navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Better watch out or the global warming will get yah!
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Better watch out or the global warming will get yah! Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams

0 posted 2009-12-17 05:24 PM


Before I start my argument I want to clearly state that I have nothing against Imperialism, What offends me is blatant propaganda set out by the European nations and, yes, the US.

As a young girl I learned the poor countries would be dependant on the paternal countries in Europe and the US, because of foreign policies to conquer and these were disguised as something heroic to the general public [AKA Propaganda].

What surprises me is the blatant piece of propagandist garbage that is "Global Warming."

[Why can’t they just call it pollution?! Really!]

I don't even want to get into the scientific flaws.

The point is that "Global warming" was a theory which was turned into a scare tactic. I don't want to have arguments on who started it, but in the end the old European powers use it to regain their control over the Americas and Asia in the guise of "carbon credits."

This will result in other countries possessing the "power" to control production and returns. Money earned will be divided so that countries which produce less (fewer carbon credits) will get paid for your work. If a country has maxed out its allowed carbon credits then it will be unable to develop, like other countries.  

It reminds me of the "World Bank" a group of European countries with the goal of "helping the less fortunate countries."

(Well all know how Jamaica and most of South America turned out)

Finally I do not blame capitalism. Capitalism is freedom of business and is the American spirit.

Do not confuse capitalism with monopolies and fat cats currently in the US, Which is the perversion of capitalism I call economic feudalism. True Capitalism wont have monopolies and government interference, because they are bad for the health of the economy.

Juju    

[This message has been edited by Juju (12-18-2009 10:56 AM).]

© Copyright 2009 Juju - All Rights Reserved
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
1 posted 2009-12-17 07:09 PM


Nicely stated, Juju
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

2 posted 2009-12-17 08:36 PM


I have a freezer on my porch. It happens to be located where a single leak in our roof overhang gets through, so it ate HOLES in the lid of the freezer. So in the summer, our freezer over-compensated, and yep, although we paid for a frost-free freezer? I sometimes have to go out there and chip away at the stuff with a knife. (<--dangerous, I am.)

I do not know the scientific explanation for this, nor can I write you a mathematical equation for it to be rendered true.

But it happens, nonetheless.

And even I can make the leap of the analogy.

I said it before and I'll say it again--

EVEN IF YOU DO NOT LIKE THE PREMISE OF CLIMATE CHANGE (GLOBAL WARMING) WHAT IS THE HARM IN BEHAVING AS IF IT'S A FACT?

Because there are many facts to back up the singular fact that we have damaged our ecology, beyond a repair that any of us will see in our lifetimes.

So what's the argument?


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
3 posted 2009-12-17 09:31 PM


"WHAT IS THE HARM IN BEHAVING AS IF IT'S A FACT?"

Good question, serenity gal. The answer will be very expensive to you...and us.

There may or not be an abominal snowman. What's the harm in pretending there is? No harm..until the city tells you that you have to make your house Yeti-proof, buying alarm systems, steel doors and shutters for the windows, contributing to the town coffers to hire extra policemen to hunt the fellow, and little things like that. When you see what pretending there is global warming is going to cost you, it could give you a whole new perspective...who knows?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

4 posted 2009-12-17 09:43 PM


*laughing*

Um, sorry lovie, but code enforcement is not only now and REAL--they are hiring.

Might as well be energy efficient, eh? Instead of tsking our government fingers at pink flamingo and questionable taste of color palette?

WHY NOT grant incentive to those who opt to live an ecologically sound life-style?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

5 posted 2009-12-17 10:10 PM


"The answer will be very expensive to you...and us."

I didn't feel like doing the quote thingie, Mike, but we got hit with taxes, insurances premiums, etc. just like the REST OF YA'LL TAXPAYING citizens. (um, what the hell was THAT about?)

Hope you're feeling better lovie, but please, last time I checked, I still had citizenship.

<--ho...ho-ho?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2009-12-17 10:51 PM


Hey!! Go easy on the pink flamingo bit. That's our state bird!!!


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

7 posted 2009-12-17 11:52 PM


Wasn't there a movie that actually celebrated the pink flamingo? I know there's a lounge just past St. Peter by that name.

I thought Pip had a pink flamingo graphic, but I've been playing around different forums of diverse decorum, so I concede some confusion.

Merry Christmas to you both.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
8 posted 2009-12-18 12:50 PM


Such extremes (whether "Global Warming is doomsday" or "Global Warming is garbage") don't prefer the truth.   They only prefer the exhibitionism of their own extreme and much ungrounded feelings of certainty about their extreme and trying to make the issue as one-sided to the exclusion of the other side as much as possible.  Both extremes may be far apart in their preachings, but they certainly share something deeply in common: stupidity.
  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
9 posted 2009-12-18 08:17 AM


You underestimate them, Ess. The "global warming is doomsday" group is not stupid...they know exactly what they are doing and what they expect to gain from it....and they rely on the stupidity of the populace to buy it.

If you want to call the "global warming is garbage" crowd stupid, be my guest. I'm sure some people who turned down the opportunity to invest with Madoff and make fantastic returns were also called stupid by their pals who WERE investing with him. Go figure...

P.S.
Keep in mind we're talking about man-made global warming, not just global warming.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
10 posted 2009-12-18 08:22 AM


.


“The simple truth is that hostility to freedom (i.e., economic liberty and political democracy) and fondness for non-democratic statism suffuses much of the environmental movement. I will confess to having a minor obsession with the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman, who consistently writes of his confessed envy for China’s authoritarian regime. But I am trying to wean myself off Friedman-bashing lest he get a restraining order.

So consider instead Diane Francis, a ballyhooed Canadian pundit. In a recent Financial Post column, Francis wrote that the “‘inconvenient truth’ overhanging the U.N.’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.” She insists that “the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate” is to implement a “planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy.””


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjA3ZmUxYzc5NWVjM2UzZmMxMTFjNjJmYjZiNmZhYTQ=


.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
11 posted 2009-12-18 11:09 AM


SB-

There is nothing wrong with siding with theories. I don't want to argue over the global warming theory, because it has been manipulated so many times to fit the incoming data, it's just to complicated to have a arguement over.

The "Band-aid" approach to "global warming" is very, very suspicious.

The solutions are to manipulate other countries. [Have less kids produce so much, don't be so rich, pay taxes(carben credits)to countries with less pollution ext..]

This theory is being used or manipulated to have control over the 2nd and third world as colonies[again Impierialism]. That is my arguement!

-Juju

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
12 posted 2009-12-18 11:34 AM


.


'The point of Obama’s visit to Copenhagen today is to build support for a cap-and-trade program at home. The House has passed a bill that would create one, but the Senate has yet to act. According to a study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, cap-and-trade would cost between 2.3 million and 2.7 million jobs. That’s a net figure, which includes the “green energy” jobs the bill would create. The Heritage Foundation has estimated job losses in the same range.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Energy Information Administration have also concluded that the bill would kill jobs. CBO director Doug Elmendorf testified that “the net effect of [cap and trade] we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition.” The EIA reported that the program would “become a drag on the economy and reduce job creation by hundreds of thousands of jobs under any of the 11 different sets of assumptions that it analyzed,” according to FactCheck.org.

The bill includes a tacit admission that it would be a job-killer: To prevent mass layoffs, it would subsidize the industries hit hardest by higher energy costs. Refineries and utility companies would get billions of dollars’ worth of free carbon permits to offset the costs associated with capping their emissions. Manufacturing concerns would be eligible for cash grants to help with the higher energy costs such caps would impose.

The bill would also create a program to supplement the unemployment benefits of workers who were laid off. If a worker could demonstrate that he lost his job due to higher energy costs, he could apply for help from the Climate Change Adjustment Assistance program. The program would be similar to Trade Adjustment Assistance, with one key difference: Free trade spurs economic growth and fuels job creation, and there are few principles in the science of economics more settled than that. Carbon caps, by contrast, would hinder growth and kill jobs. And while the theory of anthropogenic global warming is based on sound scientific principles, the CRUtape letters revealed that the direst predictions of catastrophic warming were the work of scientists who twisted the data to yield attention-grabbing results.

Now U.S. leaders are in Copenhagen offering the same set of bribes to the developing world. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. will help raise $100 billion a year to fund the global equivalent of the Climate Change Adjustment Assistance program. In both the domestic and the international case, we should view these offers of “assistance” for what they are: an admission that sharp curbs on CO2 emissions will come with enormous costs, and those costs will manifest themselves as lost jobs. '


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjk3NDgxYmI2MTk5ZDQwNjZjY2YwYzFiZGNiZjc2M2Y=


.

“Mrs. Clinton’s offer came with two significant conditions. First, the 192 nations involved in the talks here must reach a comprehensive political agreement that takes effect immediately. Second, and more critically, all nations must agree to some form of verification — she repeatedly used the term “transparency” — to ensure they are meeting their environmental promises.
China, the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, has brought the talks to a virtual standstill all week over this issue, which its leaders claim to be an affront to national sovereignty.
But the Chinese resistance on the issue is matched in large measure by Mr. Obama’s own constraints. The Senate has not yet acted on a climate bill that the president needs to make good on his promises of emissions reductions and on the financial support that he has now promised the rest of the world.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp


Does anyone believe China would actually buy into this?  And by the way
ironically who would be loaning us the money for all this…guess.


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
13 posted 2009-12-18 01:30 PM


Balladeer,

No, I don't call people themselves "stupid" but I do call those treatments of the issue thus, because they mistreat it and stereotype the whole as if it is the extreme they don't agree with and then take it to their own extremes (such as treating it as if it is a doomsday or else as a political conspiracy).  Instead of facing the truth that we can't be certain about the issue, but should at least do something, many people prefer to pretend that they are certain and that we should either do everything or do nothing.  But that is not very honest, and it is a faulty "all or nothing" approach, in a cheap attempt to leave as little room for disagreement as possible.  
 

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
14 posted 2009-12-18 02:15 PM


E-
"o, I don't call people themselves "stupid" but I do call those treatments of the issue thus, because they mistreat it and stereotype the whole as if it is the extreme they don't agree with and then take it to their own extremes (such as treating it as if it is a doomsday or else as a political conspiracy)."

It doesn't sureprise me that poeple who support the global warming movement would consider my position as stupid.

However, I wouldn't consider -claming the "Global Warming movement" being Imperialism- as a political conspiracy.  

I have a question for you.  What would happen if a country ignores the rules, who would force them to comply and how would whould they do it.

That is why I think this is Imperialism.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
15 posted 2009-12-19 07:52 AM


quote:
What would happen if a country ignores the rules, who would force them to comply and how would they do it.


Pretty much nothing would happen, because the fact is that you can’t force people, or countries for that matter, to choose what’s in there own self-interest. You can try to persuade them, you can make one choice more attractive than another through the introduction of rewards and consequences but the threat of force isn’t one of them.

At the end of the day people have to make their own mind up and make their own choices based on what’s best for them.

That isn’t imperialism – it’s common sense.

Global warming is a fact. Every single piece of evidence proves that average global temperatures are rising, and have been for a long time. The evidence also shows that the rise in temperature has increased in pace since the use of fossil fuels. That isn’t open to debate – it’s a fact backed by evidence. What is debatable is whether the use of fossil fuel is connected to the rise in temperature or whether it’s just a coincidence. It may be that there’s no correlation, that the rise is simply part of a natural cycle – in which case there’s not a lot we can do to affect it. If however the temperature is tied directly to the use of fossil fuels and the consequent emissions, and the majority of experts say it is, we may have a chance to do something about it.

Here are the choices:

Do nothing.

If the temperature rise is natural and continues, we’ll all be dead.
If the temperature rise is caused by fossil fuel, we’ll all be dead
If the temperature rise is natural and peaks and then falls, we’ll all be alive.

Do something

If the temperature rise is natural and continues, we’ll all be dead.
If the temperature rise is caused by fossil fuel and we halt it, we’ll all be alive.
If the temperature rise is natural and peaks and then falls, we’ll all be alive.

Place your bets

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
16 posted 2009-12-19 09:13 AM


My bet goes on the "We'll all be dead" side, unless you have unlocked the secret of eternal life.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
17 posted 2009-12-19 09:25 AM



We, in this case Mike is human kind, given that eternal life isn’t an impossibility.

I’ll put you down as a “do nothing”.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
18 posted 2009-12-19 09:45 AM


Sounds good to me. Of course, if I win, you won't be alive to pay me and I won't be alive to collect. If you win, you still won't be alive to pay me and I won't be alive to collect, unless you are referring to the fact that this will all be known and corrected within our remaining lifetimes.

You have a good future as a bookie

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
19 posted 2009-12-19 10:32 AM


It’s interesting that you believe you get to place that particular bet Mike, and more interesting that you’d even want to. I certainly wouldn’t, it’s a bet with serious consequences one way or the other for a whole bunch of people - namely the whole of human kind.

They’ll be reaping the rewards of the bet or facing the consequences long after you and I are dead, given that I think they should be the ones making the bet.

That’s what’s happening at the climate control conference right now Mike, humanity is weighing the odds based on what they know. Once they’ve weighed the odds they’ll place their bet, if they get it right we - humanity - will be ok. If they get it wrong..

But I guess it doesn’t matter to you or me Mike, after all we’ll be dead anyway – right?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
20 posted 2009-12-19 10:39 AM


I find it interesting that Mike opened up a thread to talk about stolen e-mails but really didn't want to talk about the e-mails -- and Juju opens up a thread about a the same scientific subject but doesn't want to talk about the science. (I do hope that Thermodynamics is still taught in engineering curriculum.)

quote:

Such extremes (whether "Global Warming is doomsday" or "Global Warming is garbage") don't prefer the truth.   They only prefer the exhibitionism of their own extreme and much ungrounded feelings of certainty about their extreme and trying to make the issue as one-sided to the exclusion of the other side as much as possible.  Both extremes may be far apart in their preachings, but they certainly share something deeply in common: stupidity.



quote:

Summary

On Dec. 9, an op-ed by Sarah Palin on climate change ran in the Washington Post. Al Gore responded to Palin’s piece and made some fresh claims of his own later that day in an interview with MSNBC. We find that both engaged in some distortions and have been rightly called out by experts in the field.

    * Gore said that 40 percent of the polar ice cap is already gone. That’s an outdated figure — it has recovered in the last two years, and is now about 24 percent smaller than the 1979-2000 average.
    * Gore’s claim that all Arctic ice would "go completely" over the next decade is greatly exaggerated. The scientist he is citing was actually talking about nearly ice-free conditions, and only in the summer months.
    * Gore and Palin both left out information when discussing the economic impact of climate legislation. Gore dodged a question about job losses, and Palin ignored the potentially severe effects of doing nothing.
    * Palin misrepresented the contents of the leaked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit, saying that they show "fraudulent scientific practices." That’s not the case.
--------

The north polar ice cap is melting at rates that are certainly cause for concern. But it’s not going quite as fast as Gore says. Gore’s 40 percent figure is outdated. Arctic ice levels, as measured by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Boulder, were 40 percent lower at the end of the summer of 2007 than the average observed from 1979 to 2000. But the totals have actually increased for two consecutive years since. According to a release from the group, the average ice cover was 5.36 million square kilometers for the month of September 2009, compared with the 1979 to 2000 September average of 7.04 million square kilometers. That’s a difference of about 24 percent, nearly half what Gore said.

And Gore was wildly off the mark when he predicted that all Arctic ice would "go completely within the next decade."
---------
One researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Post-Graduate School, made a projection in 2007 that a nearly ice-free arctic summer might occur as early as 2013, though he recently moved that back to 2020. But saying the north polar ice cap will be entirely gone is hyperbole. Even the most dramatic projections, such as Maslowski’s, do not say the ice would be gone during the winter months.

Gore noted these caveats himself a few days later while presenting at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen when he said:

    "Gore: Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

Even here, Gore was being a bit aggressive with his claims of "ice free" summers. In fact, Maslowski, whose work Gore cited, complained to the U.K. Telegraph that "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this. … I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean.”
--------
Gore and Palin both made some roughly factual statements about the effect of climate change proposals on the economy. Palin said that proposed “cap-and-tax” [sic] plans will result in job losses, and she’s right. Gore, by contrast, said that "the response to global warming can bring jobs back" — and he’s right, too. Overall, nonpartisan experts, including Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, agree that proposed cap-and-trade legislation will kill some jobs, create others and ultimately have a small but negative effect on employment – probably.

But neither combatant gave the full picture here. Gore, when asked about the economic effect of climate proposals, responded: "I think that the losses of jobs started a long time ago with the outsourcing to other countries for a variety of reasons, including the cheaper labor costs," he said. "It’s not — not because of the response to global warming." That’s called dodging the question.

Palin, meanwhile, presented potential job losses and tax increases as evidence that “any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.” But if scientists are correct, the potential cost of doing nothing could be severe. The Congressional Budget Office said earlier this year:

   " CBO, September 2009: A strong consensus has developed in the expert community that, if allowed to continue unabated, the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have extensive, highly uncertain, but potentially serious and costly impacts on regional climates throughout the world. Those impacts are expected to include widespread changes in the physical environment, changes in biological systems (including agriculture), and changes in the viability of some economic sectors."
------------
Palin wrote: “The e-mails reveal that leading climate ‘experts’ deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.” As we said in our article on this subject, though, there are two ongoing investigations, but so far there’s no evidence that deception or blacklisting actually occurred.

The “decline” under discussion is well-represented in the scientific literature, not covered up. The e-mail in question refers to supplementing tree-ring data with direct temperature readings in order to avoid an artificial dip where the two diverge; the divergence is not fully understood, but it has clearly not been buried. And while it’s true that a few of the e-mails discuss the feasibility of barring skeptics from editorial positions, there’s so far no evidence that this actually occurred.

Palin also said that “the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd.” It is certainly fair to say that experts are not of a single mind about climate science. Groups of experts – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the national academies of science of 13 countries including the U.S., the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society and others — agree that the planet is warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that human activity is in no small part responsible for the increases. But the specifics are, as in any science, a matter of study, research and debate.

One e-mail exchange between Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory scientist Edward Cook and University of Virginia scientist Michael Mann shows what scientific debate can look like in the climate field. After some back-and-forth about Cook’s temperature reconstruction and his conclusions about the medieval warming period, Mann writes: “Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. We’re working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this.” Cook sums up:

    "I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don’t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it."

Palin is right that not all climate scientists agree on everything. But she’s wrong to imply that this invalidates the field or undermines the conclusions on which they do agree. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/palin-vs-gore-climate-showdown/




Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

21 posted 2009-12-19 12:46 PM




Dear Juju.

quote:

E-
"o, I don't call people themselves "stupid" but I do call those treatments of the issue thus, because they mistreat it and stereotype the whole as if it is the extreme they don't agree with and then take it to their own extremes (such as treating it as if it is a doomsday or else as a political conspiracy)."

It doesn't sureprise me that poeple who support the global warming movement would consider my position as stupid.

However, I wouldn't consider -claming the "Global Warming movement" being Imperialism- as a political conspiracy.  

I have a question for you.  What would happen if a country ignores the rules, who would force them to comply and how would whould they do it.

That is why I think this is Imperialism.




     Well, this is an interesting set of propositions you've laid out here.  To my mind, you may have laid them out in a way that takes some of the force out of your question about Imperialism, which is the heart of your question, at least as i see it.  The notion that the smaller and less advantaged countries may be exploited for the economic gain not particularly of countries, these days, but perhaps of multi-nationals and larger economic groups.  If that's what you're talking about, then I think you may well have a point, and we may agree about some parts of what you're saying.

     About the validity of the notion of climate change and about the potential doomsday consequences related to it for humanity goes, I'm afraid we differ.  My thinking is much like Grinch's, above, as he lays out the the options.  I would much rather be on the side that actually tries to alter the potential outcome toward the greater possibility of human survival.  I don't know if the global temperature has in the past couple hundred million years been at a point where it's been too hot to support humanity, or that the atmosphere's been to toxic to do so, but my money would be on that being unlikely.  Since the dinos at least, most of us animals have all had pretty much the same range of toleration with the exception of some of the volcanic vent and earth interior folks, of course.  There are temperatures not very far above some temperatures already found on earth where animals start to cook and smell delicious.  Adele Davis Used to recommend cooking at these temperatures for maximum tenderness of meats and so on.

     When Senator Imhoff, the Global warming Skeptic took a plane to Copenhagen, he'd been planning it for a while.  He was supposed to be part of a three man truth squad there to set everybody straight.  Apparently the other two members backed out.  He took a plane over anyway with a single staffer — a remarkably carbon thrifty gesture, if, at least, the plane was a regular carrier and not private — and wandered about the halls until he gathered together enough  reporters for a press conference.  This apparently came to an end when a German Reporter told him, "You are ridiculous!"  Senator Imhoff, according to Ron Reagan on the radio yesterday, then came home.  

     I guess that showed all those environmental nuts.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven



Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

22 posted 2009-12-19 01:05 PM




Dear Mike,

          I don't follow you here.

     I thought Grinch was pretty straightforward, and it looked to me that you did, too.

     Survival as a species, yup, you seemed to think those were probably the stakes, too.  And you agreed with the way that Grinch laid it out —  do nothing, everybody dies; do something, there might be some chance that the species as a whole might make it, or some portion of the species.

     Then, the conclusion — since you wouldn't be around long enough to collect, you'd rather do nothing, take the short term savings, and so what?

     You do know what you're going to hear the next time you mention the deficit, don't you, Pall?  You do know that you've just undermined any sympathy you have for caring what happens to your kids or your grandkids or anybody's grandkids ability to pay off the debt?  You could care less whether they're alive or not, according to you here.

     Please tell me how wrong I am or what the virtue of this particular piece of selfishness might be.   It sort of seems to change the nature of the discussion.

Curiously, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
23 posted 2009-12-19 04:50 PM


Ok,Bob, you are wrong. I don't agree with Grinch's conclusions at all and never said I did. He was taking bets so I placed one, to play along. That's about it. I do not believe that the temperature rise is caused by fossil fuel at all. I do believe in his first sentence in both If the temperature rise is natural and continues, we’ll all be dead.

Should that be the case, death will be a given. Indeed, there are scientists today that state beyond a doubt that there WILL be another Ice Age, in which life will perish. It may not happen for another million years or so, but it will happen. Hopefully, mankind will have moved on to other planets or don something to survive in that case...who knows? There are other scientists who claim that our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy will collide one day,  based on today's projections, wiping out all planets in both. All of these things mean death to the planet and it's occupants. So what? We cannot live our lives based on those suppositions. We live our lives based on the generations that we have some influence over. If you feel that global warming can be changed by human endeavor, that's fine. I don't understand, though, how you can claim we have to do it for our future generations when, at the same time, you are seeing our future generations being sold into the slavery of a debt they can never repay. You are watching Obama spend and borrow in a way unmatched in our history, knowing that it will saddle the next generations with incredible debt and you have nothing to say about it. You do, however, stand up in defense of future generations with regard to climate change. You may want to re-examine your concerns for the future. Since I do not happen to believe that man-made actions are more than negligible, my concern for out future generations remain constant. I believe that my children and grandchildren WILL survive - and have incredible debts to repay, thanks to Obama. To even insinuate in any way that I may care less about the survival of my children or grandchildren is pretty low, Bob, even by your standards.


Interesting about Senator Imhoff.   Check out how England sent their representatives to Copenhagen...you'll enjoy that, I'm sure.

One of the interesting comments in my other thread, "When everything old is new again", which no one chose to respond to, was What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

There is also a very interesting quiz there, if you're interested.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
24 posted 2009-12-19 05:56 PM


quote:
I don't agree with Grinch's conclusions at all


That's odd Mike because I didn’t make any conclusions, I simply listed the choices – do nothing or do something – and some possible consequences of those choices.

You seem to want to do nothing, presumably you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rise in global temperature isn’t connected to fossil fuel use, either that or you’re willing to risk the fate of the planet for short term gains.

I’m not - Rand wouldn't be either.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
25 posted 2009-12-19 06:33 PM


Your list of alternatives were your conclusion, Grinch.

It appears your course of action would be to do something, even if you need it or not. If it didn't carry a large cost, that would be a reasonable course of action.

I really don't consider you qualified to speak for Ayn Rand.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
26 posted 2009-12-19 07:16 PM


quote:

Under the pretext of responding to a bombing on the USS Maine anchored in Havana, Cuba, the U.S. went to war with Cuba's colonial overlord, Spain, in 1899. After routing Europe's weakest colonial power, the U.S. made off with all of Spain's colonial possessions in Latin America and Asia, seizing control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

The Spanish-American War marked the entrance of the U.S. into the worldwide scramble for colonies among the advanced powers. Novelist Mark Twain made no bones about what this meant: How our hearts burned with indignation against the atrocious Spaniards. . .But when the smoke was over, the dead buried and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase in the price of commodities and rent--that is, when we sobered up from our patriotic spree--it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the Spanish-American war was the price of sugar. . . . that the lives, blood, and money of the American people were used to protect the interests of American capitalists.
-------------
Whenever the colonial subjects of the U.S. fought back, the U.S. drowned them in blood. As Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God--and the phrase is the government's, not mine--we are a World Power. In the 1900-1903 war to conquer the Philippines, the U.S. killed more than 1 million people. In the midst of that war, U.S. Army General Shefter said: "It may be necessary to kill half of the Filipinos in order that the remaining half of the population may be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous state affords."
-------------

A century later, the U.S. stands alone as the world's superpower. It is the only country with the ability to go to war anywhere in the world. The U.S. attained its position of dominance through competition with other powerful nations. The U.S. and the world's other major powers--Britain, Russia, China, France and Germany--fought two world wars, threatened each other with nuclear annihilation and divided and redivided the world between them. http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25951.html



quote:

I have nothing against Imperialism



Why the hell not Juju?  In fact I think you do -- by this statement:

quote:

As a young girl I learned the poor countries would be dependant on the paternal countries in Europe and the US, because of foreign policies to conquer and these were disguised as something heroic to the general public.



Supporting evidence for Juju's thesis from the CFR:

quote:

The Reluctant Imperialist: Terrorism, Failed States, and the Case for American Empire

Lawrence Summers, the dominant professor-politician of the Clinton years, used to say that the United States is history's only nonimperialist superpower. But is this claim anything to boast about today? The war on terrorism has focused attention on the chaotic states that provide profit and sanctuary to nihilist outlaws, from Sudan and Afghanistan to Sierra Leone and Somalia. When such power vacuums threatened great powers in the past, they had a ready solution: imperialism. But since World War II, that option has been ruled out. After more than two millennia of empire, orderly societies now refuse to impose their own institutions on disorderly ones.

This anti-imperialist restraint is becoming harder to sustain, however, as the disorder in poor countries grows more threatening. Civil wars have grown nastier and longer. In a study of 52 conflicts since 1960, a recent World Bank study found that wars started after 1980 lasted three times longer than those beginning in the preceding two decades. Because wars last longer, the number of countries embroiled in them is growing. And the trend toward violent disorder may prove self-sustaining, for war breeds the conditions that make fresh conflict likely. Once a nation descends into violence, its people focus on immediate survival rather than on the longer term. Saving, investment, and wealth creation taper off; government officials seek spoils for their cronies rather than designing policies that might build long-term prosperity. A cycle of poverty, instability, and violence emerges.

There is another reason why state failures may multiply. Violence and social disorder are linked to rapid population growth, and this demographic pressure shows no sign of abating. In the next

20 years, the world's population is projected to grow from around six billion to eight billion, with nearly all of the increase concentrated in poor countries. Some of the sharpest demographic stresses will be concentrated in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Palestinian territories -- all Islamic societies with powerful currents of anti-Western extremism. Only sub-Saharan Africa faces a demographic challenge even sharper than that of the Muslim world. There, an excruciating combination of high birth rates and widespread aids infection threatens social disintegration and governmental collapse -- which in turn offer opportunities for terrorists to find sanctuary.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57800/se  bastian-mallaby/the-reluctant-imperialist-terrorism-failed-states-and-the-case-f



quote:

It reminds me of the "World Bank" a group of European countries with the goal of "helping the less fortunate countries."



Ok..partly right -- partly wrong;

quote:

Super Imperialism - New Edition: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance

Hudson is a Wall Street economist who used to work at the Chase Manhattan Bank. In Part One, he describes the rise of the American empire. Part Two describes its institutions: the US-controlled World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, which all benefit the USA. The US has the sole veto power in all three. Part Three describes what Herman Kahn called `the greatest rip-off ever achieved', the way the US's ruling class levies us all to pay for its aggressive wars, just as the Roman Empire levied tribute to pay for its constant wars. Similarly Britain, Germany and Japan all pay for the US's military bases in their countries.

In 1945, as in 1918, Britain led Europe's capitulation to the USA's debt demands. The British ruling class chose dependency on the US ruling class. The USA insisted that Britain ended the sterling bloc, accepted IMF controls, did not impose exchange controls, and did not devalue. As Hudson writes, "The Anglo-American Loan Agreement spelled the end of Britain as a Great Power."

The 1945-51 Labour government's huge spending on unnecessary imperial, counter-revolutionary wars robbed our industry of investment. This excessive military spending meant that we had constantly to borrow from the IMF, increasing our dependence on the USA. Now Britain is the USA's Trojan horse in Europe, against Britain's interests.
http://www.amazon.com/Super-Imperialism-Origin-Fundamentals-Dominanc/dp/0745319890



quote:

Perkins began writing Confessions of an Economic Hit Man in the 1980s. In the book, he states that, "Threats or bribes always convinced me to stop".

"Covertly recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world—to Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other strategically important countries...Perkins reveals the hidden mechanics of imperial control behind some of the most dramatic events in recent history, such as the fall of the Shah of Iran, the death of Panamanian president Omar Torrijos, and the U.S. invasions of Panama and Iraq."[2]

According to his book, Perkins' function was to convince the political and financial leadership of underdeveloped countries to accept enormous development loans from institutions like the World Bank and USAID. Saddled with huge debts they could not hope to pay, these countries were forced to acquiesce to political pressure from the United States on a variety of issues. Perkins argues in his book that developing nations were effectively neutralized politically, had their wealth gaps driven wider and economies crippled in the long run. In this capacity Perkins recounts his meetings with some prominent individuals, including Graham Greene and Omar Torrijos. Perkins describes the role of an EHM as follows:

    Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly-paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign "aid" organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet's natural resources. Their tools included fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization.

The epilogue to the 2006 edition provides a rebuttal to the current move by the G8 nations to forgive Third World debt. Perkins charges that the proposed conditions for this debt forgiveness require countries to sell their health, education, electric, water and other public services to corporations. Those countries would also have to discontinue subsidies and trade restrictions that support local business, but accept the continued subsidization of certain G8 businesses by the US and other G8 countries, and the erection of trade barriers on imports that threaten G8 industries.

In the book, Perkins repeatedly denies the existence of a "conspiracy." Instead, Perkins carefully discusses the role of corporatocracy.
“ "I was initially recruited while I was in business school back in the late sixties by the National Security Agency, the nation’s largest and least understood spy organization; but ultimately I worked for private corporations. The first real economic hit man was back in the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., the grandson of Teddy, who overthrew the government of Iran, a democratically elected government, Mossadegh’s government who was Time‘s magazine person of the year; and he was so successful at doing this without any bloodshed—well, there was a little bloodshed, but no military intervention, just spending millions of dollars and replaced Mossadegh with the Shah of Iran. At that point, we understood that this idea of economic hit man was an extremely good one. We didn’t have to worry about the threat of war with Russia when we did it this way. The problem with that was that Roosevelt was a C.I.A. agent. He was a government employee. Had he been caught, we would have been in a lot of trouble. It would have been very embarrassing. So, at that point, the decision was made to use organizations like the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. to recruit potential economic hit men like me and then send us to work for private consulting companies, engineering firms, construction companies, so that if we were caught, there would be no connection with the government.[3] - Nov 4 '04 interview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man



Now, here's the thing Juju.  Oil, sugar,and other commodities exist -- just like anthropomorphic global warming exists -- that some will exploit them for their own gain (or deny them) does not negate the fact of their existence.    

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
27 posted 2009-12-19 10:03 PM


So how did the agreement in Copenhagen work out?

The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations, but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091219/ap_on_bi_ge/us_climate_obama

That's what it's all about, folks....

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
28 posted 2009-12-19 11:11 PM


The more important realization is the direction coming out of these issues, regardless of the confusion in the issues themselves.   No matter how confused the starting places and questions, the direction of making our human-centers more nature friendly is a good direction and an answer that will benefit us all.  

The possible result is that we might reduce Global Warming by cleaning up our act more and more and the whole world will benefit, but the more probable one may be that by cleaning up our act the whole world will benefit (even though we don't succeed in reducing Global Warming).  Both are worth it.  


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
29 posted 2009-12-19 11:46 PM


Now I've heard it all..thanks for expanding my universe, Ess
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
30 posted 2009-12-20 12:37 PM


Balladeer

What was the point of that comment?  Sarcasm?  To annoy me?  Hopefully not.  But that is all I was able to get from it.
 

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

31 posted 2009-12-20 02:13 AM




    I was similarly puzzled, Essorant.  Disagreement can be respectful.  Not that I don't need to work on that myself.

     Why is Mike the judge of who is qualified to speak for Ayn Rand?

     It sounds like Who is qualified to speak for Freud, or for God?  Are you particularly good with the Aristotelian Logic that Ayn Rand prides herself on using well?  She bases a lot of her thinking on that on that, you know; and I suspect Grinch might give you a run for your money.  It'd be tough to knock him off his pins in terms of organization of detail and understanding formal logic and logical fallacies.  That whole chapter A is A is all about that sort of thing, if I remember correctly, and your strength is on the gut understanding of what she's trying to talk about.  If she didn't want people to know about those details, she'd have left them out.  I'm sure there were editors who were begging her to do just that.

     Remember Ronald Reagan when he had to give that speech about Iran Contra and how he'd lied to everybody.  What he said, and this makes sense to me, was that he knew he lied but that in his heart it seemed like the truth to him, or something along those lines.  You'd be able to quote it better than I could.  It made perfect sense because the man always thought he was telling the truth, no matter how large a whopper he was telling, and the truth really did matter to him; and I mean mattered to him a lot.  It didn't destroy him to find out that he was in the middle of a contradiction, if you'll pardon the unconscious pun that simply walked on through there.  His Contra- Diction got him in trouble, but at the same time people understood it because he was so clear about what he meant and who he was, even those of us who disagreed with him knew that.

     Grinch can speak for Ayn Rand if he wants, and his understanding and authority for doing so come from a different place than your does, but it's still quite real and shouldn't be dismissed.  And Essorant and I, for that matter, aren't trying to pull one over on you or the country or the world by disagreeing with you about climate change.  We really do see it the way we see it, and it makes very good sense to us.  We're not dishonest or irrational or immoral folks trying to stick you with a bill you should have to pay.  We really do disagree about that, like we do about a lot of things, but it's not because we're trying to frustrate you.

     We really do believe it's a life and death situation.  I know that I do at least; I shouldn't speak for Essorant.

     That's all for now.  

Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
32 posted 2009-12-20 07:12 AM


Bob, you have a real habit of jumping in to either criticize me or defend others for comments I make to them. I must assume you feel that grinch cannot speak for himself and needs your defense. If you apply yourself more to the comments I make to you directly, you comments will make more sense and not appear that you are looking for anything I say to anyone else as an excuse for jumping in to make demeaning comments.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
33 posted 2009-12-20 07:36 AM


Ess, my comment was based on pure confusion. I had absolutely no idea what you were trying to say in your comment. It sort of sounded to me like something a politician would say to appase an audience without giving an actual answer. This is what I get out of it...

(1)  We need to deal with global warming.
(2) Reduction of co2 emmisions is vital to deal with global warming.
(3) Giving billions to poor countries without the major polluters being required to cut back on greenhouse emmisions is ok.
(4) You claim that is the right direction.
(5) Making our "human-centers" more "nature friendly" is a good direction, even when it doesn't involve cutting back on greenhouse emmisions.
(6) Spending billions more is fine even if it desn't deal with cutting back on emmisions, as long as there is a right direction, which is apparently giving billions to poorer countries, whi may or may not use it to lower greenhouse emmisions.
(7) Small island nations will not go under as long as they have more money, even if the major countries do not make cuts backs.
(8) There is no requirement to make them make cutbacks.

SOmehow you feel this is a good answer that will benefit us all. Are you all so caught up in Obama's spending spree that you hav become completely desensitized to it? Hillary pledges hundreds of millions.....sure, so what? It's only money, right? So we're broke, raising the debt ceiling so we can borrow more, have millions unemeployed and have enslaved out future generations...so what? Keep on spending, chunking down those million dollar chips on red or black, since you are so far behind. Now you claim that, even with agreements that don't require any cutbacks on greenhouse emmisions, that's fine, too. Plunk down another billion dollar chip and spin the wheel.

The "Well, we gotta do someething" mantra is getting old, having been used on the stimulus, health care and global warming. How about putting some thought into doing the RIGHT thing, or something that makes sense? Tossing billion dollar bones to poor countries without making any committments to lower emmisions yourself makes no sense....and yet you claim that that's ok because it's worth it. As I said, I find that confusing...


Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
34 posted 2009-12-20 10:48 AM



quote:
Your list of alternatives were your conclusion, Grinch.


No they weren’t Mike. They were the possible outcomes. I haven’t mentioned my conclusions yet.

quote:
It appears your course of action would be to do something, even if you need it or not.


Nope, wrong again Mike.

I think we should do something because we’re going to have to at some point in any case. I’m sure you’ll agree it’ll be a whole lot cheaper and easier to move away from fossil fuel before it runs out. Or are you hoping you’ll be dead before that happens Mike?

(In case you’re confused Mike the above is my conclusion)


quote:
I really don't consider you qualified to speak for Ayn Rand.


Based on your record of getting things completely wrong in this forum Mike I don’t consider you qualified to judge who’s qualified to speak for Rand.

I’ll file your comment right next to the twaddle you came out with about Obama and suicide classes for old folk – it isn’t in the same league – but it’s close.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
35 posted 2009-12-20 12:30 PM


Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...according to you. I have no problem being in that group. I would be concerned if I weren't.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
36 posted 2009-12-20 01:52 PM



See there you go again Mike – making things up.

I never said I was right, I just offered my conclusion with regard to the choices and possible outcomes I posted earlier.

I’ll happily hold my hand up and admit that I don’t know whether human activities have affected global warming, nobody does for sure – but I don’t think we need to know for sure. There are other very good reasons to move away from a reliance on fossil fuel regardless of glodal warming, not least of which is that oil isn’t a sustainable energy source. If such a move reduces global warming, that’s a bonus.

Rand would call that a logical plan based on rational self-interest.

I call it common sense.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
37 posted 2009-12-20 01:59 PM


.

And what about China and Indonesia,
(and India where there are over 400 million
without electricity), who won’t be playing
along?  Or is it enough for the West,
(especially the US), to be the pointless
sacrificial lamb?

This is all another adolescent Western guilt trip
exploited for the transfer of money and power.

And over it is the comfort that it will be someone
else’s money, someone else’s otherwise good chance
at a good life in the West at least that is thrown into the pyre.

It’s obscene how the Western self anointed Brahmin
expect the rest of the world to pander to their  priorities,
which by the way profit them.

.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2009-12-20 02:09 PM


There are other very good reasons to move away from a reliance on fossil fuel regardless of glodal warming, not least of which is that oil isn’t a sustainable energy source.

I agree.

The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations, but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions

That relates to moving away from a reliance of fossil fuels....how?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
39 posted 2009-12-20 04:33 PM



quote:
The agreements will give billions of dollars in climate aid to poor nations


The poorer developing nations are tomorrow’s polluters Mike, they need power to develop and they can’t afford the cleaner alternatives. They’ll build the crappy inefficient power stations we were using fifty or sixty years ago unless someone makes the alternative more affordable. In that light climate aid seems like a sensible option.

quote:
but they do not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions


I guess we’ll just have to trust America, China and India on that one Mike, hopefully common sense will prevail and they’ll realise it’s in their own long term self-interest. What we can’t do is use their inaction as an excuse not to act – that’d be just plain stupid - akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
40 posted 2009-12-20 05:22 PM


Actually, it's akin to cutting off your  fingernail to spite your face. Without the participation of America, China, India and Russia that would be a better comparison.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
41 posted 2009-12-20 05:24 PM


Snowstorms and sub-zero temperatures have killed at least 19 people across Europe as well as severely disrupting air, rail and road transport.
At least 15 people froze to death overnight in Poland as temperatures dipped way below freezing. In parts of Germany a figure of -33C was recorded.
Flights have been cancelled, train services have been severely affected and roads made impassable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8423442.stm

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A fierce weekend storm that dropped record snowfall and stranded travelers up the coast from Virginia to New England turned out not to be as naughty as many had feared by Sunday — and its nicest accomplishment may simply be leaving many with the prospect of a very white Christmas.

Residents throughout the mid-Atlantic and Northeast mostly holed up for the weekend, then dug out from as much as 2 feet of snow to find sunny, mostly calm skies under a blanket of white unspoiled by car exhaust and passers-by.
To the south, others struggled with the aftermath of the storm that stranded hundreds of motorists in Virginia and knocked out power to thousands, but could have been much worse.
On the cusp of the winter solstice, the storm dropped 16 inches of snow Saturday on Reagan National Airport outside Washington — the most ever recorded there for a single December day — and gave southern New Jersey its highest single-storm snowfall totals in nearly four years.
The National Weather Service said the storm gave Philadelphia, which began keeping records in 1884, its second-largest snowfall: 23.2 inches. Even more was recorded in the Philadelphia suburb of Medford, N.J., at 24 inches.
Around New York City, the brunt of the storm hit Long Island, with whiteout conditions and 26.3 inches in Upton, a record since measurements began in 1949. Nearly 11 inches of snow fell on New York City, and the storm could be the worst the city has seen since about 26 inches fell in February 2006, National Weather Service meteorologist Patrick Maloit said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091220/ap_on_re_us/us_storm_rdp

Polar bears are passing out vacation brochures for American and European trips. Curse that global warming!

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
42 posted 2009-12-20 06:22 PM



And yet we’ll probably still have another recorded rise in the average temperature next year Mike, just like the year before that and the year before that..

I guess it's the word average that some people have a problem with.

Curse that global warming indeed.



Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
43 posted 2009-12-20 08:31 PM


LR-

I don't have a problem with imperialism,

I have a problem with 48% of the population that who claim they are against imperialism, but are convinced that it serves a greater purpose like "protecting the environment" or "Civilizing the Indians" or "Woman's rights" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or any reason we list to go to war.

I just find it really Ironic and kinda funny.


G-

Well I understand what you are getting at, but I think the question I am posing is not "global warming is garbage", but the "'global warming propaganda' by the government to convince 50+% of poeple that is OK to force another poorer country to do something they don't want to do. The bigger country motivated  by ideals to fix the world order-these poeple who claim to dislike imperialism"

Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
44 posted 2009-12-20 08:57 PM


quote:

I don't have a problem with imperialism,

I have a problem with 48% of the population that who claim they are against imperialism, but are convinced that it serves a greater purpose like "protecting the environment" or "Civilizing the Indians" or "Woman's rights" or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" or any reason we list to go to war.

I just find it really Ironic and kinda funny.



So then you're just straight up in favor of imperialism for the purpose of establishing an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship -- for the purpose of exploiting weaker undeveloped nations.

Ok.. well this is at least honest. If not frightening.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

45 posted 2009-12-20 09:36 PM



quote:

Bob, you have a real habit of jumping in to either criticize me or defend others for comments I make to them.



     Yes.

     Given the fact that I believe in intervention and you don't, that would be a disagreement we would have, wouldn't it?  However, I'm not a government and don't have extra power to abuse.  If you have very private things to say to somebody and don't want other people talking about those things, say them in private where others do not see and hear what you have to say.

     If I see something as abusive, I have a right and an obligation to speak up.  I should be somewhat restrained in how I do so, but the obligation is there.

     If I see somebody else speak abusively to you, I have the same obligation.  If I don't like what President Obama does, I have the obligation to speak up about that.  It is the same inconvenient obligation all around.  I am not sorry about it.  It is an obligation.  If I do it abusively, I am sorry for any abuse I convey.  That is an obligation I have as well, as well as a privilege.

     Grinch can defend himself.  I can react to some of the things you said.  You claiming ground on the subject of Ayn Rand was, I thought, claiming territory you thought you had a right to.  Unfortunately, you thought your right preempted the rights of others, for example, Grinch, but who knows who all else that might include.  Your feeling of correctness doesn't match your grasp of logical reasoning.  Ayn Rand demanded a high degree of logical reasoning ability in addition to belief in her thought.  Your ability to speak for her is limited by those difficulties.

     The train is somewhat shaky but solid enough for the discussion, I think.

     I don't lay claim to speak for her by the way, perhaps Nathaniel Brandon, though they had a parting of ways.  


My comment is this:
quote:

Grinch can speak for Ayn Rand if he wants, and his understanding and authority for doing so come from a different place than your does, but it's still quite real and shouldn't be dismissed.  And Essorant and I, for that matter, aren't trying to pull one over on you or the country or the world by disagreeing with you about climate change.



Which is why I think you simply haven't read what I've said or are plain making things up when you reply:

quote:
  
I must assume you feel that grinch cannot speak for himself and needs your defense.



     As for your belief that I am demeaning you, I assume that you're willing to show me exactly where I did that?  I'd be interested in seeing that for myself.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
46 posted 2009-12-20 09:42 PM


No I am for Imperialism to protect our country from invasion. This may mean forming alliances with countries or taking over countries who's government are a threat to the United states. Sometimes blocking trade to countries who fund terrorism I have no problem with. This may be associated with neo-conservatism, but I don't want to invade a innocent country for the purpose of making allies.
    
I don't necessarily agree with keeping poeple poor for the sake to make us rich, since it breeds instability. This is generally considered neo-liberal (Clinton Policy)  

Imperialism isn't always bad, but anything can be used badly.


Imperialism has many forms. In fact many poeple consider globalization as Imperialism, contrary to my own beliefs.

LR-

I can see why it comes off that way.  I maybe was lazy.  The list was just a list of propaganda stunts.

No one has yet to tell me of what will happen if countries will boycott the global warming measures and who will be doing it. I don't care about the environmental consequences. (I am a evil conservative remember?)

juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
47 posted 2009-12-20 09:57 PM


If I see something as abusive, I have a right and an obligation to speak up.

No problem, Bob. Regard me as abusive or anything you like. Take my comments to others and attack me on them. That has been your modus operandi for some time now so have fun with it. My only error was giving your comments enough importance to mention them. I'll try not to let that happen again. By all means, live up to your obligations...

Tim
Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794

48 posted 2009-12-20 10:26 PM


After the farce occuring in Copenhagen, it shouldn't be too much of a question as to the motives behind the "global warming" movement.

Perhaps Al Gore should step aside as the spokesperson for global warming and let Hugo Chavez take over.  Chavez seems to resonate better with the "global warming" base at the present time and is equally believable.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
49 posted 2009-12-20 10:40 PM


Balladeer


quote:
Giving billions to poor countries without the major polluters being required to cut back on greenhouse emmisions is ok.


No, I don't agree with that, Balladeer.  Most people, most efforts, most of the direction toward a "greener" humanity and trying to help reduce or lessen the impact of Global Warming are not represented by those kind of politics.    Ask almost anyone of the public or organizations that put heart and head into helping these causes.  They didn't vote for the politicians to do such things, they aren't the ones sending billions to the poor, and obviously wouldn't support major polluters not reducing their emissions.  What you are talking about is the politics of the politicians, not of the majority.  


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
50 posted 2009-12-20 11:04 PM


What I am talking about, Ess, is the agreement they reached, which puts no requirements on the major players on the global warming stage.

If you don't agree with that...good. You shouldn't...nor should anyone else.

Tim, don't look now but Hugo IS running the show.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
51 posted 2009-12-20 11:08 PM


quote:

I don't necessarily agree with keeping poeple poor for the sake to make us rich, since it breeds instability. This is generally considered neo-liberal (Clinton Policy)  



Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy derived from classical economic liberalism Juju -- that is actually, in American politics, called -- conservatism.  If you want to make the case that the goal of conservatism is to make 'us' (as in the already rich and powerful) rich and to breed instability (here and abroad) then I'm in agreement.  

In the United States this began with Ronald Reagan.  Not that Clinton did anything much to reverse Reaganomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal#United_States

If you don't necessarily agree with it -- then -- you are apparently confused about your own ideology.



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
52 posted 2009-12-20 11:34 PM


Asian giants China and Indonesia have hailed the Copenhagen UN climate summit outcome, despite its cool reception from aid agencies and campaigners.

Beijing's foreign minister said it was a new beginning, and Indonesia's leader said he was pleased with the result.


What a shock. Two of the biggest polluters, who are classified as developing nations and therefore in line to receive a good portion of the billions allocated to developing countries, think Copenhagen is a success. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
53 posted 2009-12-21 01:22 AM


Good thing they aren't firefighters.  They would try to pay people not to start fires, instead of actually putting out the fires.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

54 posted 2009-12-21 02:00 AM




quote:

No problem, Bob. Regard me as abusive or anything you like. Take my comments to others and attack me on them. That has been your modus operandi for some time now so have fun with it. My only error was giving your comments enough importance to mention them. I'll try not to let that happen again. By all means, live up to your obligations...



    I notice, however, that when I requested that you actually cite where I was demeaning you in the posting we were talking about, you skipped attempting an answer and only reasserted the accusation.  Perhaps it sounds more convincing to you this time around; lacking an example to back it up, it sounds pretty unsupported and hollow on this end of things.

     Thanks for your generosity in allowing me to see you as abusive.  I do try to make a distinction between you and your comments, however.  My modus operendi has always been to stick up for somebody I see as being bullied; it is not recent, it has been pretty much a life-long habit.  If you don't wish to be called on what you say to other people or to me, then some extra attention to detail and fact might go a long way.

     For example, you only sometimes come across as abusive, and I think it's a mistake for you to believe that I think you are always.  I thought you were in this case, and I said so.  You conflate the part with the whole in this situation.  In the same way that I am only a jerk part of the time and am fairly decent a lot of the time.  I am both a candy mint and a breath mint.  I have made it clear to you that I like you very much at times too.  That doesn't mean that I don't have other thoughts and feelings and that I don't share them as well.  They are all quite real.

     In the same way, I am very fond of President Obama and think that he has some flaws.  I am not silent about the flaws.  I try to speak up about what I like there too.
I do not want us to be in Afghanistan right now.  I am not entirely sure that my position on that is firm, but I really don't like  what we're doing and how we're going about it there, and I'd like to rethink that, or at least have some sort of a national discussion on it.  I'm critical of President Obama on that right now.  I have other problems with him as well, yet at this point I like him far more than not.  Two sets of feelings about one person.

     Thanks for your permission to live up to my obligations.  It's difficult enough, with permission or without, and my problem is more often fear of doing so.  I understand you're being a touch sarcastic here.  I'm sorry you feel that way.  


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
55 posted 2009-12-21 11:11 AM


Look up Neo Liberalism on wiki

"Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer part of the control of the economy from public to the private sector,  under the belief  citation needed] that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic indicators of the nation. The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's "Washington Consensus," a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-liberalism

So in its Ideal state, it isn't bad.  Your right that many conservatives have this philosophy, how ever neoliberalism in the clinton era was used as a way to manipulate other countries using the WB and the IMF. This front known as "Globalization" Would become the economical weapon that would cripple the third world.  Neo Liberalism is a philosophy, like socialism, communist, feudalism, and many more.  


Look up Conservative on wiki

"Conservatism in the United States includes a variety of political ideologies including fiscal conservatism, supply-side economics, social conservatism, libertarian conservatism, bioconservatism, traditionalist conservatism, and religious conservatism,[41] as well as support for a strong military. Modern American conservatism was largely born out of alliance between classical liberals and social conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.[42]

Important American conservatives include William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater.

US president Ronald Reagan, who was a self-declared conservative, is widely seen as a symbol of American conservatism.[43] In an interview, he said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."[44] Organizations in the US committed to promoting conservative ideology include the American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institution. US-based media outlets that are conservative include Human Events, National Review, The American Conservative, Policy Review, and The Weekly Standard.

In the US, social conservatives emphasize traditional views of social units such as the family, church, or locale. Social conservatism may entail defining marriage as relationships between one man and one woman (thereby prohibiting same-sex marriage and polygamy) and laws placing restrictions on the practice of abortion. While many religious conservatives believe that government should have a role in defending moral values, libertarian conservatives such as Barry Goldwater advocated a hands-off government where social values were concerned."

But in general it is usually defined as some people have bad logic(serial killers their psych paths liers people in chronic debt), therefore the government has the right to enforce laws to prevent chaos.  This is why a true conservative wont always support reducing regulation. Therefore regulation would be present to protect people from hurting themselves.  


Many, many, many, conservatives believe in liberal economics, but There are some that believe in conservative economics.  Therefore someone who believes in political conservatism can also be an economic liberal.

Juju  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

56 posted 2009-12-22 02:50 AM




Dear Juju,

quote:


But in general it is usually defined as some people have bad logic(serial killers their psych paths liers people in chronic debt), therefore the government has the right to enforce laws to prevent chaos.



     A definition has to distinguish one thing from all other things in a clear and unmistakable way.  I think you need to try again here.  This definition is trying to say something about the existence of government; I think, but I can't be sure.  If it were a suitable definition, we'd pretty much know that it applied to a certain kind of political philosophy, conservatism, and to nothing else.

     Your presentation has the rough form of a syllogism.  Two statements, one building on the other, that lead to a third statement that is the logical outcome of the previous two.  It is ill-formed as a syllogism, however, because it has an undistributed middle, and the final proposition does not follow.  That is supposing that it is intended as a logical statement; it may not be.

quote:


Many, many, many, conservatives believe in liberal economics, but There are some that believe in conservative economics.  Therefore someone who believes in political conservatism can also be an economic liberal.



     There may be a very large number of conservatives who believe in Liberal economics.  If there are, I don't know of any of their publications, and would be interested in knowing of some of them.  I do know of folks such as the late senator Goldwater who were fiscal conservatives and believed that, as many of the founding father believed, that government and Religion should be kept separate, and that many matters of personal morals did not belong in the public sphere.  Sexual orientation, for example, Goldwater felt, was your own business.

     There are, as a result, some folks who are fiscal conservatives and social libertarians.  Sometimes even social Liberals, I suppose, such as the late Governor Rockefeller of New York.  People who are economic Liberals, however, are generally simply called Liberals, since the spending that the Keynesian economics may mandate may go toward what conservatives disdainfully call "entitlements."   Conservatives tend to be programmatically against such things, especially when these programs are directed toward helping out the impoverished.

     They have, however, often supported equivalent programs for folks in the upper income brackets, such as Oil Depletion Allowances and the tax cuts for the very wealthy that drained large amounts of money from public coffers during the last eight years.

     Our opinions apparently part ways on some of these details.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
57 posted 2009-12-22 10:24 AM


B-

It is a pretty common definition of conservitism: The government exists as a a function because some poeple are better at making decisions than others. The philosophy sprouted after the french revolution.  That the mass of poeple are incapable of ruling themselves, there fore goverment is needed to maintain order.

An example of a group of poeple with conservative political views, but libral economic views would be any one who calls them selves a Reagonite.

I my self am conservative with economics. I more closely can be discribed as a libertarian conservative with economics, but I have a belief that in general the government causes more problems than it solves.

I do understand your remark that "conservatives" don't caqre about the poor.  Perhaps the law makers in your area don't.  I don't know about that, but I think that even if the republicans would try to apeal to the poor, it would be for naught.  There is such a thick deep hatred that is fed by the Social-Librals in the east coast to the poeple that they won't even try.  

In fact I bet if a canadate were to come and talk to many of them, they would be spit at or ignored.

But maybe I am wrong.

I do, however think it is sad that many many conservative republican and libertarian republicans and moderate republicans who do care about the poor and work hard to make thier lives beeter have failed at communicating to them.  

There is something wrong when the guy in power wont talk to his consituaints.  I think If there was some communication maybe things would change.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

58 posted 2009-12-22 11:16 AM




The notion that some people were better suited to making decisions than others didn't start with the French Revolution.  It started with chiefs and elders and continued with kings and continues now with dictators.  Your definition doesn't distinguish authoritarian governments from elected Governments, and governments that are imposed and maintained by force from outside and above from Governments that emerge from the people with the support and consent of the people who bring them to and maintain them in power.  Nor do they distinguish elected from unelected governments.

     If you're going to talk define Conservatives, you need to distinguish what makes them different from any other  political point of view.  That's what definitions do.  It's like drawing and shading done correctly; when you're finished the thing you're defining is clearly distinguished from everything else around it.

     What you've done is lumped a bunch of things people feel about being conservative into a single basket.  You haven't thought whether other political points of view might think the same sorts of things about themselves, too.

     The notion of the mass of people being incapable of ruling themselves has very little with either Conservative or Liberal in American politics at this point in time.  It's more to do with Royalist politics.  Politics in a Democracy seem to be based on the notion that people can in fact rule themselves, either directly or through representatives.  It's one of the values that Liberals and Conservatives seem to share in a Democratic society.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
59 posted 2009-12-22 01:01 PM


quote:
A definition has to distinguish one thing from all other things in a clear and unmistakable way.

Really? Maybe you haven't looked at the definition of poetry, Bob, not just in the dictionary, of course, but as attempted by some of the greatest writers of history? I have yet to find any definition that doesn't create numerous (and poetically remarkable) exceptions.

There are many, many words in the English language that fail to distinguish one thing from all others in a clear and unmistakable way, Bob. That's precisely why people still continue to misunderstand one another.

You certainly don't have to agree with Juju's definitions, but I don't think you can legitimately dismiss them based solely on your own unrealistic, uh, definition of definitions.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
60 posted 2009-12-22 01:10 PM


I don't understand what you mean I thought that I was pretty clear, but oh well.  

I miss said the conservative view point: a "mass" of poeple cant govern themselves. I guess It is Hard for me to explain because I am not one.  My friend who is a conservative explains that the government is needed to preserve order, which includes building rodes, a strong police force, fire, and other government services.  She said that there are three different attitudes about treating the poor:

"Compasionate Conservatism" - Poeple don't need welfair and state services. these should be used in emergency cases only. When poeple get dependant on the government huge problems are created within a society. The government is better off using the money to pay private pro bono groups that understand the problems in the area than having a general across the board rules or a complicated mess of red tape.

{the other two I will complete later I ran out of Internet time} )O_o

Anyways Some one is not a bad person becuse they are a conservative or a libral or a liertarian  or a socailist.  So I guess we should agree to disagree.  But I am not a conservative I had to ask my friend these questions.

On a side note: Real conservatism doesn't exist in most republicans to be honest.  The ones in the East and west coast are down right socialist. Many politicians are persueded by who gives money and leads to corruption.

Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
61 posted 2010-01-04 11:31 AM


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8439594.stm
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

62 posted 2010-01-05 11:43 PM




     Now I see why you insisted on including "accountant" on your list of must have professions, Mike:   Pediatricians, surgeons, drivers, CEOs, other businesspeople, and so on.  As you appear to have have pointed out here, you seem to have difficulty with the notion of  averages as applies to statistics.  Now I understand.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
63 posted 2010-01-06 05:27 PM


Why is it we call it global warming? why not pollution. Why cant we say "we pollute to much" and not "we have to be green." so silly.

Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
64 posted 2010-01-06 07:11 PM


quote:
Why is it we call it global warming? why not pollution.


For the same reason we don’t call obesity “eating too much” – one is the effect while the other is a possible cause.

Average global temperatures are rising, so calling the observed effect global warming sounds pretty darn reasonable to me. Another good reason is that if average global temperatures start falling, using your naming convention, we’d be forced to call it something like “not pollution” instead of global cooling.

Which would be silly.
.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
65 posted 2010-01-07 09:41 AM


You can eat too much and not be obese

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
66 posted 2010-01-07 01:08 PM



quote:
You can eat too much and not be obese


Which was my point exactly.

.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
67 posted 2010-01-07 02:25 PM


And you can not eat that much and be obese....

Sometimes events happen and there may be other causes. We cant control normal or abnormal weather changes. But we can reduce polution. There are much worse out comes to polution than a out come of global warming.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

JamesMichael
Member Empyrean
since 1999-11-16
Posts 33336
Kapolei, Hawaii, USA
68 posted 2010-01-07 06:19 PM


Interesting comments...I propose that the Global Warming or Climate Change or Carbon Tax agenda, whatever they want to call it, all fall into the category of a SCHEME TO RAISE MORE TAXES...and to GAIN MORE CONTROL inorder to FINANCE their new world order...GLOBILIZATION...James    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
69 posted 2010-01-07 07:18 PM


An excellent proposal, James.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

70 posted 2010-01-07 08:06 PM




     To the extent I understand "Globalization," I don't like it.  Perhaps some surge of wonderful new information will come in, sweep me off my feet, and convince me otherwise.  I see no such information on the horizon.  I find, like Juju, like to love about pollution.  If you "eat too much" and don't gain weight, I'd be interested in how you've come to decide that you eat too much?  Perhaps there are some objective criteria you might point to that we might agree upon here.  I, for one, weigh too much; and that seems objective enough for me.

     It is clear that there are terrible outcomes for people that appear to come from pollution.  If we cut back or eliminate as many of the causes of pollution as we can, we we do a great deal to address many of the things that we believe to be roots of global warming.  I think you're correct about that, Juju.  So I think that you have a great point there.

     I think that we also need to address the issue from the population growth side as well.  We've got too many people and too small a world to support them.  Our resources are limited.   We haven't actually planned how we intend to approach this issue as a planet, though many of us have plans for how we would like other people to address the problem.  Folks often hear these as fighting words.  Not a great idea in a tinderbox world.

     James Michael and Balladeer may or may not be correct about raising taxes; I don't know.  I have a fairly good idea, however, that once they've suggested anything about raising taxes, both of them have stopped thinking of any other way of dealing with the problem beyond suggesting it isn't a problem.

     Juju can recognize there's a problem here, though I don't know what her thoughts are about a solution.  I'm not sure of what sort of solution is needed.  I think that actually paying the cost of the products we use would change things.  I think, though that Mike and James Michael would think of that as a raise in taxes.  I think of fixing the pollutants dumped into the environment by using fossil fuels in the same way as I think of washing the dishes, or making sure that the meat is fully cooked.  It's for health and safety, and only a fool would avoid it for his only good and the good of his family.

     Mike and James Michael aren't necessarily arguing for typhus or salmonella, though doing nothing ends up having that effect on themselves and their families.  They're simply not thinking of alternative ways of dealing with the issues that don't cost money or cost money in a more dependable or more palatable way.

     So here's a thought.  Why not spend some time thinking of a free market or libertarian or Republican method of addressing these issues that actually will force a change to cleaner energy and cleaner manufacturing processes.  My understanding, by the way, is that the cap and trade actually started off as a Republican proposal 20 or more years ago, and was designed to be a free market method of dealing with pollution.  I'd have to do some actual research to find out about that, and I don't think it actually matters all that much.  At its heart it remains a way of setting up a pollution market.  It may work, it may not; but there really ought to be some good Republican thinking on the subject someplace that doesn't actually pretend there is no actual issue.

     If we're going to have a real discussion, here, that seems like an interesting subject to explore.  You've been clearly upset with what you feel are "Democratic" solutions, or solutions put forward by this administration; and you certainly have every right to be.  Why not talk about some solutions that you feel would benefit not only business, but also everybody else without adding to the tax burden and fitting the other Republican standards that feel justifiably important to you?

     A guy, Mike, could Run with a challenge like that.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
71 posted 2010-01-07 09:32 PM


Good thoughts, Bob, and I'll try to give it some thought myself, although I will be the first to say that I certainly have no expertise in those areas.

Of course I could say, tongue in cheek, that if your two main concerns are population control and clean air, let the air get dirtier and you won't have to worry about population control! (but I won't say that)

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

72 posted 2010-01-07 11:57 PM




     Please, Mike, say that!  Say that!  Once again, the humor is roaring in good form!

BK

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
73 posted 2010-01-08 10:20 AM


J-
hehehe

B-
I was just trying to point out the problem with the logic. I don't think I have a problem, because I question what poeple tell me in life. I was meerly pointing out that both ice cream sales and crime increas in the summer.

Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

74 posted 2010-01-08 03:47 PM




     I'm melting!  I'm melting!  All my glorious wickedness!  I'm melting!

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
75 posted 2010-01-08 05:41 PM


I'll have whatever Bob's drinking.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
76 posted 2010-01-30 02:18 AM


.


“Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen .  .  .

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.  . . .”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece


In accounting it’s called cooking the books
There’s too much of this coming out . . .

I’ve also read quotes from activists who say essentially
that even if the theory of man made global warming is wrong
the changes that would be brought under the threat of its predictions
would be good which summarizes to the ends justify the means.


“Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. “

Follow the money;
which is our money going to someone else


threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
77 posted 2010-02-08 10:17 PM


http://green.venturebeat.com/2010/02/08/minnesotas-frozen-turbines-raise- new-doubts-about-wind-power/

Minneapolis wind turbines freeze up in cold weather.  Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead with Global Warming initiatives!

Hybrid cars take more energy to RECHARGE than they save.  Solar panels break in any hail storm and don't function at all when covered by snow.
Wind turbine windmills freeze up.

Yep:  I'm ready to tax the hell out of businesses to pay for more of these thru Cap and Trade.

After this winter, the Cap and Tax bill is dead.  Now if we can only kill these insane premature super-expensive Green programs ...
  

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

78 posted 2010-02-08 11:39 PM


"Drill Baby Drill"
threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
79 posted 2010-02-09 11:40 AM


With new newstories coming out every day discounting IGCC 'pseudo-scientists' and student papers,
- the Weather Conspiracy nuts and deniers
actually turned out to be
the Global Warming pundits!
Whodathunkit?

If only someone had warned us in the beginning that it was all for bunko money and junk science...

I am going to make a million dollars printing and selling bumper stickers that read:

           I'm  *FOR* Global Warming!  I'm Cold!!


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

80 posted 2010-02-09 05:17 PM




     It's winter, Threadbear.  It's supposed to be cold.

     It's also supposed to be dark at night.

     Distinguish between long term trends and day to day weather.  I know Rush Limbaugh hasn't yet found a way to do so, but you really do seem a bit more thoughtful.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
81 posted 2010-02-09 05:26 PM


Bob, global 'Whatever'
will cost the US trillions of dollars,
and each day there is a new unbiased article, usually from Europe, telling us that the data on warming is largely incorrect.  Not only that NOBODY has conclusively proved MAN himself is the cause.  The best estimates I've heard is that man can only add a couple of tenths of a degree to air temperature and virtually NONE to land temperatures (soil temperature).

A trillion dollars DEMANDS THAT EVERY household or business (on average) pay $20,000 in taxes to pay for it for global warming initiatives.    

There, is that a bit more on the mature side?

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
82 posted 2010-02-09 08:10 PM


From my standpoint, building wind turbines that wont work for 50% of the year is poor engineering practice. No profiting, energy company would allow such a thing to happen, unless of course there would be a tax reduction followed by another....

Goes to show that tax cuts and refunds are not always the answer to solve problems.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

83 posted 2010-02-09 11:05 PM




     No, T.B., it's not.  The unbiased thing is to offer the unbiased data and allow other people to make up their minds about it.  I don't think you're trying to flummox me, but I do think you have a very particular point of view and your own particular notion of what compromises the notion of unbiased for your point of view and for my point of view.  In this, you're no different than I am, a guy who thinks he's got the right idea and who's trying to share his understanding with others.

     That's how each of us, I believe, sees himself.

     Your point of you puts you in a position where you believe that the people are being duped by unscrupulous public interests who wish to maintain themselves in power and retain control of the public treasury to enrich themselves and rob the public of their liberties.  If I have this incorrectly, I am sorry, and I welcome any correction you can offer.  It's a point that I hope to learn about in detail, and which I don't entirely understand.  I've expressed my best understanding of it, right now, in my little blurb above.

     My point of view is that the world is under the control of forces that are willing to do virtually anything to it in the long term to acquire short term profit and to retain power to continue to do so.  It is something of a traditional left wing position and goes back to John Locke and to Rousseau and the Enlightenment and sweeps to the modern day through economic philosophy including some of the old Lefties, the trade unionists, the new deal Democrats and the New Left folks during the sixties.  I had Great-grandfathers who were friendly with Eugene Debs and who ran businesses that tried to do well by their employees, and reputedly did fairly well at it.  I had some Republicans in the family as well that I learned to love and respect as well.

     Whether there is an actual problem with Global warming or not — and I emphatically think there is — I know for sure that there is an enormous problem with resources and population and pollution, and that we do need to address these things.  We do not have the resources to service the population growth we are facing, and I am amazed that we do as well at this point as we do.
Water, energy, food and fuel are at critical points right now.  I have no real idea where you live, T.B., but I live in LA, and we are highly dependent on water which is difficult to get, fuel, which can easily grow highly toxic in our particular weather and geographical situation and affect our air quality, and other specialized needs.

     Because of our highly artificial environment here, these things tend to highlight themselves in ways that they don't in other areas of the country.  But other areas of the nation have their own specific problems.  When I lived in Ohio as a child, Lake Eerie, was essentially a dead place.  You couldn't eat the fish from there, and it was over-run by lampreys in an ecological disaster of massive proportions.  We had a River catch fire at one point, which was something that any solid skeptic would have pointed as as some sort of scientific impossibility had it appeared in the bible.

     In the city where I was born, a lot of the children grew up with lung diseases.  This was the case in much of northeastern Ohio.  At the time, nobody connected it with the amount of Sulfur products and carbon particulates dumped into the atmosphere from the various industrial plants in the area.  I had Asbestos dump-sites in nearby neighborhoods and near my playgrounds.  I was given several series of  radiation treatments for problems with my adenoids.  Everybody trusted their doctors for everything.

     I learned some of my lessons by looking around and noticing that things weren't as perfect as everybody claimed they were.  This is a hard set of lessons to unlearn for me, Threadbear.  I want people to prove things to me before I start accepting that the ways that people have been selling me as great should be believed once again.  I want data, and I want it from people who haven't sold me the same old stuff I grew up with, who suggested that everybody should smoke a lot, and that it was great for you, and the bus fumes that made me cough when they belched in my face were really fine, even when they made me have asthma attacks.

     So when you want me to accept your suggestions about the non-existence of global warming, what I hear is the same voice as those tobacco firms who kept saying that 8 out of 10 doctors thought that smoking Chesterfields was wonderful, and put Arthur Godfrey on the radio to say it, right up until Arthur Godfrey got lung cancer and couldn't be bought off.

     And then I want you to tell me what you've got in mind for the population and environmental issues that we've got to face that are likely to put us at war with each other for dwindling resources like oil and coal and water in the near future as the population continues to rise.  We've got to be using something other than oil and coal for energy, and it seems likely that, if you don't want to be pressing the panic button every time a third world country whose views make you nervous wants to turn to nuclear power, we'd best be starting to look at a bunch of non nuclear options as well.  Maybe they're looking to build a bomb in Iran, maybe not, but every third world country in the future that needs a power source won't be, and if you don't want to panic when they ask for a nuclear power station, we'd probably better have some real options to offer them that won't leave potentially fissionable fuel rods laying ready for harvesting all over the ground, ready for any potential terrorist to come by with a pocketful of five dollar bills.  Perhaps now wouldn't be a bad time to put some money into creating some high quality wind turbines, second or third generation; or fifth or sixth, if that's what it takes.  Or do you plan to keep panicking for the next hundred years or so, when Guatemala wants a nuclear power plant?
    

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
84 posted 2010-02-10 01:04 AM


Bob Bob Bob
You are forcing me to do two things I don't like to do:  
1) type on this d*mn laptop.  Who the heck ever designed laptops WITH THE KEYBOARD 5 INCHES AWAY FROM THE FRONT??  Gad, do they think I have werewolf long fingers?

2) I hate this subject of Global Whatever you want to call it.  In the 70's, the progressives were shouting Fear from the rooftops; warning of the coming Ice Age that was right around the corner!~

Bob, suffice it to say that I've studied this subject to death.  Climatology reports on a scientific level are the most BORING things i've ever read (except for some Actuarial Reports.)  It's all done with 'modeling' since they can't see into the future.  Yet, Global Hysteria is all about 'what will happen in the future.'  In other words, it's speculation.

There's a famous scene in the Al Gore movie where they show this huge glacier shedding huge chunks of ice, in an effort to prove thru visual evidence that water levels MUST be getting higher because the north glaciers are melting.  Later on, after research, I found out that ANY photographer can go to the outer edge of the glaciers at any time in history and snap pictures of glaciers breaking apart.  It's what they do:  move, slam into each other, push ice into warmer water, etc.  

The Himilayan mountain report that Al Baby referred to was collaborated by two sources:  one was a student with a project paper not in his major; the other was anecdotal evidence given by some mountain climbers in Climbing magazine.  Now, how they knew what the ice looked like 50 YEARS AGO BEFORE THEY WERE CLIMBING is beyond me, but they said that the ice appears further up on the mountain now.  That was enough to get it passed onto the GSM Global Summit Meetings and get it into the IPCC report.  One of the heads of IPCC, some Indian buffoon that has since been discredited, approved this, and attributed it to man made C02, even though there was no cause and effect EVER alleged in that direction.

I've studied dry cell batteries, hydrogen fission car power; solar panels; turbine windmills; 'clean coal', you name it.  It's the biggest Hoax EVER perpretraited upon Mankind, effecting more people if legislation is passed than any legislation in the world's history; AND it's the most expensive bit of conjecture, estimated to cost globally in the neighborhood of $10 trillion to implement the Summit's ideas (and that is without China or India participating.)  

Yeah, I'm probably way too partisan on this subject, but being a Libertarian, I feel everyone is entitled to their opinion.  You're free to believe in whatever you want to believe.  ('you' being all people)
Only thing is:  don't shove your global warming hysteria down my throat
and definitely don't charge me $20,000 for the right to do it!!
('you' being the Government of the Obama, by the Obama, for the Obama)

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

85 posted 2010-02-10 03:49 AM


     Nuclear Winter may be what you're talking about, Threadbear; is it?  As opposed to global warming?  Do you feel that there are two different theories showing two different things, so that they both may be false, is that it?  Not being a scientist myself, I couldn't say with any certainty, but I do believe the two things talk about different phenomena.  I certainly may be wrong, but the way I understand it is this way.

     Nuclear Winter talks about what may happen after a large scale nuclear exchange.  Following large scale volcanic events, such as the east indian eruption of Krakatoa in the 1880's, enormous clouds of dust and debris were thrown into the atmosphere.  For two or three years following, because of the dust clouds, the amount of light that came through from the sun was cut down drastically world wide.  These were years that were essentially without summers.  Crop cycles were thrown off and world temperatures plummeted.  Because it was fairly short term, the damage passed fairly quickly, but there was some serious climatological disturbance.  The theory is that a serious nuclear exchange using 100 megaton devices would throw up significant amounts of dust that would stay in the atmosphere for quite possibly longer than the two or three years that came after the incident in the east Indies.  The shift might be enough to reset the set point of the earth's temperature reading for a significant amount of time leading to an actual Nuclear Winter.  At a minimum, it would create a spectacular bunch of sunsets for quite a long time, and it may well put enough radiation into the air and water to make it difficult if not impossible for humans to maintain their position in the earth's ecological structure.  The next top of the line might be roaches.  Perhaps this is over-estimating the effects, perhaps not; in any case, it would be an extremely foolish guy who'd want to put the matter to any sort of test.

