How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Better watch out or the global warming will get yah!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


0 posted 12-17-2009 05:24 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

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).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 12-17-2009 07:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Nicely stated, Juju
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


2 posted 12-17-2009 08:36 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 12-17-2009 09:31 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


4 posted 12-17-2009 09:43 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

*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 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


5 posted 12-17-2009 10:10 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

"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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 12-17-2009 10:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


7 posted 12-17-2009 11:52 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


8 posted 12-18-2009 12:50 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 12-18-2009 08:17 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


10 posted 12-18-2009 08:22 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“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 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


11 posted 12-18-2009 11:09 AM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


12 posted 12-18-2009 11:34 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


'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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


13 posted 12-18-2009 01:30 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


14 posted 12-18-2009 02:15 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


15 posted 12-19-2009 07:52 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


16 posted 12-19-2009 09:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

My bet goes on the "We'll all be dead" side, unless you have unlocked the secret of eternal life.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


17 posted 12-19-2009 09:25 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


18 posted 12-19-2009 09:45 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


19 posted 12-19-2009 10:32 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

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 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


20 posted 12-19-2009 10:39 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


21 posted 12-19-2009 12:46 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



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 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


22 posted 12-19-2009 01:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



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 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 12-19-2009 04:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

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 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


24 posted 12-19-2009 05:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

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.

.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Better watch out or the global warming w   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

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



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors