I tried to get her to agree to look into one of those shoot/don't shoot simulations--no, she knew what she was doing--or do some serious target shooting--ditto.  I can pretty well guarantee you that she didn't know what she was doing, the gun--22 pistol of some sort, probably had the ammunition from the same box that had been bought 35 years before)