     Global warming is still the best theory we have to explain the consequences of continued use of fossil fuels at the level we are now maintaining them.  American Conservatives such as yourself maintain that the theory is wrong, but on the whole offer exactly the sort of data that you do.  Little of it is peer-reviewed scientific data, and much of it data produced by folks who work for people who institutions controlled by petroleum and fossil fuel producing companies.  Almost all the of information appeals to the pocket-book — which is very important indeed — without much effort to actually base itself in research.  It does make an effort to smear researchers and spread stories about the research without necessarily offering solid sources for the stories, or giving the full stories involved.

     As in your case, the stress is often on how everybody's opinions are equal.  

     Everyone's opinions, alas, are not equal.  Your doctor's opinion about what your blood test says and means and your opinion of what your blood test says and means have different values that vary with the amount of information and understanding that each of you has about what the blood test measures and means, and with how honest each of you wishes to be about what you understand, and with how much reality either of you can tolerate for whatever your various reasons.

     How this differs on subjects such as global warming, nuclear winter or ecological disaster is something I don't understand.  My understanding is that it doesn't.  I don't assume that this cuts in my favor or yours if I look at it in principle; but of course, each of us will disagree as to the validity when it comes to actual practice, won't we?  I would hardly suggest that this is something that calls for addressing me as "Bob Bob Bob," under those circumstances, although you seem to disagree.  I think that's a pity.

     I don't think your political position should matter very much, any more than mine should, in the face of the need to look at the best as opposed to the most convenient evidence.  I have no particular wish to be under a larger burden of governmental controls than you do; nor do I, in actuality, believe that I do wish such a thing.

     My belief is that part of our difference is in where those controls should be.  I want controls off of personal rights and freedoms, you seem to want them off of economic options for change and growth.  Again, if I misunderstand, I would appreciate your correction in the matter.  The actual amount of control appears to me to be about the same.  Both of us would wish for a resilient and strong military, though I suspect we would wish it used differently.

     I believe that the planet is in danger from population growth and scarcity of strategic resources that needs  be addressed before it spills over into a predictable open global warfare.  Too many people, not enough resources.  My perception is that you see these coming conflicts as ideological.  Again, I await your corrections; I want to understand what you're saying.

     I have a lot of differences with you and Huan Yi and Mike, but I think that on these areas we see a lot of things in common — at least the need to address some of these conflict areas.  I think we have more to contribute to each other's ability to look at and understand problem than otherwise, and that we have become enmeshed in looking at petty side struggles rather than looking at what needs to be done to help our country and our world survive.  But I really think that putting efforts on figuring out what we need to do as a whole rather that what we need to get the other folks to stop doing is the better way to go.

     Of the people, by the people and for the people, oddly enough, works better for me.  For my own personal taste, the President is too far to the Right, but that shouldn't be the issue.  The issue should be, how do we keep breathing and eating, and raising kids, and having potable water and trying to treat each other with some sort of mutual respect.  That wouldn't be so bad, would it?  hen, maybe, how can we get Guatemala that power plant without worrying that the Guatemalans aren't going to blow us up in the process?

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
86 posted 2010-02-10 07:37 PM


Hey, Bob, no I'm not talking about Nuclear Winter.  I'm talking about:
cover story Time magazine 1974:
"Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 -Another Ice Age?" http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
and
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
in which the AMS American Meterological System shoots down the 70's prediction.  

[This message has been edited by threadbear (02-10-2010 10:56 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
87 posted 2010-02-10 08:00 PM


.


Meanwhile the Mid-Atlantic states are set to have their most snow on record.

Or has anyone noticed?


.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

88 posted 2010-02-10 09:05 PM


I have. I never want to see snow again after this winter.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

89 posted 2010-02-11 02:46 AM


Major storms and unusual weather patterns are exactly what should be expected as a result of global warming/global climate change. The Mid-Atlantic states are buried in snow while here in the north in snow country, where we’d usually have six foot snow banks this time of year, the ground is totally bare.

Our Winter Festival has been cancelled because there’s not enough of the white stuff to make a single snowman. And that makes me all pouty.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

90 posted 2010-02-11 10:39 AM


Send some folks down here to take as much as you want!
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

91 posted 2010-02-11 11:05 AM


Thanks for the offer Denise but there’s been a change in plans. Instead of a Winter Festival with ice and snow sculptures, we’re pulling out the barbies and having a Winter Wiener Roast with gooey, yummy, S’mores.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
92 posted 2010-02-11 11:08 AM


.

"global warming/global climate change".

global cooling/ global so so/global whatever
it takes . . .

.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

93 posted 2010-02-11 11:27 AM


Sorry, Huan Yi, I'm not getting what you're trying to say. Could you elaborate a bit, please?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

94 posted 2010-02-11 11:40 AM


Whatever it takes to try to prop up a bogus 'crisis' in order to gain more power over people and fleece their pockets even further.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

95 posted 2010-02-11 11:59 AM


Ah, I see. So global climate change is some sort of conspiracy and the perps somehow managed to get that something like 90 per cent of world climatologists (those I mentioned in my question to Balladeer in his twice told thread) to all go along with the hoax.


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
96 posted 2010-02-11 12:40 PM


Whether or not we as humans are radically changing the environment - Global warming is used as an excuse to manipulate the public to accept taxation and US interference in the global economy that hasn't been seen since the early 1900s.

The irony is that many of these plans by the government don't solve the problem, but makes it worse. Perhaps I will start a new subject on this.  Sorta different.

  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

97 posted 2010-02-11 01:15 PM


"Global warming is used as an excuse to manipulate the public to accept taxation and US interference in the global economy"

Gosh darn it all, another conspiracy! Those perps are gonna be frog marchin' off to the slammer before they can say Sean Hannity!


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

98 posted 2010-02-11 01:45 PM


So, since, in 2008, the Bush Administration released a climate assessment report, a global warming warning, (quoted in part below) and the Bush Administration came before Obama’s, would it be fair to assume the Bush Administration was in on the conspiracy or set up the hoax? Maybe they were the Grand Poobah Perps?

"[M]ost of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations," the report states. "[E]missions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change are the primary sources of this increase."

[I]t is very likely that the human-induced increase in greenhouse gases has contributed to the increase in sea surface temperatures in the hurricane formation regions. There is a strong statistical connection between tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures and Atlantic hurricane activity as measured by an index that accounts for storm intensity, frequency, and duration on decadal timescales over the past 50 years. This evidence suggests a substantial human contribution to recent hurricane activity.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
99 posted 2010-02-11 02:24 PM


Jennifer,
read the link above i provided about the Myth of 70's global cooling.

...point being, you said 90percent of climatologists agree, so why are we doubting them?

Well, they did it before (being drastically wrong)
and it appears
that they are doing it again!
They predicted the end of the world as we know it, back then.  

As far as Global Whatever:  I'm not buying it, especially from folks with a record of being constantly and assumptively wrong.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
100 posted 2010-02-11 02:48 PM


I don't deny Global Warming, but I don't think it makes sense to demonize it completely or pretend people know exactly what is going on.  Some studies say that Global Warming may be delaying or even preventing the next ice age:

Next Ice Age Delayed by Global Warming, Study Says

Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age

Therefore, there may be some good things about Global Warming as well.  It is not as straightforward as simply saying it is "good" or "bad".
 

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

101 posted 2010-02-11 05:31 PM


I very quickly skimmed the articles you mentioned Jeff, and didn't see that there was any consensus at all re cooling then as there is now with global warming. Seemed more like one of those cases where a few think they've seen a UFO or Bat Boy and the National Enquirer carries the story for an issue or two.

BTW, “we” aren’t doubting, as all the polls I’ve seen show.

Thanks Ess. It’s good to know that if global warming doesn’t getcha, a new ice age will.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
102 posted 2010-02-11 09:32 PM


you are absolutely right in that the 70's movement was not nearly as large as today's movement.  
They didn't have access to computer modeling like they do now, but still the 'fear' predictions came out in National Geographic, NPR, Time Magazine and Newsweek.  Back then, those magazines have alot more influencing power than they do today.  Every home i knew, had a subscription to Time magazine.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
103 posted 2010-02-11 09:34 PM


I am not starting a conspiracy theory. I am making an accusation.

Do we have the right to tell gorden brown(He probably doesn't) to quiet picking his nose -  no we don't. He is in another country and has every right to do what he wants under his country laws, saying he isn't doing it in ours.  

Of course this is completely different in the name of global warming. That right if gorden brown's possible dirty habit increased the carbon credits he would have to pay for it, because the US will not stand for it.

-Juju

[I normal would use a Jane doe, Joe Doe, but I used a figure head of a random country to point out the silliness of it.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

104 posted 2010-02-12 03:34 AM




quote:


Whether or not we as humans are radically changing the environment - Global warming is used as an excuse to manipulate the public to accept taxation and US interference in the global economy that hasn't been seen since the early 1900s.





     Perhaps, perhaps not, Juju.

     Certainly we do not need to talk about global warming to get the public to accept proposals for taxation or for interference in the global economy.  We can get the public to accept further taxation, depending on your party preferences, on any number of different issues.  Some of them might include payment for the war on drugs, payment for control of immigration, building new prisons, new weapons systems, new benefits for veterans, making sure that we are safe from terror and that we have controlled Islamic extremism.

     These are some subjects that a certain portion of the society will; vote to increase their taxes to pay for without much problem.  There are also areas where folks on the left would happily pay to an increased tax burden.  Some of them may be identical, depending on the particular citizen.  

     To say that Global warming is different than these other subjects in its basic nature seems to me to be untrue.  It may seem different to you, it may not seem different to you, but I think that the motivation for getting people to be willing to vote for these issues is not in substance all that different.  Ecological and population issues — to the extent that you can distinguish between them — are other examples of the same sort of thing.

     The government has never appeared to need any excuse, near as I can tell, to feel justified in intervention in the global economy; not in the 19th century and not since.  We seem to believe that our faith in Capitalism gives us the right to support whatever ventures our capital seems to draw us into on pretty much a global level.  The confusion on our part between our political ideals as a democracy and our economic ideology as capitalsts has more or less ensured that we  have operated this way for quite a long period of time.  I may disagree with it, and in fact I often do, but our political agenda as a nation seems almost always tied up in this piece of confusion.  I don't think we need any extra piece of business to actually convince the country to act as though the wishes of the United States should be the policy for the world.  We have a tendancy to act that way already.

     The notion of global warming or some sort of global ecological and economic disaster may happen if we do not pay attention, to my mind, may actually force us to look at events in a different perspective:  Through the perspective of an entire ecology rather than a purely political or economic perspective.


quote:


The irony is that many of these plans by the government don't solve the problem, but makes it worse.




     Your comment here is one that I consider quite wise.  Quite often attempts to solve problems do end up purpetuating them, and that the solutions of problems may often be quite counter-intuitive.  The nature of the solution often has a lot to do with the way that we start in our formulation of the problem.  That again is probably a matter for another thread.  The more I understand about the field, however, the more I understand that common sense only play a small part of it.


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
105 posted 2010-02-12 03:33 PM


Among several entities that have gathered together with a “Global Warming” objective:

I’d like to introduce the Kyoto Protocol

Do they have a “Global Warming,” marketing objective?

Yes, they certainly do. Emissions Trading

Is it legit?

Of course it is.

Do they have a target-market in their strategy?

Yes, they do.

National governments, some of whom may not have devolved responsibility for meeting Kyoto obligations to industry, and that have a net deficit of allowances, will buy credits for their own account, mainly from JI/CDM developers.

Has America signed on?

Yes, we did. But, no we haven’t. But, yes we have.

Should you as an American Citizen be concerned?
I don’t know? Does it matter how much plastic credit attributed to the downfall of the American economy? That wasn’t enough to scare us. Now we must be very afraid that if we don’t buy into “carbon credit” we won’t have a future, at all, et al.

How does the Kyoto Protocol determine its funding?

The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in UNFCCC.

Are they worried about funding?

No they are not.

quote:
These deals are occasionally done directly through a national fund or agency, as in the case of the Dutch government's ERUPT programme, or via collective funds such as the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF). The PCF, for example, represents a consortium of six governments and 17 major utility and energy companies on whose behalf it purchases credits.


How will this affect you?

Ask Al Gore.

He spearheaded the push for Kyoto in 1990 and has almost single-handedly delivered “944 U.S. cities in 50 states,” into agreeing with the Kyoto Protocol or a Kyoto type of mechanism. Gore did have some help from Greg Nickels. But Greg Nickels didn’t push the envelope to international levels. Both are heavily involved with various environmental entities that are ultimately owned and/or controlled by the World Bank. Nothing unusual there, I suppose.

Is Gore being heavily compensated for his illustrious involvement in “Global Warming?”

Who cares? But one could estimate that the pockets on his “Green Jeans,” have become more than deep, just by examining his raising. Gore Jr. is no stranger to politics or the prestige that comes with being in a political spotlight. Gore Jr. is publicly going against his own Father, Gore Sr. by taking the platform that he does upon the economy. He would NOT do this for penny’s worth of dissent. But for millions? He would and he has. Everything he touches turns Green.

Gore is the son of the late Albert Gore, Sr. (December 26, 1907 – December 5, 1998) Gore Sr. held office as a U.S. Representative (1939–1944, 1945–1953) and Senator (1953–1971) from Tennessee.

Gore Sr. and Gore Jr. have suffered some conflicts of interest.

quote:
After leaving Congress, Gore Sr. resumed the practice of law with Occidental Petroleum and became vice president and member of the board of directors, taught law at Vanderbilt University 1970–1972. He became chairman of Island Creek Coal Co., Lexington, Kentucky, in 1972
wiki

quote:
"`Ecology is now a household word, but many of those who use it do not seem aware of the fact that by definition ecology is tied to economics, that man's well-being is tied to his being; that although preservation of an unsullied crystal stream, a purer atmosphere, a virgin tract of forest, or an unblemished landscape are noble goals, they are not the noblest: the noblest is to provide man with the basic stuff of his existence—food and housing, and meaningful work. Before we can recreate we must create."(Gore Sr.) Source.

quote:
If we [do] not take action to solve this crisis, it could indeed threaten the future of human civilization. That sounds shrill. It sounds hard to accept. I believe it's deadly accurate. But again, we can solve it. (Al Gore, Jr.)


And:

quote:
There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere.(Gore Jr.)


I don’t fully agree with either of them, and being at odds within the family nucleus is fairly common. To a global degree? It’s interesting and essential to understand that people DO disagree, at home. Within the cities. Within the states. Within the country. On an international level. And Now all over the Globe.

Just because I’m not buying the findings of the experts who are also not in complete agreement, doesn’t mean I’m not doing anything. I don’t like it when people say to me: So you’re one of those “Do nothings.”

Excuse me?

Invent me a cordless vac that will suck my way to work and I’ll make a clean getaway/investment!!

I didn’t really require any scientific studies or findings in order for me to go “Green,” before the color became an environmental term, many years ago. I’m not fanatical or perfect about being Green. I do what I can to recycle/reuse & went Green with all my cleaning supplies/liquids/methods of cleaning, as well.

But I will not declare all of the green fibers in my hard-earned dollars Green for the sake of purports and reports, each with a finding or formula or theory and more findings that do mostly nothing but prove we are still green about the whole Green thing.

Why? Because of history and Listerine.

Yep, that’s right. This isn’t the first time in recorded history that people believed we are so influential we can do things that will ultimately control our climate/and or the renewal of the earth. However, in the past it did require ritual sacrifice. Currently, we’ve out-populated that notion in most parts of the world, and hopefully we only entertain such in fiction with stories like:  “Children of the Corn.” (Stephen King.)

And I’m highly aware of how exciting it is to jump on the bandwagon with some things, and some movements were crucial, some were fun, some were embarrassing, some shameful. But hey? Elvis is still Secret Agent Hot in some parts of the world?

And Listerine? Quite interesting, really:

“[Listerine] wasn't a runaway success until the 1920s, when it was pitched as a solution to "chronic halitosis", the faux medical term that the Listerine advertising group created in 1921 to describe bad breath. By creating a "medical condition" for which consumers now felt they needed a cure, Listerine created the market for their mouthwash.” (wiki)

Quite possibly, “Global Warming” could be a “Global Crisis,” for which a global market is now using to target individuals for their “hogwash.”

The statements and entities above like Kyoto are real. They are not figments of my imagination. I’m not afraid of the term “Green.” And “Global Warming,” “Climate Change,” whatever they’ve got in their marketing arsenal is going to have to prove to be more than just a vampirical formula for profit. Global Warming=human generated green house gas emissions=carbon credit. *Equals Atmospheric Pressure at Grandest Proportions Ever! The pressure I’m sensing, however, is from individuals upon other individuals, not from alleged anthropomorphic sources/culprits upon the environment.

Maybe a global market has figured out a way to finance everything under the sun???
Even that which the sun may be culprit?

Scientists Baffled by the Sun

That’s only one tiny article that mentions the sun’s play in the game. There are numerous articles.

Signatories Against the IPCC Findings

That’s only one list of scientists. There are numerous scientists of all kinds, bickering and theorizing and researching and opposing and supporting.

Meanwhile?

People like Juju? They have a point!

[This message has been edited by rwood (02-13-2010 08:39 AM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
106 posted 2010-02-12 05:02 PM


People (scientists) and the likes/dislikes are really up in arms about Global Warming!

Sir David King: IPCC Runs Against The Spirit of Science

The Sir has a point, and even has a beef with American lobbyists. Oh NO! The Dratted American Lobbyists!! RUN!

But keep scrolling & read the comments he received on his article. He's addressed as: "dear pipkin's" by the first responder, who also has some great points, and then the Sir is lambasted by a colleague of sorts, or a gentleman of close study who says:

quote:
When I practiced in a scientific capacity, I was a member of the same learned society as you, Professor Sir David King FRSC. I was a mere graduate then a member, but I do believe I have a much better grasp of climate science specifically and the principles of science in general than yourself. Yet you were at one time head of the University of Cambridge Chemistry Department and are still an acting professor. If I were a religious person, I would now be saying “God help us all.”



Wow, his comment is worth reading just for his exquisite expression and usage of the English language. I'm in love with Colin Porter, whoever he is, for the moment. And I'm not ashamed to say that I'll have to read his post a few times before I can develop my thoughts, but this was interesting:

quote:
[The UK] started off the industrial revolution and for many years were the major “polluter”, and should therefore pay the greater part of any reparations.


WHAT!

Uh oh. So, like, what about those who fled Europe so long ago?

Is this yall's way of getting us back?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
107 posted 2010-02-12 05:20 PM


Thank God we had people with enough sense to keep us out of Kyoto.
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
108 posted 2010-02-12 06:02 PM


Nope. We're not out, yet. We're signed on for symbolic purposes and it's a commitment that ends soon, and it's non-binding until ratified. Instead, we're developing our own model based upon the Kyoto standards, called the Cap & Trade Bill."

quote:
On November 17, 2008 President-elect Barack Obama clarified, in a talk recorded for YouTube, that the US will enter a cap-and-trade system to limit global warming.

The 2010 United States federal budget proposes to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of US $15 billion per year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions credits. Under the proposed cap-and-trade program, all GHG emissions credits would be auctioned off, generating an estimated $78.7 billion in additional revenue in FY 2012, steadily increasing to $83 billion by FY 2019.



Trap & trade...seems more appropriate.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
109 posted 2010-02-12 07:14 PM


Crap and trade fits just as well
Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
110 posted 2010-02-12 07:58 PM


Or Colonialism

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

111 posted 2010-02-12 09:16 PM




     Who's the colonial power here?

     Given the World Bank's presence, I get very nervous.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
112 posted 2010-02-14 09:54 PM



Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

somebody got some 'splainin to do.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
113 posted 2010-02-14 09:59 PM


Well, well, well....the only warming is faces getting red, it seems.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423

114 posted 2010-02-14 10:03 PM


Well there you go! Fill up the tank on the SUV and head on down to the Hummer dealership for that second guzzler you've been dreaming about.


threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
115 posted 2010-02-14 10:24 PM


followed by  
ooops
U.N. climate panel admits Dutch sea level flaw http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61C1V420100213

and
EPA Global Warming Office Can't Open- Due to Snow http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minori ty.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b3e826ad-802a-23ad-45b8-8fa00c661d62

But Wait!  Global Warming is a big deal!  We could ALL DIE!  Haven't you seen the Climate Change videos?
PEW: Global warming ranks dead last as concern for Americans...
http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-priorities-2010.
PEW: Global warming ranks dead last as concern for Americans... ^

well, maybe we WON'T die,
but we will surely go broke
paying to preserve Little Green Gremlins.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
116 posted 2010-02-14 10:33 PM


quote:
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

That doesn't sound like much of a U-turn to me?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
117 posted 2010-02-14 10:36 PM


    * Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
    * There has been no global warming since 1995
    * Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes


Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZXgvwf7


That's not a u-turn?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
118 posted 2010-02-14 10:43 PM


Harribin is the BBC’s environmental analyst only, Ron.

That's like saying there is no steroid use in the major leagues because Curt Gowdy says so.

threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
119 posted 2010-02-14 10:47 PM


Don't know if y'all saw this, but i just about fell out of my sacred Lay-z-Boy when I saw this at Christmas:
"Build-A-Bear Scares Children with Global Warming at Christmastime"
http://biggovernment.com/mflynn/2009/12/22/build-a-climate-scare-why-you-     should-boycott-build-a-bear/

I don't know how many out of 100 i agree with, but there are some valid points in this subset:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

and my last post on this subject for the evening:
a great summation of Climategate as of Nov 22, 2009
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesde     lingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
120 posted 2010-02-14 11:22 PM


The company also has a website called Build-A-Bearville.com where children can play an interactive video game that, on it’s surface, is unlikely to raise suspicion or sound alarms.

But when your unsuspecting tot logs on and hops a virtual train to the North Pole…you should know that he or she will be informed — by Santa Claus — that Christmas may be canceled this year due to Global Warming.


That's really sick. Be happy, Algore...

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
121 posted 2010-02-15 01:00 AM


quote:
* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing

A few years back, Mike, I lost my birth certificate. Are you suggesting my existence should have been called into question because the hardcopy was lost?

quote:
* There has been no global warming since 1995

And the temperature in Michigan has dropped several degrees in the last 20 minutes. The trend, however, is for our temps to rise over the next few months as we approach first Spring and then Summer. In terms of our planet's lifetime the difference between 20 years and 20 minutes is appallingly insignificant.

quote:
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

True, but there was always a discernible reason for the warming period. That's what science does, after all; it looks for the reasons. The reasons this time don't appear to be the same reasons as in the past.

I'm not particularly invested in climate change theories. Doesn't much matter to me either way, since I think one way or another our continued dependence on fossil fuels is going to destroy us. I'm just saying, there wasn't anything in that article I read that sounded like anyone had changed their minds.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
122 posted 2010-02-15 01:39 AM


What makes people treat news articles as if they are some lofty authority, even on the science behind something such as global warming?   Can someone clarify?  Why for example, don't we see so many statements from scientific resources, a scientific website or science-book on the subject, but instead see people treating a bunch of news articles as if they are a superior authority on the subject?

  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
123 posted 2010-02-15 08:40 AM


In terms of our planet's lifetime the difference between 20 years and 20 minutes is appallingly insignificant.

I couldn't agree more but, according to Obama, if these extraordinary controls are not enacted immediately the earth could be damaged irrevocably within the next 30 years or so...apparently he doesn't share our view of the appalling insignificanse of that amount of time.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
124 posted 2010-02-15 02:19 PM


Damaged irrevocably?

A giant asteroid might do that to the Earth, I suppose. The sun going nova definitely will (we expect that to happen in roughly five billion years). Anything short of that kind of cataclysmic event, though? I don't think so. In my opinion, the Earth can heal itself from just about anything short of physical destruction.

Life, however, and human life in particular, isn't quite so tough. What is appallingly insignificant in terms of our planet's lifetime is clearly quite a different story in terms of a human lifetime. I certainly wouldn't accept any prediction of planetary failure in a mere three decades. The viability of human life, however? Maybe. I don't know.

Personally, Mike, I don't think it matters. If we continue down our current path, perhaps waiting for science to come up with easy answers to hard problems, civilization will self-destruct long before the climate has a chance to kill us. When the oil runs out, as we all know it must, people are going to start getting mean. Really mean.



Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
125 posted 2010-02-15 06:04 PM


Hmmmm off topic again..... Lets keep to politics.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
126 posted 2010-02-15 07:24 PM


.


“The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”


http://www.dailymail.co.uk   /news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html


Of course there is a solution which the Europeans seemed to have found.
According to Mark Steyn the birth rate among its indigenous population
is at about 1.3 which no civilization in history has survived.

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
127 posted 2010-02-15 08:46 PM


civilization will self-destruct long before the climate has a chance to kill us.

Amen, Ron.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
128 posted 2010-02-15 11:32 PM



I am fairly sure we will survive the depletion of something we didn't need to live in the first place and which has polluted the enviroment long enough.  Even if we didn't have a lot of time to prepare I think that would be true.  But we do have a lot of time to prepare.  Just like other changes in technological improvement, happening gradually, this one will happen as well.   I don't see where the threat to our survival comes in.  

The sooner the fossil fuels run dry the better.  The sooner we can quit polluting so much and harming the enviroment that sustains living things to begin with the better.  It might be difficult for humans, but it won't be worse for them in the long run, and certainly won't be worse for the planet.  


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
129 posted 2010-02-15 11:53 PM


I am not to worried. US owns most of the Lithium in S.America.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

130 posted 2010-02-16 05:28 AM




    
Dear Juju,

          Once again, I guess I'm simply not getting the reference.  Is the lithium for batteries or bipolar disorder?

Curiously enough, Bob Kaven

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
131 posted 2010-02-16 08:09 AM


Alfred E. Neumann, Bob.
Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
132 posted 2010-02-16 01:12 PM


I don't understand what you are getting at, bob.

Yah we own most of the worlds battery juice, which comes from S. America. Soon (15 yrs) we will see more battery powered cars that can be charged from our own homes or a gas station. Cheaper power that doesn't fund terrorism.

I am just happy we are avoiding Hydrogen fuel cells.


-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

133 posted 2010-02-16 08:55 PM




     Now, Now, Mike!

     I'm unsure of the problem with hydrogen cells.  Apparently you're ahead of me on the science here, Juju.  I'm not happy with the notion of folks running around with lots of hydrogen gas in their tanks, but there may be some say of locking it into some more slowly releasing solid state form that isn't a hydrocarbon.  I mean, we're burning hydrogen now, aren't we, Juju, only we're burning a lot of wasteful secondary products along with it.  The idea would be, the more closely we can get to straight Hydrogen, the better, with the sole byproducts being energy and water, especially if we can do it in a controllable form. Fusion wouldn't be bad either, especially if it could be done on a small scale and with minimal or no radiation.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
134 posted 2010-02-17 06:06 AM


quote:
Fusion wouldn't be bad either, especially if it could be done on a small scale and with minimal or no radiation.

LOL. I'm holding out for a fairy godmother, Bob. It's just about as likely and certainly much more romantic.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

135 posted 2010-02-17 04:05 PM




     Is your Fairy Godmother as stunning as mine, then, Ron?  Mine has always been a big help in dealing with my Ugly Stepsisters and ferocious gnarly wolves.

     I've been waiting for fusion for 30 years, and I still get spangly little stars in my eyes every time I think of it. Car 54 where are you?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
136 posted 2010-02-17 04:34 PM



Maybe we’ll all get to go to the ball.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power



threadbear
Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817
Indy
137 posted 2010-02-17 04:45 PM


Juju,

can you elaborate on your comment about TG it wasn't hydrogen fuel cells?
much obliged,
Jeff

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
138 posted 2010-02-17 07:53 PM


quote:
From Grinch's link: Despite optimism dating back to the 1950s about the wide-scale harnessing of fusion power, there are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear whether an economically viable fusion plant is possible.

Unclear to them maybe. Not to me.

Seriously. Magic is easier.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
139 posted 2010-02-17 09:22 PM


TB

Oh my gosh must I? Three reasons.
1)Negative net energy
2)Still pollutes, yah know, bad for hydroxide molecules and still indirectly pollutes.
3)Costs allot of money.

BK

Fusion? I think there is easier ways to harness the power of the sun. I still think batteries are the future.

TBII

Well this was in reference to someone saying that the oil was going to run out.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

140 posted 2010-02-18 02:41 AM


According to Crowley, Ron, Magick is not easier.

No one has addressed my question to my satisfaction--why not just PRETEND we have control over climate change, and just start behaving responsibly?

I really don't give a damn what's causing the dis-ease--but if we can do something, anything, to alleviate the symptoms, what's the problem, besides the semantics?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
141 posted 2010-02-18 09:05 AM


No problem, serenity gal, and perhaps the government will allow us to just pretend we are going to pay all of the higher costs and taxes instituted in the name of battling global warming? THAT is the key behind this.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we should take prudent steps and do our part to help the environment...recycling, energy conservation, all of the little things in our lives that we can do individually to at least try to make a difference. Governments, though, are using it as a means for higher taxes, higher costs and a cute way to fill  their coffers by doing their best to instill guilt in all of the foolish people who would complain about such increases. It's not unlike a preacher, screaming "Repent, sinners, and get that money in the collection plate to atone for your sins!" Guilt can be quite a weapon when used effectively...and that is the one area where we have an effective government!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
142 posted 2010-02-18 03:24 PM


.


“The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence. The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones, was regarded as an archbishop in the Church of Global Warming. He was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times. If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.


The learned professor told his interviewer that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. He conceded that he has lost track of many of the relevant papers — that his office was overwhelmed by the clutter of paper. Some of the crucial data to back up scare stories might be lying under other stuff, but he's not sure. An environmental analyst for the BBC said the professor told him that his "strengths" include "integrity" and "doggedness" but not record-keeping and "office tidying." He's just not dogged about keeping things straight.

This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and once a ranking member of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says the temperature records have been compromised and cannot be relied on. The findings of weather stations that collected temperature data were distorted by location. Several were located near air-conditioning units and on waste-treatment plants; one was next to a waste incinerator. Still another was built at Rome's international airport and catches the hot exhaust of taxiing jetliners.

Terry Mills, a professor of applied statistics at Britain's Loughborough University, looks at the U.N. panel's data and applies a little skepticism. "The earth," he told London's Daily Mail, "has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last thousand years."

The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him. “


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begin   s-to-unravel//print/


.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
143 posted 2010-02-18 04:56 PM


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
144 posted 2010-02-18 07:26 PM


.

So which Professor Phil Jones are we to believe?

.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

145 posted 2010-02-18 10:33 PM



     It all sounds like the same professor Phil Jones, and it all sounds likle the same material.  If you've ever listened to a discussion of alternative methods od presenting a graph or of presenting data to get material across in the most clearly understandable fashion, you would have seenheard the same discussion about five hundred times in different forms before.  As a circumferentially challenged fella, I have had to find various ways of dealing with a graph of my own avoirdupois.  

     For those of you with less of a scientific bent, us fat folk sometimes have to keep track of our weight.  We have a choice of ways to do so.  We can weigh ourselves daily, weekly, we can weigh ourselves with our cloths on, off, at various times of the day and so on.  All of these methods will give us information about how much we weigh.  Some ththods will give us useful information, some will give us confusing information,some methods will give us helpful information, and some information will actually be damaging in our weight management process.  Huan Yi, as a physician, knows this.  He is either being disingenuous, or is failing to apply his knowledge to his understanding of the global warming brouhaha in this case.  The discussion of dealing with the data that has caused the upset among those that are upset about it, is a discussion by Dr. Jones of how to present the data in the most useful fashion for the publication, and not how to conceal the truth.  This is a discussion that has to happen in every publication that presents data, especially one that hasn't done an already well edited job of presenting it in the first place.

     As to which Phil Jones to believe, since there is only a single phil Jones, I would suggest that the question is meaningless.  The question has to do with which publication to believe.  That is a more difficult question to answer, since either side could be correct in actuality.  In looking at the way the information was presented in each article, however, I would point out that the language used in the BBC attributed piece was pretty objective and the language used in The Washington Times Article was pretty inflammatorty.  

quote:



“The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain was regarded as the leader in climate research and the fount of raw data on which the science was based until leaked e-mails between researchers revealed evidence of doctoring of data and manipulation of evidence.


   assertion in advance of fact
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begin  s-to-unravel//print/
quote:

The director of the research unit, professor Phil Jones,[...] was pressured to resign in the wake of the scandal. Now he has conceded to an interviewer from the BBC that based on the evidence in his findings, the globe might have been warmer in medieval times.



in looking at the BBC article upon which this story is based, I saw no such concession.  Look for yourself, and if you can find that concession, perhaps you can quote it.

     Quite the contrary, Professor Jones is fairly specific about the reasons that such a conclusion are not proven and are not provable at this point, and may never be provable at all.

    This, this conclusion by the Washington Times is, to put it kindly, unsupported conjecture:
  
quote:

If so, the notion that fluctuations in earthly temperatures are man-made is rendered just that, a man-made notion.



     Speaking of Professor Jones's comments about his difficulty in keeping his office tidy, The Washington Post takes and enormous left field shot at the Professor, attempting to connect his ability as a housekeeper and his ability as a scientist, as though the two were closely linked.  That sound you are hearing is Doctor Einstein rolling over in his grave.

quote:


This was good enough in the early years of the scam, but not any longer.



     I thought it was particularly telling how The Washington Times managed to insert that bit about global Warming being a scam in there as well without evening trying to put a single fact in to prove it.  Apparently, since the article has not started to leave the earth gravitation field behind, the notion of grounding assertions in fact has been lefty way way behind as well.

     The Washington Times in this article calls Global Warming "hysteria," "just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel."

     This, of course, may not be quite what they wanted to say, since a good part of America will trust their local news for a decent idea of what to wear the next day; but we are talking about "The Washington Times," here, aren't we, and they can get a bit confused sometimes.  You know those confused weathermen and their confus3ed computer modeling and all that confused science stuff that gives us fairly accurate forcasts.  Never Mind, Washington Times.

     So, John, it sounds like the same Phil Jones to me.  And the same old Sun Yung Moon, bankrolling the same old Washington Times saying the same old stuff.  Who ya gonna believe, Professor Phil Jones or The Reverend Sun Yung Moon?  I know where I'll put my money, even though   the fools can sometimes be right.  

     I actually read both articles, and this time. . . this time the science and the logic actually seemed to come out ahead.  HOO rah!  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
146 posted 2010-02-19 12:09 PM


quote:
No problem, serenity gal, and perhaps the government will allow us to just pretend we are going to pay all of the higher costs and taxes instituted in the name of battling global warming? THAT is the key behind this.

We're going to pay them, Mike. That's not negotiable.

The real key is when and how. We can do it when it's extremely painful or we can wait and do it when it's lethal. Those aren't great choices, I know, but those are the choices we've left ourselves.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
147 posted 2010-02-19 12:23 PM


Of course we are going to pay them, Ron. They don't accept the "pretense" as payment.

Painful or lethal? Just when do you expect that lethal to occur? Within the next couple of decades like Obama and Gore predict? Do you think our paying now will avoid or delay it....or will it just make the governments richer?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

148 posted 2010-02-19 04:10 AM




     I understand I may be letting myself in for a torrent of abuse here, but I'm finding myself a bit on the puzzled side.  I have on occasion worked for the government, as have various other people on the site, and I've heard a lot of talk about graft and stuff, and even seen some overpaid government positions and some abuses of government power and authority.  I've also seen those in the private sector, where they're rewarded hansomly with "bonuses," because the people who get them really know how to play the system very well.  The system is a bit different, of course, but the rewards in the private sphere are usually greater.  In the criminal sphere, which I've also seen,but only been involved in once and then only as a potential kidnap victim as a child, as part of an extortionthing directed at my father,  the same principles seemed to apply.  Sometimes the three spheres seem to cross or get confused a bit, and then everybody gets preturbed, though I'm not sure — on a pragmatic level at least — why, since the principles and sometimes the players are often the same.

     With all of these parallels so obvious (to me at least) and valid (to me, at least) and sensible in terms of general systems theory (and me, at least), I wonder why I've never actually seen an example of what I've been able to identify as "rich government."  This is probably because I've never thought of a government as being able to say to anybody, as rich people are able to say to each other — instead of saying that they are "rich," which they seem to feel uncomfortable saying — that it is "comfortable."

     I have, on occasion, known "rich" people, or been friends with such people.  

     I'm sorry, I believe the notion of a rich government is an oxymoron in the same way that people delight in saying the military intelligence is an oxymoron.  There are simply too many conflicting objectives and priorities for whatever monies there are at hand to provide any level of national comfort.  I state this on the level of an axiom.  It may not in fact be true; but if it isn't, I'd need pretty compelling logic to convice me that it isn't.   Further, I would state as axiomatic that it is impossible that any national cash outlay will ever be enough to satisfy everybody that all the needs are being met at a fair or even a safe level.  If you can give me convincing logical argument to the contrary, I am more than happy to believe otherwise.

     In the meantime, I suspect that the actuality of a Rich Government exists only in the gin soaked  imaginations of those Feverish enough to believe as adults in Snidely Whiplash, in Santa Claus, and in the future of the nuclear hand grenade as the up and coming man-portable anti-personnel weapon of the 21st century.  

     The problem isn't that governments are rich, the problem is that there are so many disagreements about where we need to spend what money we do have.  It may be that the places that spend the most money trying to get that money may not be the places that are the places we need to spend that money.  But the money they spend can sure be powerfully convincing when it's placed in the right hands.

     This is why the recent Sepreme Court decision may be one of the worst decision the supreme court has ever made, when it confused money and free speech.  Money may be many many thing, but it is seldom if ever free.  You may quote me on that.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
149 posted 2010-02-19 08:56 AM


You're right. Bob. Governments are not rich. Governments are not single entities. Governments are made up of single entities and those single entities are rich and monies collected gets to them, either financially or in terms of power.

Anyone every wonder why multi-millionaires fight for jobs that pay less than what they have in their household budgets? Why would anyone want to go through all that politicians have to go through for pennies? True, some may do it for a call to do their civic duty but how many do you think that is....and how long does it last after they reach Washington. Even on local levels, multi-multi-millionaires spend millions to be mayors or city alderman....and some get kicked out of office on graft charges.

Aside from the financial perks, Bob, like the retirement, the limousines, the health care (that we don't get) and the opportunities, there is the power. THAT is where they are really rich and the driving force of the majority, I believe. What is the best way to get power? Exercise control. The more control you exercise on the people, the more powerful you are...and the richer you are, in that respect. How do you exercise control? That's easy....guilt. Man-made global warming is an exercise of that guilt transference. Make people feel guilty and you control them. The founding fathers sat in their congress to do the poeple's work and then went home to tend their farms. We don't have a lot of farmers in congress these days. I'll bet Jimmy didn't even hoe his own peanuts!

This is not a democrat rant. It's on both sides of the aisle, although it seems that democrats seem to push toward government control over people's lives a little more.

Not rich government, Bob, just rich people that comprise the government...rich in power and control.

It appears to me people may be getting a little tired of that control push and the guilt being pushed on them.

End of my morning rant and off to work.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
150 posted 2010-02-19 12:35 PM


.


"This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions – whether intentionally or unintentionally - and about the action we must take,"

George Bush junior, preceded by congress, dismissed the [Kyoto Protocol] agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs."

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/29/report-new-bin-laden-tape-blames-u-s-for-climate-change/


.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

151 posted 2010-02-19 06:27 PM




     Once again, John, the raw blast of anger in your message is very clear.  Exactly what it is about and where it is directed and what it means is simply not.

     Were you to post a large blob of Red and the word RAGE in the middle of it and arrows directed towards another blob saying "self-identified enemies of America" I would get the approximate same message.

     Most of the time I'd be able to send you back a card with instructions as to the place you might be able to put me on that diagram as well:  Pretty much on your general side of things, but really rteally wanting a better pair of glasses so I could get a clearer view of the landscape.  I like to have a better understanding of what I agree with and what I'm putting my energy into.

     The Saudis are selling a lot of that oil that helps cause a lot of that global warming.  So what that Osama may be  right about us helping cause a lot of of it.  The issue at this point is what do we do to stop it and to turn the process around as much as possible.  Guilt can be a very useful motivator.  It needs to be distinguished from shame, which tends to be thought of as not something which can be dealt with and addressed, but something which is part of a person's identity, and which they feel helpless to deal with.  It tends to make people sag and collapse.  Guilt offers options and motivations to the person who feels it in terms of adressing the things about which they feel guilty.  I polluted the earth, I can work hard to clean it up and leave it better than the way I found it.  I have shamed myself, my who sense of personhood is changed forever and I will be forever somebody who did X.

     If you're Saint Peter, you can say to yourself, "I told them I never heard of the Man three times in one night on the One Night when I felt it Most Mattered to God and The World."  That would be difficult for Saint Peter to tolerate, and would be something he would be ashamed of for the rest of his life.  

     There's nothing absolute about shame, mind you.  You might have forgiven Saint Peter.  If you'd have been Saint Peter, you might have only had Guilt to deal with, but you and Saint Peter may have been built differently.  Jesus forgave him in advance.  As far as Jesus was concerned, it wasn't a thing to be ashamed about.  It could be forgiven.  I've forgiven worse — from my lights — and not forgiven less — the same.  I'm different again.

     Osama is a dork and his point of view is not yours for the most part, except for the part where he's inflexible about blame and forgiveness.  Who and what you blame and forgive may be different, but the two are you have that lack of flerxability in common, I think.

     So what does his though and feeling about global warming have to do with yours?  If he says Green, does that mean that you're right off obligated to disagree with him about the subject?  Or does that mean that you're right off obligated to agree with him about the rigidity of the style of thinking?

     Whichever it is, or whether it's neither, you won't know unless you actually lay out what your own thinking on the matter is.  At that point, it doesn't really matter what Osama says or what The National Review says.  What you have to say is usually more interesting anyway, even when I don't agree with it.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
152 posted 2010-03-16 12:05 PM



“After all, the biofuel scam that is one of many disfiguring spin-offs from the “global warming” scare — driven by the poisonous clique of mad scientists whom Nature so uncritically defends — has taken millions of acres of farmland away from growing food for people who need it and towards growing biofuels for clunkers that don’t. Result: a doubling of world food prices, mass starvation, and death, leading to food riots in a dozen major regions of the globe.

You won’t have seen much about these riots in the Western news media: they are too busy reporting on every putative icicle putatively dribbling in putatively melting Greenland.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-once-respected-nature-n ow-staffed-by-moaning-ninnies/?singlepage=true


“Result: a doubling of world food prices, mass starvation, and death, leading to food riots in a dozen major regions of the globe.”


That deserves repeating.

.


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
153 posted 2010-03-16 12:49 PM


This is an interesting point John.  

However, in the end it is all about the united states having power crap.

Bin Ladin is using (like always) the same plot as Hitler did.  "The US has money and power, because they have done something wrong to everyone else. rise up against the US... bla bla bla"

In fact you could probably take what ever Bin ladin says ans replace "US" with "JEw" and "Islam will take over the world" with "third rank will take over the world" and you will notice very close resemblances.  

I swear some one should do a hitler binladen comparison on youtube. creepy similiar.

-Juju  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

154 posted 2010-03-17 02:20 AM




     The annoying Mr. Monckton appears again.  The first of these citations takes Mr. Monckton's claims to making reasoned argument on directly.  He apparently tends to fabricate his data, including what he says about Mr. Gore.

     The next two simply go on a bit.

     Apparently he buffs everything he says a great deal and claims that it's all Shinola.  A judicious sniff and a closer examination reveals this not to be the case.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
155 posted 2010-03-17 08:22 AM




.

Food riots were in the news; that much I remember . . .

.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
156 posted 2010-03-17 04:39 PM



quote:
Food riots were in the news; that much I remember . .


They were indeed, and they will be again, but claiming that the rising cost of food was a direct result of a move towards biofuel production is a bit of a stretch. It was certainly a contributing factor but a minor one in my opinion and, probably more importantly, an easily reversed factor. Ironically the reduction of food production due to climate anomalies in major food producing countries – particularly Australia the second biggest wheat exporter – have had a far bigger impact.

The good news is that food prices, like oil prices, plummeted in 2009 thanks to the global economic crisis. There’s a silver lining if ever I saw one – unfortunately once the economy starts to recover the shinola will once again hit the fan.



Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
157 posted 2010-03-17 04:43 PM


Yeah... There is and was food riots.  

And al Gore aint a saint.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
158 posted 2010-03-17 04:43 PM


Yeah... There is and was food riots.  

And al Gore aint a saint.

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Bob K
Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208

159 posted 2010-03-17 09:20 PM




     Theology wasn't your intention in the discussion, though, was it, Juju?  If it was, I never would have passed the entrance.  

     I think John may be right about the cost effectiveness of ETOH from corn at this point, though I'm reasonably sure that it doesn't cut into the grain export markets for food.  It's simply an expensive way of making gas right now.  It may not be if the price of gas goes up again; I don't know.

     What are your thoughts?

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
160 posted 2010-03-17 10:04 PM


Hehehehehe

Would any of us?

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thoughts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Better watch out or the global warming will get yah!

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary