General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2269755

    What About Global Warming?

    Locked

    by fluxit ·

    I read through several Global Warming threads and saw many things that were curious. Then I came across this article:

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    While I have not made a decision on the human contribution to Global Warming, I have a tendency towards a neglible impact. I believe that Global Warming is a natural process and that the natural has a greater impact on the climate than human influence. Certianly, humans cause an impact but it is usually a whisp in the spanse of time and space.

    What do you think about the article?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2536329
      Avatar photo

      I hate to rain on your parade

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      But [i]Abdussamatov’s[/i] was one of the ones insisting that drinking several gallons of Vodka per day had no scientific adverse affects on the Human Anatomy as Vodka is [b]All Natural & Organic.[/b] Some of his detractors pointed out that Opium was Organic as well but not something that you want to be using at all but he chose to ignore this point of view.

      When you are talking about millions of tons per year of CO2 being pumped into the Atmosphere above what is naturally occurring and the removal of vast amounts of Carbon Sinks in the form of Forest Removal there has to be some form of impact on the Planet even if it is only a [i]a whisp in the spanse of time and space[/i] it’s still possible to destroy the Human species and no one will notice in the overall scheme of things.

      Today there is no argument about Refrigerant Gasses that where being used where destroying the Ozone Layer and after legislation was invoked to prevent the continued production of these gasses the controversy disappeared over night as well because the makers didn’t any longer have a cause to fight or fund.

      Col

      • #2536318

        Huh, There is a Different Thought on that…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to I hate to rain on your parade

        The refrigerant gases that were illegal during the 90’s are available again today in the US. The original AC system for my 1990 pickup is fully available after being forced to convert it in the mid 90’s. The dang thing has never worked under the new system. And every other nation around the world never complied with those requirements.

        The issue has gone away because political entities are now focused on Global Warming hoopla.

        I read one posting in another thread indicating based on the EPA numbers that the US contribution was realistically small on a global scale. I took those calculations and computed the percent of standard density of pollution to be less than 3 times 10 to the -7th power. That is really nothing.

        When I look at the events on a solar scale the human influence is really unmentionable.

        I ask how many people remember the Times Beach or Love Canal? How many remember the acid rain problem or lakes and rivers that spontaneously combusted? Those were honest issues but most do not recall and many have never heard of those things.

        • #2535473
          Avatar photo

          Everything that you are describing is wrong

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Huh, There is a Different Thought on that…

          Firstly the stated amount of CO2 produced isn’t the real amount it’s CO2 produced per $ of GDP so you are seeing a fixed value which can allow the amount to actually rise without causing anything else to happen.

          As for the acid Rain and other items like the Spontaneous Combustion of water ways this can all be traced directly back to industry polluting so if Man can cause Acid Rain and Waterways to spontaneously Combust why is it so hard to believe that he is incapable of adversely impacting upon the planet. He has already done this on numerous occasions with the latest being the introduction of Unleaded fuel who’s main byproduct of combustion is H2SO2 which combines with some free radical Oxygen atoms in the atmosphere and returns to earth as H2SO4 or in layman terms [b]Sulfuric Acid.[/b]

          As for the Refrigerant Gasses you are wrong we used to use a gass called R12 which was very damaging to the atmosphere and it’s production has been banned. Initially this was replaced with R36 which required a expensive conversion which very rarely worked but since that time an inert gas called R22 has been developed which will work as well as R12 used to in the older AC units.

          Col

        • #2535443

          The Problem Is

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Everything that you are describing is wrong

          that those things like acid rain, Times Beach, Love Canal, and lakes\rivers combusting were very observable with real results. These Global issues are not so observable. We are shown images of snow caps that have melted but we do not know the full truth there. The earlier picture could have been taken following an abnormally cold winter and the subsequent picture is closer to normal conditions. Routine thraws are normal. If they never happen then the mountain caps would be caked in 100’s of feet of snow and ice.

          I know I can legitimately purchase R12 and the original A/C system after being banned. And I can get it from the dealer. In fact, my immediate boss has a permit to purchase R12. That argument is closed. I know you are not completely incorrect but regarding the availability of R12 you are.

        • #2535407

          The sale and use of R12 continues to be restricted.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

        • #2535400
          Avatar photo

          Very Interesting

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to The sale and use of R12 continues to be restricted.

          Here except for recycled R12 which by now is in minute amounts there is no new R12 being made or allowed to be Imported into AU. My brother in Law has a Car AC service Business and that’s how I know exactly what’s going on here in AU.

          The very last time that I ever saw a Bottle of R12 was when I was consulting for Ford and at one of the smaller Country Agents they had 1 part filled Bottle of R12 still on hand in 1998. Other than that one I haven’t seen an R12 Bottle that actually contains Pure R12 around since. Quite a lot of these R12 Bottles are used to recycle the Refrigerant after purging the AC Systems as here at least there is no further use for them.

          Col

        • #2535401

          re. “These Global issues are not so observable”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          The evidence for such is not comprised of photographs, but of a substantial body of data re. atmospheric composition, temperatures of land, ocean and atmospheric masses, amounts and wavelengths of Solar radiational infux and terrestrial efflux, over a sufficient span of time, that now demonstrate a net gain in Earth’s total thermal energy in direct proportion to the amount of IR reflectants in the atmosphere.

          Photographs of the diminuation of glaciers, snow caps, ice caps and ice shelves serve only as anecdotal evidence of such that is visible to the human eye.

        • #2537366

          The truth is out there. Your refusal to see it does not negate it.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          “The earlier picture [b]could have been[/b] taken following an abnormally cold winter and the subsequent picture is closer to normal conditions. Routine thraws are normal. If they never happen then the mountain caps would be caked in 100’s of feet of snow and ice.”

          The pictures to which you have alluded are matters of public record and available to you with a minimum of effort. If you dispute the veracity of one or more of them, the data to support or disprove your claims are also available, if you are industrious enough to seek them. Unless and until you do, what you state “could have been” done has no relevance, except to those who are as easily persuaded to doubt as they are to believe.

        • #2538839

          Pictures

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The truth is out there. Your refusal to see it does not negate it.

          OKay this global warming BS is getting offensive now. There are so many people refusing to accept our harmful emissions as a contributor to the depletion of teh ozone layer that it is becoming harder and harder to see reality throuh the smog.

          Reasons to NOT control our emissions:

          Wildlife will die anyway, polar bears etc. ice melts, it’s all a natural phenomenon….we think.

          Political fear, it is all a ruse to gain political favour, they need a smoke screen etc.
          And many more unrealistic and misguided reasons I am sure.

          Reasons to control our emissions:
          They kill us at street leel as we cannot safely breath our emissions (CO – Carbon MONoxide for example that causes a loss of white blood cells and literally suffocates the body)

          It is a known FACT that these gases DO harm teh atmosphere, proportions are irrelevant. ANy harm to what we know is already a natural depletion is just careless and irresponsible.

          So emissions kill us AND it harm the atmosphere. The only ISSUE is the cost or inconvenience of retrofitting and controlling the emissions.

          I see no valid excuse for not following suit and becoming a responsible society, the only problem is that it means left must agree with right, and that canot be so in today’s political world of distancing one party from the other.

          As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other “questionable” photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

          Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don’t believe so.

          Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

          So why haven’t we made a move? Do we need ot see 100% proof that it is unconrtollable before we start to act? If so, why? Stupidity? Laziness? Mere cost?

          How much money would be acceptable in order to save the planet from our emissions?

        • #2538814

          “So why haven’t we made a move?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Pictures

          [i]As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other “questionable” photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

          Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don’t believe so.

          Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

          So why haven’t we made a move?[/i]

          Um, Oz, I don’t know where you were in the 80’s, but we have moved on the ozone depletion issue, and my understanding is that it has helped.

          Reducing carbon monoxide emissions from my gasoline engine would mean that more efficient combustion is occurring, meaning that I’m getting more horsepower for the gasoline I’m already buying. I’m for it. You however seem more enthusiastic about it, so I invite you to [b]create[/b] that more efficient engine, or zero-emissions engine.

        • #2538728

          Cost

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Pictures

          When the California clean air act was brought about, people with 70’s muscle cars were at arms over the new ‘whimpy cars’ that couldn’t get them down the highway like a 440 did. We all know this was an untrue fear. In fact there are many 4 cylinder passenger cars that wil literally eat a 440 now.

          By the time fuel injection was common, all the former carb mechanics were complaining that new cars were wimpy and too problematic. Now we see that fuel iunjection is not only more efficient but provides a longer lasting vehicle, requires less maintenance and is a lot easier to tune and repair than an old Thermoquad carb.

          For some reason, many peopl still think that cars here ae the same as cars in Europe, which is also a myth. The same model car (usually adorned with a different model badge) will be sold in Europe as North America. However the European car burns fuel mroe efficiently and has FAR better quality materials in the build. No, a Ford Probe is not a Ford Probe everywhere in the world. European Probes will outperform and outlast a North American version…but why?

          Hydrocarbon fuels are extremely efficient energy sources, our vehicle are not. In an effort to offer an inexpensive car that still has reasonable emissions levels, we waste fuel energy in the form of heat. Thin materials, inexpensive aterials cause so an inefficient fuel buring process that many joules are lost in the form of heat. Therefors they ae covered with those stupid little tin heat shields todivert extra heat away from parts so they don’t fail, tht heat is simply disipated into the air. So the great energy potential of fuel is wasted in order to make a light car, the light car increases economy, not the quality of the components. As we now see, many manufacturer’s are resorting to muscle cars again to gain market share, as the cheap tin boxes are passed over by potential buyers. NO we are resoring to moving back to heavier components and lower mileage in order to get the most out of the potential energy and durability, ie the SUV.

          In Europe, more stringent standards need to be met, the effort of manufacturers is to build ‘Europoean quality’ cars that utilize better naterials to increase the fuel efficiency and gain more horsepower form the fuel energy.

          The cars they use for the Eurpoean market are far too expensive by North American standards, eve thoguh fuel is far cheaper, cars need to be as well or they just dont sell.

          If more people were interested in quality over cost, we would have North American manufacturers providing better quality cars with better fuel efficiency. Less fuel energy wasted as heat and more HP to the rear wheels.

          OS we CAn build more efficient cars, however the marketplac edemands acompromise. Unfortunately that cpmpromise comes at the cost of our health, but that is rarely considered.

          An example of how we THINK we are efficient:

          BC Air Care reports may show an allowable Co level of 8.6ppm. So when the old clunker pulls off a 6.5ppm we say it flew through air care. In actuality it does not, a newer car will often have a max of 2.0ppm.

          Based on an air care repoert, one may conclude that his/her car is runnign efficiently, in reality it is far from the truth. Our Canadian emissions are base don US diveability stats, converted to Canadian driving conditons. SO we are not actualy driving these great, fuel efficient cars at all. just what te manufacturer has made us FEEL is a fuel efficient car, becaus ethey offer no other alternative in North America….due to cost of production and a possible drop in sales.

          If you ever think anything in North America is not done for the pure sake of makig a dollar, go back to sleep and try again tomorrow.

          Money doesnt’ make the world go ’round, as the song implies. Money makes North America go ’round, and that’s all.

        • #2538844

          R12 Misconceptions

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The Problem Is

          R12 is a restricted refrigerant in vehicle use. The EPA exceptions are merely there for the sake of retrofitting and leakdown/bleed from SOME applicances but not for automotive recharging. R12 can only be bought with a licence and really shouldn’t be used anyway as it can be lethal to humans, forget about the ozone for a minute.

          As a certified air care and alternate fuels mechanic I have seen some rather gruesome videos of the REAL reasons R12 is no longer used in automobiles. It is not an issue of emissions control, although that is a small contributing factor behind such legislation.

          R12, or Dichlorodifluoromethane to be more specific, contains chemical agents that when burned, produce phosgene gas. Current automotive replcements provide a dozen alternative refrigerants, mainly just proprietary versions such as R-406A (very common) and Dupont’s HFC-134A.

          Why was this gas changed? Air care and California emissions were not in place at the time R12 was first considered lethal to humans, but when people were left for dead unexpectedly from vehicle accidents, refrigerant was often found to be the blame.

          R12, as mentioned earlier, creates a gas when burned (ie, in a vehicle or house fire).
          R12 refrigerant (also once used for home refrigerators)creates a gas called phosgene when burned, a chemical agent used in chemical warfare.

          Phosgene gas: because R12 has a relatively low boiling point, it was considered the safer gas for refrigerant, when exposed ot air it would boil off and become a heavy, cold steam (like propane does)but as vehicle engines became smaller, temperatures became higher and the possibility of R12 exposure to extreme heat was more and more common.

          When an accident occuurred it was more and more common for people to become very ill or die from exposure to phosgene gas withing a day or two.

          What is phosgene? In short, nerve gas. Phosgene was used as an early alternative to chlorine bombing in WWI. It is colourles, odourless and cannot be easily detected. This alone makes it an unsafe gas for common use, but when in a vehicle fire or exposed to the high heat of exhaust manifolds, phosgene from R12 is not the only killer, once the emergency vehicles use water to douse the fire, water breaks down the phosgene into other highly toxic gases.

          So the use of R12 in vehicles is not only retricted, it is pretty stupid also.

          Anyone who feels that a retrofit is too expensive is merely not understanding the reasons that we don’t use such harmful gases, it is not just our ozone layer, though that focus is always there, but it is a deadly gas to use and really stupid too when far safer chemical compounds are readily available at a mere fraction of the R12 cost.

          Why no R12 now?

          It is lethal
          It is detrimentaal to the environment
          It is far too expensive

          Your boss must have an air conditioning ticket or the like that allows him to purchase controlled R12? Many heating and air conditioning contractors do, but it is not to be used in recharging vehicle systems, just refrigerators, and other small home appliances when absolutely necessary.

          The R12 certification is designed to allow removal of R12 in such systems to be retrofitted and replaced by other safer refrigerants, it is not designed for people to purchase R12 and start recharging old automobile air conditioning systems.

          And since when did Colin not know what he was talking about when it came to cars?

          Homework, homework, homework!

    • #2536328

      Travelling Global Warming Show

      by sn53 ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      On the downside it sounds like this is an inconvenient truth. Therefore the True Believers will probably attack you for posting this.

      I believe American-caused global warming is nothing more than a gambit to gain more control over our lives and our money than anything else.

      Again, the True Believers in the religio-environmentalist movement will probably pounce on your and my apostasy.

      • #2536310

        LOL, I Like Your Analogy

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        People become fervent over many things. My view on Global Warming is somewhat pragmatic.

        I believe that there is a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States and Global Warming is only one instrument in this effort. The old montra was a marxist approach of endearing the forgotten people and organizing militias to fight for their rights. It was a common global theme for over 50 years.

        Today, you should note that the Global Warming players include countries like France and groups that are mostly enviro-fascist people. They are organizing treaties, global doctrines, and other agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty. The common theme in these ‘crisis’ are either to create economic funnels draining cash out of an economy, turning over sovereign territory, or otherwise exert influence over a country such as the United States.

        These these things worry me. The radicalize leftist parties, namely the Democraps, have an agenda to convert the United States into a new form of government over time. They cannot do it directly so they incrementally march towards the goal. I beleive Global Warming is an instrument for this effort.

        • #2537359

          “…and Global Warming is [i]only[/i] one instrument in this effort”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

          I suspect my time would be wasted addressing your concerns regarding “a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States.” The statement implies, with little or no room for uncertainty, a belief not amenable to revision. So, instead, I suggest that writing off Global Warming as “[i]only[/i] one instrument in this effort” is tantamount to betting all your marbles on the assumption that having been blackmailed once, every subsequent phone call is from the same blackmailer.

          The United Nations is not the only organization of people on Earth, nor do they hold an intellectual monopoly on scientific research.

        • #2538828

          So lost!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to LOL, I Like Your Analogy

          “a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States”

          Let me guess, you whisper at home because the French government is spying on your thoughts too, right? Everyone is jealous of America and wants to see her sink, right?

          That lump in your neck is not a possible cancerous tumor, it is an alien implant to monitor your thoughts and eventually help Europe take over the world, right?

          Laughable, coments, assertions, so called facts, etc. simply laughable. Go and curl up under your bed with your shotgun and fear the uprising of the globe.

          Your comments are so self centered and inasanely paranoid that it is funny to think people actually believe that crap still. It’s the kind of stuff we laugh at in the movies, have you been watching too much King of the Hill, Dale?

          NAME: Dale Gribble

          OCCUPATION: Licensed owner/operator of “Dale’s Dead Bug.”

          HOBBIES: Paranoia, smoking, golf

          QUOTE: “Guns don’t kill people. The Government does.”

          FAVORITE CONSPIRACY: You really believe they landed on the moon?

          How may hours a week do you spend on the Area 51 website? I hired a guy in Oregon once that had a similar mindset, what a nutter, had to let him go eventually (and very carefully) as you never know what you loonies will come up with next.

      • #2535502

        Grip followed by Clue

        by tig2 ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        First- stay off my religious ass. I probably give a heck of a lot more space than I receive.

        On second thought, I KNOW I do.

        I think that there is more to learn on the Global Warming debate. On one hand, I look at the vast NUMBERS of us and think that there is a connection. I look at corporations buying preserved land (rainforest, anyone???) and think again.

        Should we go greener? Probably. Should I be forced to give up a big,safe truck that gets me to the commuter bus? No.

        But how is any of this different to Eco Action from the 70’s? It isn’t.

        How about the “Re-use, re-align campaigns of the 40’s?

        Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy.

        Sorry sn, some of us “religious nutcases” prefer to think.

        • #2535439

          Do religious nutcases think?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Grip followed by Clue

          Tigger said, “Bottom line. We are required to THINK. Not blindly, but with knowledge, care, and consideration. We have to consider our legacy.”

          Sounds perfect. If you are actually thinking you are less likely to give up your right to live free.

          “Sorry sn, some of us “religious nutcases” prefer to think.”

          I encourage it. Of course, if you begin thinking and avoid environmental-wackism then the problem is most likely solved.

          This problem is far more political than it is scientific.

        • #2535397
          Avatar photo

          I agree with you 100%

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Do religious nutcases think?

          This is a Political Debate and there is no Science Involved. It’s not expedient for Politicians to admit the truth as that will adversely impact upon their election contributions so they make up stories from people willing to be bought at any price and use that information to muddy the waters.

          The simple truth is that 99% of all Scientists accept that there is a Climate Change Occurring [b]Right Now[/b] and 1% who are paid by the Industries responsible are getting equal time in any coverage as the 99% to make the general population believe that there is some argument when actually there is none.

          The Tobacco Industry did exactly the same thing for over 15 years and kept insisting despite the overwhelming evidence that there was no Scientific Proof that Smoking and Cancer where related. Most wouldn’t even accept that smoking was addictive.

          Now the same Lobbing Agency formed by the Tobacco Industry is funding the Global Warming Detractors that in itself should be enough to make even the most jaded person think twice before sprouting off an opinion about the rubbish being peddled by the media who I might add have a vested interest as well.

          Col

        • #2535395

          And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I agree with you 100%

          Never mind that we here in Pennsylvania saw our forests being killed and the paint on our vehicles looking as though someone had doused them with Coca Cola.

          All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy.

        • #2535390
          Avatar photo

          YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          One of the Upper Market Suburbs in the area that I grew up in is situated on the site of an old tannery.

          I’ll give you one guess what the soil is contaminated with on these $300.000.00 allotments. 😀

          When this Building project originally started they wouldn’t believe the warnings now 20 years latter half of the houses built there have been demolished and the soil removed. The site is still so contaminated that the area is fenced off and never to be used for anything.

          When I went to Charters Towers I got a real shock at the local Hospital that had a massive sign on the wall telling the Medical Staff how to recognise & treat Cyanide Poising. After all the tailings from the Gold Mines where Cyanide Separation was used where not at all dangerous and the masses of the stuff left lying around where nothing would grow 100 years after it was dumped there was no reason to be at all concerned. 😀

          Col

        • #2535322

          Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing. Is this part of the same religion?

        • #2535280

          sn53: It’s the same propensity to disavow responsibility …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          for the consequences of one’s actions that has manifested itself in all of the examples cited by Col and myself, and which is now displayed by those who out of hand dismiss global warming and/or mankind’s role in such.

        • #2537544

          sn53: “I am always confused”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          “I am always confused by the almost eager willingness to talk about both pollution management and global warming theory as if they are the same thing.”

          Someone had expressed doubt that global warming, caused by humans, is possible. The mentions of other forms of pollution were offered as examples of proof that human effects on the environment have occurred already, to help convince you that yet one more may be occurring.

        • #2538817

          Don’t be confused, they are related

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          While some like to separate the issues, one is a reason for the other.

          The only reason people agrue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control. This works for both our cars and ground level emissions, smog etc. and also our emissions of the same gases that increase the natural effects of global warming.

          Show me how our pollution control is NOT aligned with emissions control/global warming awareness, I’ll show you very easily that they are related.

          While there is contest relative to the amount that our emissions incrase global warming, there is NO contest that our lack of emissions control is killing us as we live and breath on Earth.

          If we reduce and pay close attention to our KNOWN harmful emissions, it will also decrease the number of contaminants sent into our ozone, not all gases reach high enough altitude to break down and become harmless. Read up on carboxyhemoglobin, I know someone who died from it already, right in his own home. Polution control will, in turn, result in environmental support/control.

        • #2541566

          Why oh why oh why?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          oz wrote, “The only reason people argue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control.”

          Maybe in your small world. I argue against the idea of human-caused global warming for a variety of reasons. In the last one hundred years the temperature has risen about one degree. Most of that warming was in the period prior to the the 1970s. Mars is warming. Other planets are warming. The whole point of global warming “countermeasures” is to increase the size, scope, and reach of governments. Instead of looking to solutions that grant greater freedoms and liberties for the people they only seek to regulate, control, and to tax.

          Waste management, despite the claims to the contrary here, is not argued against. The richest nations are also the cleanest nations.

        • #2541533

          Note which side is now arguing based on assumption of the others’ motives.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          OzMedia: “The only reason people agrue (sic) AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded (sic) for proper emissions control.”

          Is it [i]really[/i] about the science, or will you employ any type of argument, allegory or fallacy necessary, in order to convince voters to be afraid of global warming?

        • #2541381

          Why, oh why, oh why, sn53, are you contradicting yourself?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          On the one hand, you rely on supposed correlations which may or may not be relevant, while on the other decrying the decidedly relevant correlations set forth by your opponents.

          You can’t have it both ways.

          The problem is that [b]you do not understand the scientific issues[/b] involved, and therefore seize blindly on those “facts” which seem to serve your desired conclusion, without even knowing which facts are relevant and which are not.

        • #2541376

          Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.

        • #2541238

          deep, a tool for the enviro-fascists

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          deep wrote, “sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary”

          How can you get it so wrong with such regularity? I said that I do not need to understand any more of the science than I do. This is not about science. It is about naked aggression and political control. Consider this clarification if my statements were not clear to you in the past.

          You cannot be trusted because you are a useful idiot for the enviro-fascists.

        • #2542148

          deepsand: given, that motives [i]can[/i] lead to bias…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          depending on the character of the scientist.

          [i]Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, …
          and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.[/i]

          I was speaking specifically to the claim of environmentalists that the global warming debate is [b]only[/b] about the science. Oz_Media’s commentary on his opponents’ motives is contrary to that claim of his “team”. I agree with sn53’s reply to your claim that he has stated that he does not understand the science. He has said no such thing, the closest being that the science is “merely interesting”, which I take to mean that [i]on the subject of global warming[/i] science is but a means to an end. Such should always be the case! The purpose of science is not to establish an oligarchy or technocracy, but to learn the truth. When science is subverted to cloak remote possibilities as certain, impending doom, I take offense. I consider it highly probable that such is the case, but am keeping an open mind. Vague, unsubstantiated claims of bias don’t cut it with me. I refer you to my dismantling of neilb’s claims that Friis-Christensen’s research is flawed, and invite you to address that. I also note that sn53 has been consistent about his position (that the debate is primarily about something [b]other[/b] than the science) and that Oz_Media has broken from his “team’s” stated position.

        • #2542013

          sn53: Your attempts to mis-represent both your prior posts & mine …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          is pathetic.

          Grow up.

        • #2542010

          Absolutely: To repeat, I am [i]not[/i] here to argue matters of policy.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          As before noted, policy [b]must[/b] follow the facts if it is to be both legitimate and expecting of success.

          sn53’s persistent attempts to distract others from the scientific facts is nothing but an exercise in sophistry, one that I will not be party to.

        • #2541996

          sn53: Address your contradiction or withdraw.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to YEP and also here I always get a laugh

          .

        • #2535323

          Acid Rain

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep said, “Never mind that we here in Pennsylvania saw our forests being killed and the paint on our vehicles looking as though someone had doused them with Coca Cola.”

          I read the National Acid Precipitation Analysis study when it was released a couple of decades ago. Despite the hysteria of that scare it turned out to be largely localized phenomena. And the “dead” lakes had always been acidic because of the composition of the local rock and soil environment.

          But the same sorts of people who are riding this ‘crisis’ rode that one. Their solution is always centered around the forward march of socialism and dictatorship. Funny how that works out.

          I will jump on the bandwagon when their goal becomes more individual freedom and less political power accruing to the state and the trans-national organizations like the United Nations.

        • #2535279

          “largely localized phenomena”? Nothing could be further from the truth.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          The sulphur laden plumes from the stacks of coal-fired power plants in the states to the west affected much of the East Coast.

          And, the de-forestation and corrosion of metals had nothing to do with local soil conditions, but with rains bearing suphuric acid.

          As for the “dead” lakes, many of those soil conditions that you allude to were and remain the results of mining practices, the same of which can be found to exist today in the western states.

          It’s time to take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it really is.

        • #2535267

          deep’s pessimism

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          deep wrote, “”largely localized phenomena”? Nothing could be further from the truth.”

          Just before the decade-long Congressionally mandated study was released that is exactly what a lot of, well, environmentalist-wackos were saying. Then the report was released and the hysteria went away. Funny how that happened.

          “The sulphur laden plumes from the stacks of coal-fired power plants in the states to the west affected much of the East Coast.”

          Not much. Just a few tens of miles around the plants. So deal with the problems locally. There was no need to give taxes to the United Nations. WE just needed to decide what needed to be done to fix the rather small problem and went on with our lives.

          “And, the de-forestation and corrosion of metals had nothing to do with local soil conditions, but with rains bearing sulphuric acid.”

          Even that turned out not to be the case. The effects of local pollution were — local.

          “As for the “dead” lakes, many of those soil conditions that you allude to were and remain the results of mining practices, the same of which can be found to exist today in the western states.”

          Perhaps in a few cases. For the vast majority of the cases the lakes were naturally that way. And the science stood the test of time.

          “It’s time to take off your rose colored glasses and see the world as it really is.”

          Great idea. You need to add a pair. You are far too pessimistic.

        • #2535215

          Spouting off without the facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          1) If the effects were so localized, why did several eastern states seek to sue the EPA for failing to rein in said power plant emissions?

          2) If the effect were so localized, why were so many metallic surfaces corroded by sulphuric acid laden rain in so many places separated by great distances from said power plants?

          3) If the effects are so localized then why has a cousin of mine had a research position for nearly 4 decades with the Univ. of Illinois related to such?

          Do you really believe all that you spew forth, or do you just make it up as you go along?

        • #2537313
          Avatar photo

          I’m amazed that this is now only confined to the US

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          Funny thing is that I remember Europe Going through this quite some time ago and they had to take steps to prevent if from destroying the entire group of countries as everywhere in Europe was affected by Acid Rain.

          Glad to hear that wasn’t the case and the Acid Rain Phenomena is only occurring in the US. What Kind of Id10t are you to come up with rubbish like that?

          The bottom line is that Acid Rain has happened every where world wide and the US isn’t in some little corner of the world divorced from the consequences of the actions of every one else. So they cleaned up the big polluters and then changed the Petrol used in all cars to Unleaded Fuel which has a Hydrogen Sulphur Dioxide as a component of Combustion. This is quite well known and even the Complete Idiot will accept this when they move into an underground car park and smell the H2SO2 commonly called [b]Rotten Egg Gas[/b] form the exhausts of the cars that are running in an enclosed space. Somehow this gas just disappears when allowed out into an open space and doesn’t do any damage as it just disappears right? 😀

          I still remember a car that meet California’s Emission Standards being produced my the company that I used to work for in 1985 and every other car maker was insisting that this was impossible to do as the emission levels had been set way too low. And no that car never made it onto the roads as it didn’t have a Catalytic Converter as it was designed properly and was way under the emission requirements that where tagged to be put in place in the Mid 90’s. But when by Law a Catalytic Converter was bolted to this car the emission levels went up through the roof as the so called Purification device actually created far more pollution than it prevented, but as the US Government had mandated that every new car required one of these to clean up the Atmosphere they had to supply one and as a direct result the Emission Levels where rolled back and still have not been meet.

          But as you now have millions of cars all running on Unleaded fuel I’m supposing that the Acid Rain will all still be localised over the Big Cities so it’s not important is it? :^0

          Col

        • #2537312
          Avatar photo

          Presumably you also believe

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          [b]The Magic Bullet Theory that was according to Congress responsible for the death of JFK[/b] right?

          Well if you can not trust your Government who can you trust and this coming from the land of [b]Conspiracy Theories[/b] is just too funny for words. 😀

          Much More Importantly what’s the UN got to do with anything? If you are unwilling to clean up the mess that you make you should pay for it yourself. I was taught a very long time ago that you do not [b]Shiite[/b] in your back yard as you are the one who has to live with the mess that you make so why is this any different? Blame the UN for something that your Political System is unwilling to accept and then think that giving the UN Money will cure your own problems that’s insane by any stretch of the imagination. Though if the UN was to level severe fines for the US’s continual refusal to clean up it’s act that would be acceptable but both China and Australia would be way out in front of the US in the Fines stakes so what’s the problem?

          Is it that the US isn’t the leader in this mess and nothing more than a bit player? Granted a big Bit Player but even still only a bit player as there are countries far worse than the US who need to do something and AU unlike the US accepts that there is a problem and is starting to do something about it so is China as they have just stolen our Major Wind Power Electricity Generation Company to provide electricity to China and they are now unable to provide the same thing in AU which is what they setup to achieve.

          Col

        • #2516661

          Why oh why oh why?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          deep wrote, “Spouting off without the facts.
          1) If the effects were so localized, why did several eastern states seek to sue the EPA for failing to rein in said power plant emissions?”

          Why does anybody sue anybody? Everyone is looking for deep pockets. It is a blood sport. Since the public seems remarkably gullible it seems a safe bet that federal taxpayers could be fleeced for a local good. It is immoral.

          “2) If the effect were so localized, why were so many metallic surfaces corroded by sulphuric acid laden rain in so many places separated by great distances from said power plants?”

          I do not recall saying that only local power plants were polluting. A decade-long federally-funded national acid precipitation study found local effects to local polluters.

          Your mileage may vary.

          “3) If the effects are so localized then why has a cousin of mine had a research position for nearly 4 decades with the Univ. of Illinois related to such?”

          Why indeed? Religious training?

        • #2516403

          sn53: Flippant remarks are a poor substitute for facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          As usual, you’ve evaded the hard questions, just as you have so many times before in other discussions.

          If all you have to offer is opinions, you would be well advised to recall that opinions supported by the facts have no lasting value. The universe is a cold and uncaring place, and neither knows of nor gives a whit about opinions.

        • #2516200

          deepsand: the evaluation that remarks are either flippant, or …

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Acid Rain

          that they are a poor substitute for facts, implies an assumption about the [b]intended purpose[/b] of those remarks. Flippant, non-substantive remarks, in my observation, are not [b]intended[/b] as a decent substitute for facts, but rather as an [b]indecent[/b] substitute, utilized by those lacking the ability to provide facts to support their beliefs, and/or lacking the integrity to espouse beliefs according to facts.

          Unfortunately, the mere opportunity to express an opinion frequently produces numerous duplicates of the same opinion, among those who judge it more important to concur with those closest to them than to concur with fact. Thus, the unfortunate necessity of sometimes confronting even flippant remarks.

          It is a thankless, tiresome, time-consuming job.

        • #2535272

          Taking undue credit

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “sn53: It’s the same propensity to disavow responsibility …”

          If it were true that I caused the last ice age to end ten thousand years ago followed by a nearly consistent warming since then I would be quite happy to take the credit. But alas, it is probably just the sun.

          Oh. And nobody is dismissing the warming. Just the significance of our role in it.

        • #2535214

          [i]Non sequitur[/i], non-substantive & non-responsive.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          .

        • #2537540

          “a [i]nearly[/i] consistent warming since then” – How nearly?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          How consistent?

          You have claimed, with a tone of confidence & authority, that the science of human-caused global warming is invalid, and the motivation is political. This is an opportunity for you to present some data that support your assertions.

        • #2516658

          Conclusions

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          deep wrote, “You have claimed, with a tone of confidence & authority, that the science of human-caused global warming is invalid, and the motivation is political.”

          Yes. I have. There is no science of human-induced global warming. There is lots of data that says the Earth has been warning since the last great ice age ended. And there are assumptions that Americans caused it. Cool.

          “This is an opportunity for you to present some data that support your assertions.”

          You are way too hung up on data. It is the conclusions that are important, not the data.

        • #2516400

          “It is the conclusions that are important, not the data”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration.

          Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool.

        • #2516396

          deepsand – YOUR data. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          …..does not support YOUR conclusion. It is your conclusion that is terribly flawed, as I’ve shown in several messages within this discussion.

          Man-caused and/or man-contributed global warming and/or climate change is, at best, pure speculation based on inconclusive and/or incomplete and/or incorrect data. The premise is flawed, thereby rendering your conclusion either flawed or incorrect.

          In lay-terms, you’ve been duped.

        • #2516386

          Well, max, in that case kindly provide the data that you claim is correct.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          [i]And[/i], demonstrate that such is recognized by the scientific community at large as being so.

        • #2516385

          I’ve already done that

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          It’s in the many messages throughout this discussion.

        • #2516377

          Data? Scientific data? As in hard observational data? Where?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          I’m not talked about a detractor of global warming and/or man’s contribution to such claiming that the data supports his claim.

        • #2516312

          observational data?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          It’s YOUR observational data that is flawed and/or incomplete and/or incorrect, not ours. I’ve proven that to be the case, and provided links and sources as support. It’s you who fail to address the all the holes shot through your data and subsequent conclusion. If you were on trial for murder, you’d be convicted because you can’t account for your whereabouts during the times brought forward. And in this case, you can’t account for the objections and corrections in the bogus “data story” you’ve been spewing.

        • #2533356

          Science or snow job?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          deep wrote, “You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science.”

          Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the “threat”.

          “To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations.”

          What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effects we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.

        • #2533310

          re: “Science or snow job?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          [b]Science or snow job?[/b]
          [i]deep wrote, “You have the mistaken impression that this is not about science.”

          Time will tell. If the science is real it will stand the test of time. If the science is not then it will fall all on its own. Of course, it could be a long, dark age once people give up their liberty to meet the magnitude of the “threat”.

          “To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any resulting policy on your personal life than you are for the long term physical consequences to future generations.”

          What do you know. You do get it. This is a power grab, nothing more. There are no long term effect we have any control over. We might as well be arguing about the danger of too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.[/i]

          Of all the possible legacies for future generations, liberty is the most crucial, and the most fragile. Certainly, it would be sad if our descendants’ options don’t include skiing and building snowmen. It would be sad if the words ‘air-con’, ‘air conditioner’, ‘climate control’ are replaced by something more like ‘life preserver’ or ‘cook prevention’. But liberty is historically rare, and interspersed between centuries- [b]or millennia-long[/b] intervals of [b]brutal tyranny[/b]. Whatever happens to ‘the climate’, our intellect and wherewithal are sufficient to the task — provided that we remain free. Without personal liberty we’ll be back to tools of stone & wood within 2 generations. If you doubt this, you simply have not read enough of history, or have not understood what you have read.

          [i]I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.[/i]

          (Albert Einstein)

        • #2533947

          I’ve neither the time for nor an interest in “snow jobs.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taking undue credit

          If anyone wishes to discuss matters of science, very well; if, on the other hand, you wish to argue over policy, you’ve put the cart before the horse.

        • #2516294

          Taken for the fool

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “My conclusion is that you have no data to support your conclusion, thereby rendering it but an unsubstantiated opinion, not worthy of consideration.”

          Deep, you have the mistaken impression that this is somehow about science. It is not. It is about politics. Those on one side have something to gain by staking out their positions. Perhaps it is continued funding. Or the ability to significantly harm a competitor. It is about who gains and who pays. In a word, politics.

          “Get real if you expect to be taken seriously; otherwise you will be taken for the fool.”

          My position is quite real. I see a threat to my liberty, my freedoms, my way of life and my finances. The gradual changes that have been occurring for the last ten thousand years will continue. We will adjust as we have adjusted in the past. There will be winners and losers, just as there have always been. I do not need the overbearing power of the state to get in the way.

        • #2534117

          You have the mistaken impression that this is [i]not[/i] about science.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

        • #2533309

          deepsand: the contradiction you imply is false

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [b]You have the mistaken impression that this is [i]not[/i] about science.[/b]
          To be blunt, you give the appearance of being more concerned about the possible effects of any [i]resulting policy[/i] on your personal life than you are for the long term [i]physical[/i] consequences to future generations.

          The legal right to [b]coerce[/b] in the name of ‘global warming’ is a very real, [b]physical[/b] consequence, with as great or greater potential impact on future generations as ‘global warming’.

          To paraphrase you: address the fallacy of a logical contradiction between the physical good of the collective vs. the physical liberty of all individuals (who, to give you a hint, are the ‘component parts’ of the collective!), or withdraw.

        • #2533962

          Wasn’t addressing said “contradiction.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          Rather, I was addressing sn53’s insistence that his [i]personal[/i] “rights” are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others.

        • #2533927

          deepsand: I knew that you [i]were not[/i] addressing that contradiction.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          Will you?

        • #2532919

          What is a “right”?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          deep wrote, “Wasn’t addressing said “contradiction.”
          Rather, I was addressing sn53’s insistence that his personal “rights” are in all ways and at all times superior to those of others.”

          Interesting deep. Does it continue to be a right to life, liberty, and property when the state can take it away on a whim?

          Is the mere claim of a future crisis sufficient to reduce us to serfdom?

        • #2526673

          sn53: You continue to deliberately misrepresent,

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          At no time did I say anything that could be taken to hold that “(a)mere claim of a future crisis (is) sufficient to reduce us to serfdom.”

          “Mere claim” and “serfdom” are characterizations of your making, and have no basis is fact.

          Put such words as you chose in your own mouth, but stay out of mine.

        • #2526404

          He wasn’t misrepresenting,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          he was using a (quite accurate, in my opinion) figure of speech.

          The same people who are trying to cram their view of global warming everybody’s throats are the same people who want world-wide socialism (with THEM as the overseers and controllers of resources and work product, of course, since THEY know what’s better for us than we do ourselves).

          That automatically makes them suspect, and anyone who believes them wholesale based on the scant evidence that is available is either a sucker, or complicit.

        • #2526180

          Is deepsand goofy?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          deep wrote, “Mere claim” and “serfdom” are characterizations of your making…”

          Yeah? They are. What of it?

        • #2532140

          Re. “automatically makes them suspect”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          The same can be said for those who dismiss out of hand the possiblity that there may be a problem.

        • #2531922

          As I’ve said

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          I’m not dismissing at all, I’m waiting for the proof.

          The reason they’re the ones who are suspect is that they are demanding that I hand over MY money and MY rights to their cause, all the while wasting more resources and causing more pollution in a month than I will in 10 years! You’d have to be stupid not to be suspect.

          I wonder how much the CO2 level would drop if these people would just shut the hell up.

        • #2527949

          Re. “You’d have to be stupid not to …”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          You’d also have to be stupid not to examine the data, but choose instead to simply reject it.

        • #2527912

          I have no problem accepting data

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          and examining it. I have a problem accepting analysis that claims to be definitive when it is clearly not!

          Have you heard the latest?

          “Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.”

          Seems like it is as it’s always been… the strong will adapt and survive and the weak will perish. Just as it should be.

        • #2527013

          That change may be inevitable does not mean that …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          any and all particular changes are.

          That one’s body changes with age may be unavoidable; [b]but[/b], what those changes are [b]can be influenced by us[/b]. As individuals, we cannot wholly escape our genetic backgrounds, but we are not necessarily bound to any particular life styles such as affect our health.

          So too with other kinds of changes.

        • #2527006

          Again,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          I have no problem with being more efficient, using less energy, etc. either. But I’m not into shoving it down others’ throats.

          It’s ironic that most of the same people who are against requiring others to pull their own weight in society are all for requiring those who do pull their own weight to accept even greater burdens. Adding this to the fact that the most vocal proponents are the some of the biggest wasters of resources, and the political side of this issue is just [b]OOZING[/b] disingenuousness.

          It’s not terribly unlike the father waving a lit cigar around while telling his kids they shouldn’t smoke.

        • #2526991

          Still, Tony, we are not compelled to let politics obscure the facts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the [b]facts[/b] in the clear light of reason.

        • #2526899

          Something we can agree on!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [i]To the contrary, the more politicized an issue is, the more important it is that there are those who insist on an examination of the facts in the clear light of reason.[/i]

          Now all we have to do is get the politicizers to shut the hell up!

        • #2520890

          And that, Tony, includes those who insist that the issue is …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Taken for the fool

          [i]solely[/i] one of policy.

        • #2541769

          Fantasy dismissed

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy.”

          Maybe so. For those very rare truths of great import there are vast quantities of bovine excrement dismissed as well. More fantasy is dismissed as fantasy than there are truths falsely accused, in my opinion.

        • #2541417

          [i]Non sequitur[/i]

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Fantasy dismissed

          Opinions matter, but only when supported by facts.

          And, in this case, the facts contradict your opinion.

          Get over it.

        • #2542489

          Get clarification

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to And, before that, the Ozone “Hole” & Acid Rain were dismissed as myths.

          deep wrote, “sn53: Address your contradiction or withdraw.”

          No doubt you are aware that many people do not read anything but your headline before they move on. Why else would your entire message be placed there?

          You have at least one personal problem. It is not possible for you to resolve it.

          Show me my contradiction. Lay it out. I am always happy to help the less fortunate get clarification.

        • #2540667

          I’ll not waste my time repeating that which was clearly said and ….

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Get clarification

          in plain sight of you.

          If you were too lazy to read it, that’s not my problem.

        • #2535324

          Clever Reply

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I agree with you 100%

          HAL said, “This is a Political Debate and there is no Science Involved.”

          There is science and then there is Science.

          “The simple truth is that 99% of all Scientists accept that there is a Climate Change Occurring Right Now.”

          Are you aware that 72% of all such statistics are made up right on the spot? Oh, and three out of four dentists agree.

          There is climate change occurring all of the time. There always has been. I suspect there always will be. That is not the point of the discussion, is it? Since we have been in a warming trend since the end of the last ice age I suppose climate change has been a good thing.

          “…Global Warming Detractors that in itself should be enough to make even the most jaded person think twice before sprouting off an opinion about the rubbish being peddled by the media who I might add have a vested interest as well.

          I think I see a little bit of Enviro-religion here. We cannot have detractors. Nope. That would mean apostasy. In some religions that can result in a death sentence.

          If the science is real it will stand the test of time and substantial peer review. We do not need to rush into a dictatorship. Even though that is what is being implied.

        • #2537308
          Avatar photo

          Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Clever Reply

          Just the Prostitutes who are willing to produce an answer that is wanted to give the people who fund them the advice that they want to hear. This is not Science it’s Politics but is what is now accepted as Science and the real science is forgotten.

          Incidentally I loved your Commercials that you brought up just goes to show if you tell a lie long enough eventually a lot of people will believe it and no matter what the facts of the matter they will continue to believe the lie. No smoking doesn’t lead to addiction or cancer so why are you not smoking much more and there is no proof that secondhand smoke has any harmful effects on people so I take it that you are willing to go into areas where there are smokers only and be quite happy being the only nonsmoker there and know that you are not being adversely impacted upon by all that secondhand smoke. 😀

          Col

        • #2535995

          “This is not Science it’s Politics”

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          I agree with you HAL. It is not science. It is politics.

          HAL wrote, “if you tell a lie long enough eventually a lot of people will believe it and no matter what the facts of the matter they will continue to believe the lie.”

          In fact we agree again. If you tell an inconvenient truth often enough a lot of people will believe it…

          I especially love the urgency of this crisis. We must act immediately or we will lose our major cities. We must act immediately or…(name your favorite bad thing here) will happen.

          It is appropriately apocalyptic. The only really scary part is the loss of freedoms and the increased taxes. The added warmth is fine with me.

        • #2515780

          Cities (sn53)

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          Perhaps the problem is that since cities are the major source of things “bad for the planet”, and since cities are mostly chock-full of liberals, and since liberals are always wanting “someone else” to pay for fixing problems they create, there’s nothing being done 🙂

          Hey! There’s an idea…. Make the residents of a particular city pay for the damage to the planet that their city causes.

          Boy, talk about an [b]exodus[/b] :0

        • #2514950

          TonyTiger:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          small wonder that Leftists are for federalizing absolutely everything, eh?

          Liberal has an historic meaning, which I will not sully by applying it to today’s Democrat Party.

        • #2516311

          That’s OK Abs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Actually I don’t have a problem with educated detractors

          I don’t think “conservative” has maintained its historic meaning either 🙁

      • #2535419

        re. “I believe …”

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        That continues to be your strength, merely believing. When are you going to come up with some scientific facts to support your beliefs?

        When you do, those of us who take global warming seriously stand ready, willing and able to engage you and yours in a formal debate.

        • #2535327

          Scientific facts

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to re. “I believe …”

          deep have you “ever come up with a scientific fact”? Or do you read what others have conjectured?

          Why do you think formal debate has anything to do with influencing anybody?

          Beliefs, emotions, informal discussions are far more likely to sway opinion than sweating over mathematical models.

          I cannot be swayed by a political approach that I can clearly see is intended to reduce my freedoms and enhance the political power of another. If you want to sway me show me how the solution will increase my freedoms and reduce the political powers at the state, federal and trans-national levels.

        • #2535277

          When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Scientific facts

          As for a “solution (that) will increase (your) freedoms and reduce the political powers,” you’ll need to look elsewhere. My job is not to please you but to wake you up to realities.

        • #2535266

          Ha! That’s funny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          deep said, “My job is not to please you but to wake you up to realities.”

          Really?

          No wonder that you fail. Try influencing me instead. You might actually succeed.

        • #2535213

          So, that’s a “yes?”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          I’m assuming that you’ll be on the team opposing myself, Neil, Absolutely & several others who are already onboard.

          As for your side, I’m afraid you’ll have to go begging for teammates, as your side has been loath to commit to a formal factual debate.

        • #2535205

          No

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Speaking just for me I have much better things I must be doing.

          I don’t care enough about global warming as an issue to spend the time necessary to wage a good fight.

          But good luck to you and your side. I am sure it will be entertaining.

        • #2516399

          You and your ilk are cowards.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Your claimed reason for not engaging in formal debate is a classical excuse given by countless others throughout the course of history.

          The truth of the matter is that, like so many who have no firm ground for their position, and therefore little likelihood of being able to defend it, you seek only to avoid defeat.

        • #2516391

          deepsand, but it is you who are defeated

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          You base your conclusion on flawed and/or incorrect and/or incomplete data, but claim that your conclusion is correct, thereby “winning” the debate. Simply saying so doesn’t make it so. You can claim that Al Gore won the presidential election in 2000, but he didn’t; and simply saying he won doesn’t place him in the White House.

          You lost this debate whether you acknowledge it or not.

        • #2516384

          max, claiming victory will not make it so.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          [b]If[/b] it should come to pass that the scientific community is, as you claim, either so badly in error or so politically corrupted, then, and only then, I shall concede.

        • #2516285

          Is that the best you can do, deepsand?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Simply saying the same thing to me that I just said to you? How lame and childish.

          You’re debated into a corner, and you’re getting desperate. What you’ve been trying to pass off as “scientific facts” all this time has been debunked, and you’re struggling. Moreover, it’s been shown that the “debate” is really political, not scientific. But you’ve been living the lie for so long, you apparently don’t know how to handle being publicly proved wrong.

        • #2534115

          Re. “it’s been shown that the “debate” is really political, not scientific”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Well, then, stop arguing from the perspective of your perception of the implied consequences on policy and get back to the underlying science.

          If you are so certain that I, Absolutely and others are so terribly wrong, and that you possess the wherewithal to scientifically demonstrate such, then agree to the proposed debate and settle the matter.

        • #2533477

          deepsand is wrong (as usual) on two counts

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Absolutely has left your side — the dark side — and has seen the light of reason

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188891

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188893

          And regardless of your incessant insistence, it’s not possible to debate “the science” behind the man-caused global warming claim in this discussion forum. First of all, nobody who posts messages in these threads is qualified to debate such issues. I’m assuming, of course, that there are no trained, educated, and experienced people around here — ones who have spent their careers studying such things and/or conducting their own observations and experiments — but rather, at best, a bunch of mildly interested bystanders who read magazines and Web sites — usually in search of justification for their foregone conclusion. At best, you and/or those who disagree with you would have to rely on citing other sources of expertise; and as shown time and again, there’s enough dissention to offset any source you could cite; there’s plenty of reason to doubt and question motives; and there’s plenty of history to suggest that any climate anomaly is actually normal.

          If you think you’re smart enough to be the know-all and tell-all of all things concerning earth’s atmosphere and weather patterns, you’ll be the only one who believes such a thing. On second thought, since you always come-across as a boorish know-it-all, you probably do believe it. But no one else does.

          Moreover, the real issue, as it affects people like us, IS a political issue — a fact you have yet to acknowledge. (Which actually makes you wrong on three counts.)

        • #2533395

          Proof

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “Man caused Global Warming”, is kinda like God.

          1. Proving that either [b]doesn’t[b] exist is impossible.

          2. Those who believe treat it like a religious thing.

          🙂

        • #2533343

          re: Proof

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          The fact that an assertion is not [b]disproved[/b] does not constitute [b]proof positive[/b], only uncertainty. Uncertainty is not a basis for taxation, punitive damages, or any other restriction of liberty, property, or pursuit of personal happiness.

        • #2533306

          re: the debate challenge, and my ‘defection’ from the dark side

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          This forum is insufficient for another reason than those maxwell edison has named: inadequate display of graphs and sophisticated numerical analysis.

          Nevertheless, the debate [b]should[/b] occur, and we should agree in advance on very clear, strictly enforced rules as to how the politics (“therefore, what?”) and the science are discussed — together or separately. We are, after all, talking about liberty, and about survival, and most of us at least, are doing so in a country in which “Give me liberty, or give me death!” is a statement of loyalty, not of treason, which it would be in most countries in Earth’s history.

        • #2533954

          No, max, I do not concur.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          While it may be that, for some in both camps, it is the case that the issue is one of policy rather than of science, I do not agree that such is the case for all.

          Would you claim that those whose “scientific” positions you have here noted as supporting your cause have made their public statements owing solely to their “policy” positions? I submit that you would not. Why, then, hold that all of your opponents cling to policy over science?

        • #2533868

          deepsand – you’re wrong because. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          …..the “science” is, at best, inconclusive. Yet, there are those who wish to establish policy based on that “inconclusive science”. Moreover, when those policy initiatives infringe on individual liberty, it should give any freedom-loving person reason to doubt, and question, and resist.

          EVEN IF, the “scientific” findings were with merit (which they’re not), any “solution” that denies individual liberty is unacceptable. Do you disagree?

          Nonetheless, that question alone illustrates why it is political, not scientific.

          You, deepsand, are in serious denial.

        • #2526670

          You can’t do just one thing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong.

          Yet, by your own words, the result of scientific investigation remains unsettled. In that case, consideration to a change of policy is not merely warranted, but required.

          In other words, you have put the issue of policy before the facts needed to formulate a sound policy.

        • #2526463

          deepsand – full of double-talk and nonsense

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2196949

          And it’s the reason I seldom engage in conversation with you. Your double-talk and nonsensical talk impress no one. Moreover, it’s a primary reason that any “debate” which involves you would be a joke.

        • #2526283

          deepsand: I disagree with your description of the anti-ecochondriacs

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          deepsand: “A refusal to consider a change of policy is a decision to choose the current one, which is to presume that science will [i]not[/i] prove you wrong.”

          The refusal to support the changes of policy directly related to claims of global warming, caused by humans, is soundly, logically based on the assertion that science [i]has not[/i] thus far [i]proven you correct[/i]. Their position requires no speculation as to what science [i]will[/i] or [i]will not[/i] prove. That is what I see as the greatest inherent strength in their argument.

        • #2532139

          maxwell, what did you not understand?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          .

        • #2532136

          Absolutely, you seem to have misunderstood me.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          I am [b]not[/b] proposing that policy issues should be decided on the [i]assumption[/i] that global warming both is extant and affectable by mankind.

          Rather, I am arguing that policy should not be determined on the [i]assumption[/i] that the [b]converse[/b] is true.

        • #2538806

          Maexwell’s liberties.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          It fears you so that you may lose your God given liberties, oh no, make that liberties your government has chosen to provide you with. In your eyes, because your government allows you to have some liberties, you feel that no change can take place that may effect those assumed liberties?

          You wouldn’t sacrifice the changing of your current liberties to see your children’s children also experience life also?

          Personally, I couldn’t give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible.

          I bet you are so scared of change, that you still walk around in blue leisure suits with white, platform shoes. DO you still have that futuristic 8-track player in your Desoto? Why change, it works just fine and you understand it?

          When the ‘older’ generation passes on, perhaps the world will be able to move forward, but as long as there are those who hang onto outated science and fear of change, there will be no progresion as a race. Time’s ticking, what are you mid 50’s now? 55 this year I think? Oh well, we can wait a little longer I suppose. Pretty soon the feed tube will be in and we won’t have to listen to those who fear losing control to a changing society.

          ‘kin old Americans and civil liberties. Get over yourself and wake up already.

        • #2538714

          Oz is being mean-spirited and ignorant. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          …..all at the same time.

        • #2539735

          Tyranny flows from such sentiments

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          oz wrote, “Personally, I couldn’t give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible.”

          From such sentiments flow the seeds of tyranny. Listen to the attitude in those two sentences. It is about changing society so that it will be more to his liking. He does not care that we will lose our rights to be free and to pursue happiness. He does not care nor believe that we have a right to enjoy our property unhindered by the state.

        • #2539709

          sn53: On Oz

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Oz is the biggest horse’s ass I’ve ever seen. He’s an absolute uninformed idiot who thinks he’s the smartest person on the face of the earth. He’s an idiot. He’s an ass. He’s an imbecile. He’s totally unworthy of serious consideration.

        • #2539441

          SN53

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personale responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?

          Society changing to MY liking, not bloody likely, but I am wiling to see some change if it is for thebetterment of our health and well being, if we can help reduce harmful effects on our planet at the same time, then that’s even better.

          Society doesn’t have to change, but society needs to become more responsible. People need to accept that they are responsible for their own actions.

          From reading your posts, we will never see eye to eye. As for Max;s comments, we established we are thinking from opposite poles many years ago, nobody is fighting for your acceptance here though.

        • #2539384

          The road to tyranny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          oz wrote, “In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personal responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?”

          We could begin with your statements. You are not asking for awareness. You are asking for the state to compel me to pay and to regulate my behavior.

          Now if you want to market benefits that I am willing to pay for I might be all for it. Either way it ought to be my choice. The global warming people want none of that. It is all about treaties, and taxes, and compulsion.

        • #2531646

          Re. “the road to tyranny.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he [b]is[/b] asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

          The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds.

        • #2531602

          Tyrants all

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          deep wrote, “Re. “the road to tyranny.”
          Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he is asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

          The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds.”

          You are a wanna-be tyrant too. It figures.

        • #2530931

          Tyranny, butts, heads up them, & small minds.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?

        • #2530341

          sn53: Your self-imposed ignorance is a wonder to behold.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          When you’ve some understanding of science, along with both knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, let me know. Until then, your input here is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

          As for yout opinion of me, you’ve obviously have mistaken me for one who gives a damn about such.

        • #2541363

          Absolutely: ?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]”

          Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances, I am at a loss to fathom your above post.

          That it contains a multitude of fallacies is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me. To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands without question.

          How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one’s sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?

          I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

          May the future be kind.

        • #2542141

          deepsand: [i]ad hominem, non sequitur & non-responsive[/i], yourself!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          [i]Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances,[/i]

          Why, thank you!

          [i]…I am at a loss to fathom your above post.[/i]

          If you will kindly specify the nature of your loss, I will clarify my statement as necessary so as to facilitate your comprehension. 😀

          [i]That it contains a multitude of fallacies[/i]

          Name one!

          [i]…is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me.[/i]

          It is not.

          [i]To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands [b]without question.[/b][/i]

          Is that so[b]?[/b] 😀

          [i]How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one’s sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?[/i]

          E) None of the above.

          [i]I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

          May the future be kind.[/i]

          Likewise.

        • #2542003

          Absolutely: Per your request

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to So, that’s a “yes?”

          “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]”

          1) “[i]why is so much of that movement’s output governmental regulation?[/i]” – [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

          2) “[i]why is … so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]” – [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

          3) “[i]governmental regulation[/i]” – as used, assumes that [i]all[/i] regulation is both unnecessary & undesirable; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

          4) “[i]non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]” – as used, assumes that technology alone can & will solve all problems; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

          5) “[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why …[/i]” – Draws a conclusion based on [b]false choices[/b].

        • #2537364

          Them’s arguin’ words!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          “Try influencing me instead. You might actually succeed.”

          I’ll give it a try. Are you willing to explain why you see [i]only[/i] political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?

        • #2535994

          Scientific research

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Abso wrote, Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?”

          Sure. The politics are the dangerous parts. The science is merely interesting. What do we have, .5 degree change? And in the next hundred years a range of 1-4 degrees? Of course the future is based upon modeling.

          And then there is that solar bias of mine.

          And one more thing, this is just not that big a deal with me. I already spend too much time on TR. I intend to cut way back and get back to my real life.

          By the way Abso, it has been a real pleasure discussing issues with you.

        • #2535774

          re: “The science is merely interesting.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Like any value judgement, that depends on what it is that you intend to pursue.

        • #2535722
        • #2517277

          Influence

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Them’s arguin’ words!

          Abso wrote, ” Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?”

          Sure. The science does not interest me. It is not dangerous. The politics both interests me and it is very dangerous.

        • #2537402

          Just in case you decide to debate:

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to Ha! That’s funny

          here are a list of deepsand’s debate rules:

          1) Any proof he provides is to be accepted as fact without question.

          2) His experts couldn’t possibly have an agenda like trying to keep their grant money so their credentials can not be questioned.

          3) Any proof you provide is invalid because your experts must be part of “Big Oil” or they would admit to the scope of the GW problem.

          4) Any other comments you have will fall into the category of “Non sequitur, non-substantive & non-responsive” and will be ignored.

          So, as long as you agree to the terms……go for it!

        • #2516390

          Correction.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Just in case you decide to debate:

          Rule no. 3 isn’t mine. You’ve obviously misattributed a rule set forth by another.

        • #2516292

          Cowardice in the face of propaganda and lies

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to When you’re ready for the formal debate, let us know.

          deep wrote, “You and your ilk are cowards.”

          Why yes. If you say it is so then it must be. Or it might just be a waste of time. It is not the science it is the politics. You want to argue the science of gradual warming and computer models. I want to discuss the politics of enslavement of an entire class of people (taxpayers) by another (green politicians) through the use of a fraud.

          We have no common ground.

        • #2534113

          FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Cowardice in the face of propaganda and lies

          “[i]You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.[/i]”

        • #2526356

          Care???

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          Science is not something to be cared or not cared about. It is simply about discovery and the understanding. In science, consequences don’t matter (“Hey fellow scientist, I just discovered that the world is going to end on August 10, 2151.” … “Really? … Cool!!! Let’s write it in a book!”). They’re merely additional data.

        • #2526244

          Very, VERY funny, Tony!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          Objectivity is the hallmark of a good scientist. To “care” about objectivity as the means to an end is very different from the bias of “caring” about achieving one result instead of another, from any particular scientific experiment, or set of experiments.

        • #2526178

          FACT – If the theory is valid…

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          deep wrote, “You can’t learn what you don’t want to know.”

          I do not feel obligated to be very afraid of the monsters under the global warming bed.

          If we are fortunate the warming tend we have experienced will continue throughout my lifetime, holding at bay the start of the next ice age. That is good enough for me.

        • #2532135

          That, sn53, is both shortsighted and selfish.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          With any right comes a commensurate responsibilty. To hold that you’ve the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris.

        • #2531860

          Wanting to keep it warm — Shortsighted and Selfish

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          deep wrote, “That, sn53, is both shortsighted and selfish.”

          I want it to be warm for you too, deep.

          “With any right comes a commensurate responsibility.”

          Really? Is that in the Green handbook? Must my right to be left alone be paid for by taxes to the United Nations and a tithe to Al Gore?

          “To hold that you’ve the right to act in manner that causes future harm to others is the height of hubris.”

          That is your claim. You (and those like you) make the claim that my being left alone will cause you harm. I think the onus is on you to show how leaving me alone hurts anyone.

          What do you think?

        • #2528123

          Ouch!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          We’re leaving sn53 alone, and [b]IT HURTS US![/b]

          Well said.

          If there is really a [b]scientific[/b] case that CO2 is a ‘weapon of mass destruction’, please, by all means, assemble your coalition [b]of the willing[/b] to spend their [b]earnings[/b] on zero-emissions vehicles. Do that for 150 years, then compare weather patterns. Oh, how about for 15 years, then? Really, go spend your own money on your own zero emissions vehicles, lower global emissions of CO2, then you’ll have [b]scientific evidence[/b] that reduced CO2 emissions are responsible for reducing warming. Until then, you have mainly fear & some plausibility arguments, of questionable & varying plausibility.

        • #2527945

          sn53: Re. “With any right comes a commensurate responsibility.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          If you don’t understand & accept the concept, then you are a sorry case indeed, far beyond hope of my imparting any understanding on you.

        • #2527941

          Ouch?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to FACT – You don’t care about the science.

          I prefer to let the policy [i]succeed[/i] the facts, [b]not [i]precede[/i][/b] them.

      • #2537419

        That’s what’s in vogue nowadays.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        the controlling of other people. It’s a condition brought about by the realization of one’s own valuelessness. The afflicted mistakenly believe they can obtain value by stealing it from others.

        That’s like thinking you’ll become a high-school graduate by stealing someone’s diploma.

        • #2536198

          Profound observations.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to That’s what’s in vogue nowadays.

          However, the assertion that it applies to climate science has not been [i]proven[/i], which would require substantive rebuttal [i]of the data[/i].

          Some of it has been cited in various threads already, with no responses beyond instinctive distrust of some of the sources, and often of sources separate from those providing the data.

        • #2537186

          Refuting data

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Profound observations.

          is difficult (the only way to refute data is to have more data, and we’ll just have to wait on that). Refuting the conclusions drawn based on that data, though, is easy. Just ask the scientists who can’t agree on what it means.

        • #2537172

          “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Refuting data

          There are essentially two ways to counter an academically valid scientific claim. (If the claim is not made validly, why bother refuting it?)

          First, you can question the methods of data collection. Were the instruments calibrated according to procedure? Were the measurements taken at the same time of day, or the same date of different years?

          Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?

          The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.

        • #2537165

          A novel variant on the infamous double-double-post

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          Just ask the [i]scientists scientists[/i].

          Bollocks!

        • #2537158

          There’s a third way

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to “Just ask the scientists scientists who can’t agree on what it means.”

          [i]First, you can question the methods of data collection.[/i]

          Yes, that’s always an option… as long as you personally weren’t the one who collected it 🙂

          [i]Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?[/i]

          “Proper context” seems to be variable, as well as usually politically, rather than scientifically defined.

          [i]The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.[/i]

          Yes, you can always attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. Maybe he didn’t go to college (he was probably working his ass off while they were sleeping theirs off in the back of the classroom). Or maybe his second cousin’s wife had a felony drug conviction. That would likely make anything he had to say not worthy of consideration.

          Of course, keen minds such as those working on this “problem” wouldn’t look on that as much of a challenge, so we can probably discount that 🙂

        • #2537128

          So many straw men, so few flamethrowers!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          “[i]First, you can question the methods of data collection.[/i]

          Yes, that’s always an option… as long as you personally weren’t the one who collected it 🙂

          [No, the person who collected generally doesn’t publish unless they believe the data collection valid, or unless they think they can get away with it. If you really believe they are trying to get away with something, why all this ad hominem crap? Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?]

          [i]Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?[/i]

          “Proper context” seems to be variable, as well as usually politically, rather than scientifically defined.

          [That assertion is yours to prove.]

          [i]The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.[/i]

          Yes, you can always attack the messenger if you don’t like the message. Maybe he didn’t go to college (he was probably working his ass off while they were sleeping theirs off in the back of the classroom).

          [The point was the limited understanding of statistical analysis needed to understand a lot of scientific research, not college attendance. Maybe I should have emphasized [b]101[/b]? The same/equivalent class can be taken in junior/community college (depending whether you live in California or not), or learned from a textbook without paying for instruction & a certificate. I stand by the essence of my statement about statistics: it isn’t difficult to learn a powerful amount of it, if you’re motivated to do so.]

          Or maybe his second cousin’s wife had a felony drug conviction.

          [I’m not interested in your rap sheet. Just the facts, man.]

          That would likely make anything he had to say not worthy of consideration.

          [Of course, you’re free to dismiss whatever you like, on whatever grounds you like. Much of what you’ve written above looks nonsensical to me, and is hopefully unconvincing to everybody else. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn’t very persuasive.]

          Of course, keen minds such as those working on this “problem” wouldn’t look on that as much of a challenge, so we can probably discount that :)”

          Smily face, right, just keep grinning, Uncle George will clean it up eventually. Jeepers!

        • #2537007

          First,…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          [i]Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?[/i]

          … I don’t know that “it’s a crock”. I also don’t know that it’s not. All I’ve ever said is that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, one way or the other.

          [i]and is [b]hopefully unconvincing[/b] to everybody else. Not that you’re necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn’t very persuasive.[/i] (emphasis added)

          And then you demonstrate exactly what I said (sigh).

        • #2536983

          Demonstrated exactly what you said?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          I hope that nobody is convinced, one way or the other, by your straw man tactics.

        • #2536950

          Yes, exactly

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to There’s a third way

          “[/i][b]hopefully unconvincing[/b][/i]” and “[i]Not that you’re necessarily wrong[/i]”

          seems to indicate you’re more interested in keeping a message from being accepted than in whether that message is right or wrong.

      • #2538835

        Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Travelling Global Warming Show

        At first the debate was man-caused global watming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming, but that didn’t stop many from arguing against the point anyway. “Man caused” is the only way non believers can argue the concept. Yet that is not an issue of debate.

        Man’s emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track.

        Now you have taken that even one more step out of context, “American-Caused” global warming. You make a strong assertion and I agree, America did NOT cause global warming. I think teh globe agrees with that though, thus it is hardly a point to be made.

        That’s not a topic of debate either. How about you sit down and show me proof that our emissions do not harm us directly (yes right here on Earth at round level),and thus do not need further control; and that our emissions do not have an adverse effect on the natural depletion of the ozone layer and thus do not require further control.

        To make life easier for you, you can’t. We have undeniable fact to proove both; not photos and heresay, but scientifically proven fact(the same thing we base most of our responsible decisions on).

        So argue a point or concede that our emissions efffect on the atmosphere is having a negative impact, but don’t stand there making up arguments that are not contested to begin with.

        • #2538790

          Oz, on [i]man-caused global warming[/i] – Be Fair

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          Now Oz, you know as well as I do that the global warming people have been changing their tune for years. Not to mention the fact they went from global cooling to global warming, but they also changed, somewhere along the way, from caused to contributed, and they also went from global warming to climate change.

          And now, I have to qualify all of my comments to look like, [i]man-caused and/or contributed global warming and/or climate change[/i].

          So for the record, whenever any skeptic (including myself) just says “global warming”, he means ALL of the above. (Or should I say he and/or she means and/or implies and/or….?)

          And it’s another reason to lend even MORE skepticism to their silly claims — they change them all the time! They can’t even make up their own damn minds!

        • #2531639

          There is no “they.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Oz, on [i]man-caused global warming[/i] – Be Fair

          To view those that you address as “global warming” people and “global cooling” people can be lumped together into a single homogeneous group may make for good tactic on the part of their detractors, but is hardly the truth in fact.

          Phrases like “[i]their[/i] silly claims” and “[i]they[/i] can’t even make up their own damn minds” are empty of any real meaning.

        • #2538754

          Not at all.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          [i]How about you sit down and show me proof that our emissions do not harm us directly (yes right here on Earth at round level),and thus do not need further control; and that our emissions do not have an adverse effect on the natural depletion of the ozone layer and thus do not require further control.[/i]

          I am not now, nor have I ever contested nor tried to contest those things. I am only arguing that any scientific conclusion, [b]one way or the other[/b], is, at best, premature.

          Science is about facts, Oz. Facts, in order to [b]be[/b] facts, must be 100% certain and provable. Not 39%, not 51%, not 99%. A claimed “fact” based on less than 100% certainty is a lie.

          They can push for the “controls” all they want, but as long as they continue to lie about why they’re doing it, they should continue to expect to be called on it.

        • #2538722

          It was for SN53

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Not at all.

          Based on his paranoid ramblings about American caused global warming and he big conspiracy to take over his life and strip him of his liberties. He’s a bit like Max, but gone mad.

          With respect to your comments:
          Science, without any contest has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our emissions, Hydrocarbons, Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon monoxide are causing illness and death.

          That is therefore Scientific fact.

          If we have scientific fact that our emissions kill us, and we also have proof that those same emissions contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain, why must we then debate the feasibility of our emissions contributing to what is also a scientific fact, natural global warming? Do we need to have it kill on contact before we see it as dangerous and wasteful of our energy resources?

          We can’t breath our emissions, is that really not enough? We don’t allow factory’s to spew poison into the air, do we? Of course we do, so why not closely regulate them as well?

          There should be no further debate that our emissions may or may not increase global warming efects; fact of the mater is, those same emissions are poisonous, what more fact do we need before taking action and becoming responsible as a society?

          This is all thwarted because SOME money huggers are just interested in short term income, not long term life expectancy?

        • #2538700

          Poisonous emissions

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          I think the poisonous emissions account for the mental defect known as liberalism.

          Think about it. The largest hives of liberalism are in the huge cities, where the largest concentrations of emissions are located.

          It is clear we much clean up the environment, before everyone is stricken with the mind numbing condition known as liberalism.

          Please do your part. Our kids are at stake!

        • #2538694

          Yet …

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          [i]There should be no further debate that our emissions may or may not increase global warming efects[/i]

          … that’s the only argument in town it seems.

          “fact of the mater is, those same emissions are poisonous”

          There are organisms in our own feces that can kill us. Would you suggest we stop defecating? 🙂

        • #2539435

          Feces and carboxyhemoglobin

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yet …

          Hey Tony, it’s been a while! While I was most amused and humoured by yoru reply, comparing the two is not exactly making a point.

          But in anothr sense, your comments are a great illustration of the need for control.

          Ahem,….here we go.

          Romans created a sewer system, this greatly reduced illness and death due to exposure to feces and other waste that contained such harmful organisms. The people all rejoiced and much fun was had for all. Many years later, Sir John Harrington built the first water closet for Queen Elizabeth. The people all rejoiced and much fun was had for all. Today we have extremely complicated sewer networks, we have processing plants that break down such matter in carefully controlled environments. Staff are put through decontamination processes on a regular basis and wear specialized clothing so as not to be exposed to the possibly lethal doses of contaminants in the area.

          Yes, the government has taken over control of our crap, they completey restrict access to and spend billions of dollars protecting us from the horrible feced monster.

          So let’s do the same (but in revers) with the environment, protect it from us.

        • #2531635

          By all means, sh!t; just don’t do it in the refrigerator.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yet …

          .

        • #2539731

          sn53 — The center of attention

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          oz wrote, “It was for SN53… Based on his paranoid ramblings about American caused global warming and he big conspiracy to take over his life and strip him of his liberties. He’s a bit like Max, but gone mad.”

          Thank you for all of the attention. If only you were someone important…

          Have you never seen the slide shows where the mean Americans are responsible for a significant proportion of all of the Earth’s warming? We are a target because we have the deep pockets. The global warming crowd is like a group of lawyers looking for their next victim.

          I considered arguing your points and then I realized that it would be pointless. You are a True Believer.

        • #2519037

          Importance

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to sn53 — The center of attention

          First off you haven’t the foggiest clue who people are here, you cannot pretend otherwise.

          As far as being someone important, are there other people here that you actually feel are important here and how did you come to such a conclusion, or is everyone just offering their opinion? What a senseless comment.

          Slide shows of propaganda? Nope, don’t buy into that crap.

          Deep pockets is not exactly a global view of America, money grabbing, bottom feeders without a clue is the more common view.

          You can’t produce enough to support your country yourelf so you import it from other countries, whether paid for or not. Oil, natural gas, hydro, grains, lumber, fish etc. It is a constant need, gluttonous America couldn’t survive a year on its own resources. Those same ‘trade partners’ are dismissed and ignored if they offer opinion though, because ‘America knows best’ or at least that’s what you try to get peoeple to believe.

          You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previos posts demonstrate.

          That’s probably why you only appear to base your oponion on one very narrow viewpoint, you simply do not allow alternative opinion or a balance of reports.

          Just as with most Republicans, you see your own miniscule view based on minute snippits and soundbytes force fed by only your own government and take that as gospel, dismissing cuntless other gloal reports that prove otherwise it’s the blind man’s view.

          No other opinion could be possible. Despite all that is said, the US government says otherwise and thus it must be so.

          Sorry to see that you are really so narrow minded you will never seek the truth unless it falls on your lap by default.
          But that’s pretty typical too.

        • #2531637

          As usual, the specious ramblings of a no-nothing.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to sn53 — The center of attention

          You’ve yet to offer [b]any[/b] facts relevant to the issue at hand.

          You’ve already admitted that you lack both a knowledge of and an interest in the sciences involved.

          One therefore must conclude that you have nothing of value to contribute to this discussion.

        • #2518949

          Nerve endings

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to It was for SN53

          oz wrote, “Importance … First off you haven’t the foggiest clue who people are here, you cannot pretend otherwise.”

          Strike a nerve, did I?

          “As far as being someone important, are there other people here that you actually feel are important here and how did you come to such a conclusion, or is everyone just offering their opinion?”

          Let’s just leave it with you.

          “Deep pockets is not exactly a global view of America, money grabbing, bottom feeders without a clue is the more common view.”

          Cool. The ever present anti-Americanism eventually comes out…

          “You can’t produce enough to support your country yourself so you import it from other countries, whether paid for or not.”

          That is pretty funny. I am laughing all the way to the bank.

          “Oil, natural gas, hydro, grains, lumber, fish etc. It is a constant need,…”

          Yeah? And?

          >gluttonous America couldn’t survive a year on its own resources.”

          When you are smart you don’t have to. I’m sensing penis envy.

          “Those same ‘trade partners’ are dismissed and ignored if they offer opinion though, because ‘America knows best’ or at least that’s what you try to get people to believe.”

          Are you thinking we have a centrally controlled economy?

          “You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previous posts demonstrate.”

          Obviously.

          “That’s probably why you only appear to base your opinion on one very narrow viewpoint, you simply do not allow alternative opinion or a balance of reports.”

          You may have all of the alternative opinions that you wish. And I will hold those opinions opposite yours (thee, that is balance).

          “Just as with most Republicans, you see your own miniscule view based on minute snippits and soundbytes force fed by only your own government and take that as gospel, dismissing cuntless other gloal reports that prove otherwise it’s the blind man’s view.”

          Please be more specific. What minute snippets and sound bytes do you believe have influenced me?

          And why, exactly, do you belong to the Holy Church of the Warmer Globe? When did you join? What part of the world do you expect to run?

          “…Despite all that is said, the US government says otherwise and thus it must be so.”

          About half of my government consists of leftists and kooks. They are on your side.

          “Sorry to see that you are really so narrow minded you will never seek the truth unless it falls on your lap by default.”

          There are many ways to seek the truth. Moving beyond the politically correct talking points is one of them. You might consider it. It is refreshing.

          “But that’s pretty typical too.”

          So we agree then?

        • #2531633

          Where are [i]your[/i] FACTS?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Nerve endings

          You’re long of wind and short of facts, as usual.

        • #2541532

          Obviously.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Nerve endings

          Oz_Media, to sn53: “You are obviously unable to engage in rational dialogue with anyone who isn’t wholly agreeing with you, as your previous posts demonstrate.”

          I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called “Preemptive Surrender Disorder”, where you will see that he is obviously [b]very able[/b] to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, “isn’t wholly agreeing with” him.

        • #2541519

          Abso and me

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          abso wrote, “I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called “Preemptive Surrender Disorder”, where you will see that he is obviously very able to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, “isn’t wholly agreeing with” him.”

          What? We didn’t agree? I suppose we didn’t. But that is okay. I enjoyed it and learned a few things in the bargain. Among the things I learned is that every one is at least as complex as I am.

          For those who have not come by I invite you. I do not expect many of you to agree with me. If many did the Democrats would not have won, not even by the slim margins they managed, and we would not be in a position where the Dangerous party would control this nation.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211753&messageID=2174443

        • #2541374

          Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          But, in that same discussion, and elsewhere, is clear evidence to the contrary as well.

        • #2542138

          deepsand: Was that [i]ad hominem[/i], or do we need to use the Latin…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          for “squirrel”? Perhaps you have invented a brand new category, the [i]argumentum ad rodentum[/i] fallacy!

        • #2541998

          Absolutely: Sorry, but my Latin’s a bit rusty.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Obviously.

          And, there is no fallacy in my statement re. sn53.

          That he may occasionally give the appearance of engaging in rational discourse does not mean that he generally, let alone always, does so.

        • #2531638

          Re. “A claimed “fact” based on less than 100% certainty is a lie.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not at all.

          Really? Clearly you fail to understand the scientific method.

          Furthermore, do you in fact live your life based only on those things which are certain, i.e. 100% guaranteed to be true, to happen, to have happened, etc.? I think not.

          Most importantly, as re. the matter at hand, using your own stated criteria, since it is [b]not 100% established[/b] that man bears no responsibility for climate change, the claim that such is the case is [b]false[/b].

        • #2539733

          What is important?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Now you’re really out on a limb, aren’t you?

          oz wrote, “At first the debate was man-caused global warming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming…”

          Really? Isn’t that the whole point of the global warming crowd? After all, if we are not causing global warming then there not much to fear-monger over is there?

          “Man’s emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track.”

          You go where you want. I will do the same. A radio talk show host mentioned, today, while I was driving home, that humans are responsible for less than 4% of all of the carbon dioxide emissions. I don’t know if that is a valid number or not. It really doesn’t matter. We have important matters to resolve. This is not one of them.

        • #2531634

          Re. “We have important matters to resolve.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to What is important?

          Yes; and, perhaps one of these days you’ll figure out what they are. For the present, however, you are, by your own self-imposed ignorance of the facts, clueless.

    • #2536302

      You can’t say that the amount is too small to

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      have an impact because of the butterfly effect.
      How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying.

      We can’t say whether other human influenced factors add or decrease the risk of change.

      We can’t say how big a change, we can’t say how long it will last.

      We can’t say what other cyclical influences may impact and how they will.

      So given that level of ignorance, what worth is a politically inspired guess to either outcome?

      Nil ,nada, nothing, print it out on soft paper, wipe your arse with it.

      The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest’s current profits.

      • #2536298

        Chaos Theory and American-made Global Warming

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to You can’t say that the amount is too small to

        Tony said, “You can’t say that the amount is too small to have an impact because of the butterfly effect.”

        Chaos theory says that very minor changes in the initial state of a complex system can lead to major changes over time. It does not take a stand on whether the changes will be positive or negative. For all we know, giving carbon tax money to the United Nations will result in world-wide catastrophe and the next ice age. On the other hand, given human nature it is unlikely that giving additional power and control to corrupt politicians will have anything but an ill-effect.

        “How much of anything you need to tip the currently stable system into an other pattern is something we are incapable of quantifying.”

        It is not stable. The earth has been in a warming pattern since the end of the last ice age. It is a good thing. We ought to recognize that changes in climate are an inherent part of the very complex solar system (with emphasis on that great nuclear furnace, Sol).

        “The only sensible position in my eyes is to look at limiting our impact on the environment, because that only risks certain vested interest’s current profits. ”

        Chaos theory suggests, since you brought it up, that there are many sensible positions, an infinite number in fact. And what do you have against profits? They are the reason you can interact on this forum.

        • #2536284

          Chaos theory

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Chaos Theory and American-made Global Warming

          is the study of non linear dynamical systems.

          Specifically to identify the order in chaotic systems. If you google Lorenz and butterfly effect you’ll see the famous diagram.
          That was based on three equations to govern a simple climate.

          It was chaotic (apparently random), because there was no particular pattern the solutions of the individual equations but when viewed as system the solution always stayed within certain bounds.

          I have nothing against profit, I profited from my reading of James Gleick’s Chaos, I profited from my business. I haven’t profited from risking the entire biosphere and millions of lives though.

          It’s called ethics.

          American contribution to potential climate change yes but no you can’t claim to have made global warming, unless Al’s been waffling again?

        • #2536271

          Gleick’s Book

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Chaos theory

          I read that too. It was great. I believe that Lorenze had 8 simultaneous equations to model the global weather patterns. Anyhow, that is unimportant.

          While pollution is an important concern, we have to ask what is an acceptable level that promotes human dignity without causing immediate or future loss of human dignity?

          Dumping of toxins on otherwise productive farm land then building a subdivision on top off the waste is unethical and diminishes human dignity. That action may even cause human suffering unnecessarily.

          Things like electricity, air conditioning, and sewage systems improve human dignity. But they can also cause poor living conditions if not properly designed. Where do we draw the line?

        • #2536265

          Where do we draw the line

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Gleick’s Book

          under the profit column on the balance sheet.

          The world is run by bean counters, they are judged on money at the end of each financial period.

          Ask one how much a forest is worth, he’ll calculate the value of the saleable wood and the land it’s on and give you a price.

        • #2536261

          Pure Greed?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Where do we draw the line

          Bean counters are a pain in the kazzotski.

          How does one cost environmental concerns?

          For a common citizen to add solar power to his home, install composting toilets, and separate trash for recycling it cost $45k the first year. He could sell compost and recyclable trash offsetting the cost but there is little to no financial return on those things. In fact, it would be mostly a move on conscience more than anything else.

          So again where do we draw a line?

        • #2536256

          You can’t cost environmental concerns

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Pure Greed?

          Businesses only recognise two sorts of value in ethics.

          One is fuzzy, as in marketing your self as ethical, the other is slightly more defined in terms of the cost of being prosecuted for doing something illegal. Though in the latter case, many of the fines are a joke.
          If it costs $200k a year to deal with waste properly, vs a 50k fine if you get caught and found guilty, which one should a business man pick?

          Tax incentives for being green for individuals and businesses, I believe is a practical way to go. Certainly taking away every ones car and making them live in a wattle and daub hut, is not going to make you popular.

          The lines are wherever we choose to draw them, at the moment there are next to none.

        • #2536247

          Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Gleick’s Book

          Is there a connection between pollution and global warming? Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a by-product of breathing.

          Waste management is a reasonable thing to do. But I do not see the connection between cleaning up after ourselves (which all of the wealthy nations do well and the former socialist ones do very poorly) and potentially causing global climate change.

        • #2535392
          Avatar photo

          If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          And the random Bush Fires that occur naturally there wouldn’t be much of a problem. But CO2 is also a by product of Combustion of Fossil Fuels so those Fuel Cracking Plants and Coal Fired Power Stations in use now are contributing far more of the CO2 into the atmosphere than animals breathing.

          Also under strictly [b]Medical Terms[/b] if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

          Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?

          Col

        • #2535321

          Don’t forget food and sex

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          Hal wrote, “under strictly Medical Terms if you have a need for something you are addicted to it so every human in the world is addicted to breathing air.

          Do you now enjoy being classed as an Addict?”

          Don’t forget food and sex. I need those too.

        • #2537304
          Avatar photo

          So SN as a self confessed addict

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to If CO2 was only a byproduct of breathing

          Why do your words have any weight?

          That junkie down the road hooked on [b]The Big H[/b] has as much to say and as much weight placed on their arguments as you do. So I take it that you’ll be starting to inject h latter today right? 😀

          Col

        • #2535265

          CO2 is not a pollutant?

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Pollution Management or Global Warming Theory

          Lost for words.

          Stumped.

          Any response is obviously a complete waste of my time.

        • #2535263

          A complete waste of your time

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          Plants take in carbon dioxide and “exhale” oxygen. We inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. If plants were as concerned about pollution and limited the amount of their pollutants thy could “exhale” we would be in trouble.

          One must look at things in context.

        • #2535210

          sn53: Not at nighttime, they don’t.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          During daylight hours, plants engage in photosynthesis; at night, respiration, whereby they oxidize a portion of the substrates created by photosynthesis.

          Duing respiration plants take in oxygen & expel CO2!

        • #2535208

          Pollutants – oxygen and carbon dioxide. Perspective

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          deep said, “During daylight hours, plants engage in photosynthesis;”

          Yeah. They take in carbon dioxide and water, mix it with a little sunlight and create food for themselves. And out comes that pesky pollutant, oxygen.

          “at night, respiration, whereby they oxidize a portion of the substrates created by photosynthesis.”

          “During respiration plants take in oxygen & respire CO2!”

          Quite right. Plants are simply amazing. But then the gasses we exhale also include oxygen. So maybe it isn’t all that amazing.

          Back to context. Plants use CO2, water and sunlight to create their food. They pollute the atmosphere with oxygen. We are glad they do.

          They probably don’t care one way or the other.

        • #2537301
          Avatar photo

          Just out of curiosity

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to CO2 is not a pollutant?

          What do you think will happen when the bulk of the plants are killed off by the Pollution ts that are pumped into the Atmosphere, where is all the CO2 going to end up then and much more importantly what are you going to be breathing?

          Spaceballs Here we come full steam ahead and no stopping for anything no matter what the consequences are. 😀

          Even the Planet of the Apes knew just how dangerous the Spaceballs where as when they saw them escaping from the remains of Mega Maid they promptly said [b]Oh Shite Spaceballs[/b] Lets get the hell out of here before we get caught and corrupted to their way of thinking. :p

          Col

        • #2536248

          Great!

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Chaos theory

          Tony said, “Chaos theory is the study of non linear dynamical systems.”

          I think the solar system is a non-linear dynamic system.

          I did not understand the rest of you post as it pertains to chaos theory.

          “I have nothing against profit,”

          Great. Nor do I.

          “I profited from my reading of James Gleick’s Chaos,”

          I read it too. Many years ago.

          “I haven’t profited from risking the entire biosphere and millions of lives though.”

          How do you know? How do you know there is even a risk? What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind? Would you be willing to take the risk of spoiling that equally likely outcome because of environmental-religious reasons?

          I just want you to think about it.

          “It’s called ethics.”

          It is called uncertainty. And politics will not change that. There is noting ethical about the UN power grab that is taking place. Ethics makes people freer. It does not enslave them.

          “American contribution to potential climate change yes but no you can’t claim to have made global warming, unless Al’s been waffling again?”

          Al Gore just might be the greatest threat to mankind, pound for pound. But then, I am only speculating.

        • #2536240

          Al Gore is a Threat – Not Speculation

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Great!

          The man is a megalomaniac and a pathological liar. You know he invented the internet and he invented Global Warming. In fact, he was studying the effects of Global Warming in 1959 but never took action until 45 years later. That was when his data began to ‘indicate’ that it was a problem. By the way, the data that indicated a problem was his paycheck as he was unemployed. Except that the generous US taxpayers grant him a annual stipend just because he was an elected official at one time that many of them do not even make or get just because they worked for someone else.

        • #2535383
          Avatar photo

          So what pray tell me are you doing about

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Al Gore is a Threat – Not Speculation

          Elected Officials Fleecing the system? They are Criminals who grant themselves these perks and will continually continue to do so until the people of the country raise up and demand that this action be stopped immediately.

          So when are you going to fill up your vehicle and carry everyone that you can jam into it to Washington to demonstrate to stop the payments to Elected Officials even the ones currently in power?

          Col

        • #2535357

          Not Talking About Elected Officials

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to So what pray tell me are you doing about

          I am talking about Al Gore, the citizen.

          I have no comments on elected officials.

        • #2535386
          Avatar photo

          Well in that case

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Great!

          I take it that you will willingly accept the displaced people of the world as the water rises and accept them as refugees into your Country without any complaints. Some Pacific Islands are only several feet above sea level and even Hawaii isn’t safe from rising sea levels.

          So what do you propose happens to all the people who are displaced by the rising Ocean Levels?

          Much more importantly what do you propose to eat when the Ocean Chemistry has been so dramatically altered that the vast majority of the Fish and like die off as a result?

          Look at he Coral Reefs in Floria and see just how healthy they are as they look like a desert and this is so called Progress that brings betterment of life. Sorry but no thanks I’ll stick with what was there before and you can have the [b]Brave New World[/b] where there will be hardly any soil available and even less fresh water.

          You are looking at that movie [b]Water World[/b] and not seeing it as a very possible future. The science about what would happen to the ocean levels if the Polar Ice Caps where to melt has been around for several hundred years now so it’s hardly anything new to be considered as to what will happen when they do melt.

          But as you and I will not be around by then it’s not our concern is it? It’s perfectly acceptable to wreak the place now and leave it to your grandchildren to clean up your mess right?

          I’m betting that wouldn’t be acceptable to you for any inheritance that you where to leave them that would cost them millions of $ and thousands of years to put right but somehow it’s acceptable to do it to the planet that we live on and currently [b]Can Not Escape From.[/b]

          Actually instead of All Gore being the greatest threat to mankind I think that you’ll find [b]Apathy[/b] is and it’s people like you who allow the mess to happen and then moan about the cost & time taken to clean up.

          Personally I haven’t watched the All Gore Movie and I’m not overly interested in it because of the reports that I’ve seen of it understate the real damage that will be done so it’s all nice and fuzzy and not real.

          Col

        • #2535320

          It is a religion

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Well in that case

          Hal, it is a religion for you. Praise god.

        • #2535276

          As religions are based on “revealed” truths, it seems that your’s …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It is a religion

          is the truly religious belief, lacking, as it does, a basis in fact.

        • #2537300
          Avatar photo

          Well it’s a religion for someone

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It is a religion

          But that’s certainly not me as I don’t actually believe in what you would like me to believe in on just [b]Faith Alone.[/b] When I have solid Science that has been known and talked about for hundreds of years I have something solid to fall back upon instead of the [b]She’ll be Right Mate[/b]Attitude that you seem to want to push and hope for the best when everything is pointing in the other direction.

          If erring on the side of caution is being a True Believer without any facts to back me up you are sadly mistaken as you are the one who has [b]Faith[/b] not me I’m the one with the facts and knowledge who is worried instead of the one with their head buried in the sand knowing no better.

          Col

        • #2535273

          I don’t care what the politicians think

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Great!

          they’ll think what we tell them to so they can get our votes and bury their heads in the public trough.

          Ethics do not make people freer, they are a constraint. Being ethical means you limit yourself to what you should do, not what you can do.
          I am capable of draining my engine into my flower bed, my ethics make me collect it in a suitable container and dispose of it safely, even if doing so incurs a cost.

          The big problem in terms of being bio-ethical is those who are against such ideas always look at the cost of disposing the oil, never the flowers, wild life, scenery, public welfare etc. None of those are easily fitted on the balance sheet.

          Al Gore is a politician, if he thought pouring crude oil on californian orchards would get him a vote, there would be dead trees across half the state.

        • #2535264

          Comingling pollution control and climate change

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I don’t care what the politicians think

          Hi Tony,

          I am interested in determining why you and HAL (and probably others) commingle the perfectly reasonable pollution management and the idea that we are destroying the Earth because our activities might be warming the place up a tiny bit.

        • #2535249

          Because unlike you we know CO2 is a pollutant

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Comingling pollution control and climate change

          If took millions of years to give us an atmosphere in which oxygen breathers could exist outside of water.

          So long in fact we lost our gills!.

          Now we are liberating all that carbon back into the atmosphere, every atom of which is combining with two oxygen ones. Worse still we are killing the only practical method of redressing the balance plants.

          Anything can be a pollutant. if somebody poured a gallon of water in to your petrol tank, they’ve polluted it, with water.

          All a pollutant is, is something that will damage an environment, what is a pollutant depends on the environment, not the chemical composition of the unwanted substance itself.

          The reverse is equally true, if some one added a dash a petrol to your evian, you’d be complaining wouldn’t you.

          Amounts count as well. Breathe pure oxygen and you’ll suffer. Hyperventilate and you reduce the co2 level in your blood stream to the point where you become ill. Too much CO2 will poison you.

          Have a heart attack, they give you a wee bit of digitalin, it will save your life. Give you too much, ill or not and it will kill you. That too much is a very very small amount.

          I don’t know that we are destroying the earth, I know we could be. Based on that ignorance is saying ah f**k it, a rational response?

        • #2535203

          All of your points were good enough for me

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I don’t care what the politicians think

          Hi Tony,

          I do agree that anything can be a pollutant in context.

          Thanks.

        • #2536190

          “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Great!

          It is not. Warmer oceans mean that when tropical storms occur, they will be more severe than previously. Climatologists, not just those employed by the UN, are in unanimous agreement on this. If you can posit any benefits that might counter the cost represented by worse hurricanes, typhoons, etc., please do so.

        • #2535992

          a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          Abso wrote, “It is not.”

          Okay. So you think people were better off during the last ice age?

          Fine by me. But I think we are going to have climate change no matter how many freedoms you force me to give up. And some people will benefit and some people will lose in exactly the same ways as have occurred throughout the life of this planet.

        • #2535775

          I can’t wait to see this!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          No, having stronger hurricanes is not a benefit.

          No, I do not think people were better off during the last ice age: I’m not talking about gradual changes in temperature that happen naturally over many centuries, I’m talking about more sudden changes in average temperature, measurable over much shorter periods.

          No, I haven’t suggested you give up any freedoms. I think the Left should put more money into manufacturing & research, to create the alternatives they want, not whine for the government to do it for them. But you didn’t ask me that, you just assumed.

        • #2516388

          The truth comes out – it’s about your freedom to f*ck up the world.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.

        • #2516291

          Freedom and swinging fists or wielding political coercive power

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          deep wrote, “The truth comes out – it’s about your freedom to f*ck up the world.
          Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose.”

          And vice versa. I am only asking to be left alone. You and your green/socialist allies are asking for my enslavement. No thank you.

        • #2534111

          Your right “be left alone” is not without limitations.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          Such exists [b]only[/b] to the extent that it does not affect others.

          You have [b]no right[/b] to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.

        • #2533342

          No, deepsand, but with few limitations, and prohibitive standards of proof.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          [i]Your right “be left alone” is not without limitations.
          Such exists only to the extent that it does not affect others.

          You have no right to adversely affect the quality of my life or that of others simply because you desire to so act.[/i]

          I refer you to Amendment 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

        • #2533961

          Re. “prohibitive standards of proof”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          The right of [i]any[/i] person to swing his fist ends where my nose begins.

          It is this that sn53 refuses to accept.

        • #2533883

          Right of a person to swing fist ends at any other person’s nose.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          I cannot imagine sn53 arguing against that principle. With that common ground accepted, let’s argue about which side is the swinging fist in the ‘global warming’ debate and which is the nose.

        • #2533813

          re: fist vs. nose

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          It’s not quite that straightforward, on the “global warming alarmist” side of the debate — though it is basically that straightforward on the “global warming denier” side, at the moment.

          1. alarmist:
          The fist (pollution) is swinging at a punching bag (the environment). There may or may not be a person standing on the other side (global warming) — because it’s a heavy-bag, the puncher can’t tell without walking around to the other side. Some people claim there’s a person on the other side, some claim it’s just a reflection of a person in the mirrors on the wall. None of them have yet made it all the way around the bag to check.

          2. denier
          The fist (governmental economic regulation) has already bloodied the nose (market freedom). It may swing again. It’s likely, given time, that the nose will break. The only question is whether that swinging of the fist is some form of self-defense — and that relies on point 1. If it’s not self defense, it’s assault.

        • #2526669

          Pejorative terms, such as “alarmist,” serve only to interject subjectivity.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          To characterize all who believe that there is scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being “alarmists” is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i].

        • #2526280

          Pejorative terms, such as “denier,” serve only to interject subjectivity.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          To characterize all who believe that there is [b]not[/b] scientific evidence suggestive of a serious problem worthy of consideration as being “deniers” is naught but [i]argumentum ad hominem.[/i]

          Apotheon has applied the commonly used pejoratives to both sides, leading me to suspect that he is quite aware of his own biases, and alert to ours. He is still my favorite for “impartial moderator”, but I suspect he is less than enthusiastic about undertaking the task.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2195803

          Who could blame him? Who on Earth, and for what reason, would wish to interject himself into such a feud?

        • #2532133

          Selective use of “naysayers” was not subjective.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man’s ability to affect climate is extant.

          Those who simply question whether or not such is the case are deemed to be skeptics.

        • #2531885

          Are different types of ‘deniers’ being lumped together?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          There are threee types:

          People who deny that global warming is happenning.

          People who deny that humans are responsible.

          People who deny that there is enough evidence to make a definitive conclusion.

        • #2527947

          Tony: Those who are the problem are those who …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          will not examine the data with an open mind.

        • #2527047

          Thanks, Absolutely.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial

          You made my point for me nicely — I was (tongue firmly in cheek) attempting to apply brief, common terms, pejorative to be sure, to both sides equally. The point was basically to achieve a balance of biases rather than a (highly improbable) complete lack of biases, and to interject a little subtle humor while I was at it.

          By the way, you’ve hit my level of motivation pretty squarely, I think. I’m willing, and probably quite able, but that doesn’t mean I don’t expect it to be a mostly thankless task fraught with pitfalls and hairpin turns (to mix a metaphor). I’m also pleased to see your faith in my abilities in that regard.

        • #2531857

          Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “What if a warmer climate is both natural and beneficial to humankind?”

          deep wrote, “Selective use of “naysayers” was not subjective.
          I reserve that term for those who, out of hand, dismiss that it is possible that global warming and/or man’s ability to affect climate is extant.”

          Uh-huh. Aren’t you the same person who objects to me using one simple, easily understood umbrella term, Islamofascist, to describe radical Islamic leaders?

          Are you doomed then to being an amateur ecofascist since you are clearly unable to use nuance to describe each of our individual differences?

        • #2528126

          Outstanding!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          If you can’t keep them honest, at least keep them consistent!

        • #2527942

          [i]Non sequitur[/i]

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          If you wish to compare apples and oranges, you’ll need to find a different player.

        • #2527940

          Outstanding?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Umbrella term – Amateur Status Confirmed

          To whom are you attributing inconsistence?

      • #2536286

        A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to You can’t say that the amount is too small to

        The orginal premise of Chaos theory is that everything contributes to the outcome of a system. The ‘Butterfly Effect’ is an illustration of the principle not necessarily a truth or testable outcome. And some people in this forum would argue it is not logical. The point being while there is a contribution to what degree does it have an impact?

        I think we should assess first how much carbon dioxide must be added to the atmosphere to increase global temperatures one degree. Then we need to assess if those numbers polluted come close to that necessary to increase temperatures one degree. We may find that the numbers may be so large that they become surreal.

        Additionally, we should also compute how much additional solar radiation is necessary to cause existing greenhouse gas levels to increase global temperature one degree.

        In doing these computations we would be applying statistical thermodynamics on a global scale. Nonetheless, My guess is that humans have virtually no sustainable impact compared to other natural events.

        If we look at a single human being and compare him to all the cosmos then ask who is he and what is his contribution? If we multiply him by 6 billion times then look at that compared to the cosmos, we can only surmise that human existence is nothing more than a whisp, an instantaneous spark, a flash point and nothing more. Of course, in a spiritual sense we are far more but naturally humans are insignificant.

        So what makes you think that anything we do has an impact on anything else other than ourselves?

        • #2536277

          Well you are getting your wish aren’t you

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

          We are adding CO2 at hefty rate.

          Your guess is we don’t impact,my guess is we do

          So if I’m wrong we get a cleaner planet and some profit moves from currently ‘dirty industries to some ‘cleaner’ ones.

          If you are wrong millions of people lose everything, quite possibly including their lives.

          So what’s the sensible risk here?

          The butterfly effect is proven in the models, whether the models are an accurate measure of the real world, is something else entirely.

          As for the last paragraph the other 5999,999,986 humans might be insignificant but me and my family matter very much.

        • #2536246

          Why chose Carbon?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to A Threshold \ Chaos Theory

          Why not choose variations in solar output since that is a far more logical starting point for variations in the Earth’s temperature?

        • #2536225

          Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Why chose Carbon?

          The system is simple. The sun heats the earth and greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, trap the heat. Either solar radiation increases or CO2 increases or there is some sort of combination.

          Either we see how much solar energy is needed to increase temperatures 1 degree given constant CO2 or hold the solar radiation constant to see how much additional CO2 is necessary to increase the temperatures 1 degree. These are your bench marks to measure from.

          Then ask is the sun putting out that much of an increase in solar radiation? Or ask are humans adding such an excessive amount that we are increasing temperatures? Based on computations I have worked, there is little support for humans causing widespread increases in global temperatures.

          The problem is no one is considering this. It is all media hype. This is why I am skeptical. They try to bury it in all this technical confusion and keep people guessing.

        • #2535398

          re. “The problem is no one is considering this.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          For scientists, that is not the case. And, one need not 1st have the exact formula that produces the observed results in order to have a viable hypothesis. In fact, it is generally the case that the formula is ultimately derived from the observed results.

        • #2536179

          “Based on computations I have worked…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          Will you post those computations?

        • #2516383

          He’ll first need some time to cobble something together.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “Based on computations I have worked…”

          Just don’t look too closely under the hood.

        • #2516196

          I rather suspect that having come to Yoodler’s aide, Fluxit…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to He’ll first need some time to cobble something together.

          will not return to TechRepublic. He seemed not to have much to say beyond repetition of Yoodler’s…musings.

        • #2516214

          Sorry so long to reply to this

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Carbon Dioxide is a Common Denominator

          but I just now saw it.

          [i]mainly CO2[/i]

          I cannot let that go unchallenged.

          C02 accounts for only about 4% of the “greenhouse gasses” in our atmosphere. How do you get “mainly” based on that?

        • #2516194

          The molecule [i]most increasing[/i], I believe

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Sorry so long to reply to this

          As I posted to deepsand above, I think Fluxit has departed. I think that “mainly CO2” refers to CO2 being the one molecule increasing most rapidly in the atmosphere.

        • #2516186

          “…increased from ~360 gigatons (Gt)–mainly as CO2…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to The molecule [i]most increasing[/i], I believe

          Science 16 June 2006:
          Vol. 312. no. 5780, pp. 1612 – 1613
          DOI: 10.1126/science.1128908

          Perspectives
          CLIMATE CHANGE:
          Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget
          Sergey A. Zimov1, Edward A. G. Schuur2, F. Stuart Chapin III3

          The carbon content of Earth’s atmosphere has increased from ~360 gigatons (Gt)–mainly as CO2–during the last glacial maximum to ~560 Gt during preindustrial times and ~730 Gt today. These changes reflect redistributions among the main global carbon reservoirs. The largest such reservoir is the ocean (40,000 Gt, of which 2500 Gt is organic carbon), followed by soils (1500 Gt) and vegetation (650 Gt). There is also a large geological reservoir, from which ~6.5 Gt of carbon are released annually to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

          Permafrost (permanently frozen ground) is an additional large carbon reservoir that is rarely incorporated into analyses of changes in global carbon reservoirs. Here we illustrate the importance of permafrost carbon in the global carbon budget by describing the past and potential future dynamics of frozen loess (windblown dust, termed yedoma in Siberia) that was deposited during the glacial age, covering more than 1 million km2 of the north plains of Siberia and Central Alaska to an average depth of ~25 m.

          The frozen yedoma represents relict soils of the mammoth steppe-tundra ecosystem that occupied this territory during glacial times (1). As windblown or river-borne materials accumulated on the soil surface, the bottom of the previously thawed soil layer became incorporated into permafrost. These sediments contain little of the humus that characterizes modern ecosystems of the region, but they comprise large amounts of grass roots (see the figure) and animal bones, resulting in a carbon content that is much higher than is typical of most thawed mineral soils. Frozen yedoma deposits across Siberia and Alaska typically have average carbon contents from 2% to 5%–roughly 10 to 30 times the amount of carbon generally found in deep, nonpermafrost mineral soils.

          Using an overall average carbon concentration for yedoma of ~2.6%, as well as the typical bulk density, average thickness, and ice-wedge content of the yedoma, we estimate the carbon reservoir in frozen yedoma to be ~500 Gt (2). Another ~400 Gt of carbon are contained in nonyedoma permafrost (excluding peatlands) (3), and 50 to 70 Gt reside in the peatbogs of western Siberia (4). These preliminary estimates indicate that permafrost is a large carbon reservoir, intermediate in size between those of vegetation and soils.

          Our laboratory incubations and field experiments show that the organic matter in yedoma decomposes quickly when thawed, resulting in respiration rates of initially 10 to 40 g of carbon per m3 per day, and then 0.5 to 5 g of carbon per m3 per day over several years. These rates are similar to those of productive northern grassland soils. If these rates are sustained in the long term, as field observations suggest, then most carbon in recently thawed yedoma will be released within a century–a striking contrast to the preservation of carbon for tens of thousands of years when frozen in permafrost.

          Some local thawing of yedoma occurs independently of climate change. When permafrost ice wedges thaw, the ground subsides (thermokarst), forming lakes. The abundant thermokarst lakes on yedoma territory migrate across the plains as thawing and subsidence occur along their margins. During the Holocene (the past 10,000 years), about half of the yedoma thawed beneath these migratory lakes and then refroze when the lakes had moved on.

          The yedoma carbon beneath the thermokarst lakes is decomposed by microbes under anaerobic conditions, producing methane that is released to the atmosphere primarily by bubbling (5). Near eroding lake shores, methane bubbling is so high that channels through the lake ice remain open all winter. During a thaw/freeze cycle associated with lake migration, ~30% of yedoma carbon is decomposed by microbes and converted to methane. As a potent greenhouse gas, this methane contributes to climate warming.

          In response to climate warming, permafrost sediments have already begun to thaw (6), with extreme projections that almost all yedoma will thaw by the end of the 21st century (7). What would happen to the carbon derived from permafrost if high-latitude warming continues?

          The unique isotopic signature of permafrost carbon provides clues from past warming episodes, such as the transition from the last glacial maximum to the Holocene. The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C). Methane, CO2, and dissolved organic carbon released from thawing yedoma have a radiocarbon age reflecting the time when the yedoma was formed in the glacial age, differentiating the permafrost carbon signal from emissions from other reservoirs that have a modern radiocarbon age.

          For example, the release of a large pool of radiocarbon-depleted carbon from permafrost could have contributed to declines in atmospheric radiocarbon during two strong warming events that occurred during the last deglaciation. These radiocarbon changes have previously been attributed to an assumed increase in deep- and mid-ocean venting, because no terrestrial pool that could readily release ancient carbon (such as permafrost carbon) was included in the analysis (8).

          Figure 1 Ancient soils. (Left) Exposed carbon-rich soils from the mammoth steppe-tundra along the Kolyma River in Siberia. The soils are 53 m thick; massive ice wedges are visible. (Right) Soil close-up showing 30,000-year-old grass roots preserved in the permafrost.

          CREDIT: S. A. ZIMOV

          Carbon loss from permafrost may also have contributed to past changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. During the last glacial maximum, permafrost extended south to 45?N in Europe and to 40?N in North America. About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed in the early Holocene (9, 10). If this frozen loess initially had a carbon concentration similar to the average for yedoma (2.6% C) and decreased to the carbon concentration of the current soils (0.15% C), it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon at the beginning of the Holocene. Additional carbon was presumably released by thawing of nonloess permafrost (river-borne, slope, and glacial sediments).

          Most researchers assume that the terrestrial carbon reservoir declined by 300 to 700 Gt at the last glacial maximum as a result of ice sheet formation and a decline in forest area. This terrestrial carbon was assumed to have been transferred to the oceans (11). However, these estimates ignore the soils and peat buried in frozen moraines beneath glaciers (380 Gt) (12) and assume that the broad expanses (~24 million km2) of steppe-tundra had a carbon content typical of polar deserts (4 to 40 Gt) (13, 14). The assumed soil carbon content for steppe-tundra in Siberia was only 0.1 kg m-2 (13).

          We can now provide a more accurate estimate of the carbon content of the steppe-tundra based on direct measurements. The carbon content of lowland steppe-tundra soils in Siberia and Alaska is ~2.6% with an active-layer depth of about 1 m, yielding ~42 kg of carbon per m2. In mountains, the carbon content is about 50% less, giving an average carbon content for the steppe-tundra biome of ~30 kg per m2 and a total carbon content of ~720 Gt. Taking into account frozen loess (500 Gt), steppe-tundra soils (720 Gt), sediments beneath ice sheets (380 Gt), and other frozen sediments, we hypothesize that the total terrestrial carbon reservoir did not decrease in glacial times but instead may have even absorbed several hundred gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and ocean.

          The decline in the 13C/12C ratio in marine dissolved inorganic carbon, recorded in shells of foraminifera, in glacial times is usually taken as strong evidence of transfer of terrestrial carbon to the ocean (11). However, the size and isotopic composition of the marine reservoir of organic carbon are similar to those on land (15), making it difficult to identify changes in the relative sizes of marine and terrestrial organic reservoirs. A decline in marine productivity (perhaps associated with reduced vertical mixing and reduced illumination under ice) might lead to a net release of depleted 13C from marine organic carbon reservoirs that could instead have caused the decreased foraminifera isotope ratio. Recent reanalysis of data from marine sediment cores shows that biological productivity and carbon export to ocean sediments were substantially reduced at the middle of the last glacial cycle in all oceans. At the last glacial maximum, biological productivity in the Atlantic Ocean increased, but in the much larger Pacific Ocean it decreased (16). Independent of carbon transfers between land and ocean, the reduction in alkalinity associated with the lower atmospheric CO2 concentration at the last glacial maximum could also explain the reduced 13C/12C ratio of foraminifera (17). Given this estimate of permafrost carbon storage on land, the redistribution of carbon during glacial periods is a fertile area for reassessment. Permafrost is a globally significant carbon reservoir that responds to climate change in a unique and very simple way: With warming, its spatial extent declines, causing rapid carbon loss; with cooling, the permafrost reservoir refills slowly, a dynamic that mirrors the past atmospheric record of CO2. In a warmer climate, permafrost carbon is thus likely to become part of more actively cycling carbon reservoirs. Factors inducing high-latitude climate warming should be mitigated to minimize the risk of a potentially large carbon release that would further increase climate warming.

          Referenes and Notes

          1. A. V. Sher et al., Quat. Sci. Rev. 24, 533 (2005). [CrossRef]
          2. In our calculation, we assumed a bulk density of 1.65 tons per m3, a yedoma thickness of 25 m, and an ice-wedge content of 50%.
          3. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Impacts of a Warming Arctic (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2005). [publisher’s information]
          4. L. C. Smith et al., Science 303, [353] (2004).
          5. S. A. Zimov et al., Science 277, [800] (1997).
          6. V. E. Romanovsky et al., Tohoku Geophys. J. 36, 224 (2001).
          7. D. M. Lawrence, A. G. Slater, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L24401 (2005). [CrossRef]
          8. K. A. Hughen et al., Science 290, [1951] (2000).
          9. A. L. Washburn, Geocryology. A Survey of Periglacial Processes and Environments (Edward Arnold, London, 1979).
          10. A. A. Velichko, Prirodnyi Process v Pleistocene (Nauka, Moscow, 1973).
          11. M. I. Bird et al., Nature 371, 566 (1994). [CrossRef]
          12. N. Zeng, Adv. Atmos. Sci. 20, 677 (2003).
          13. J. M. Adams et al., Nature 348, 711 (1990). [CrossRef]
          14. P. Friedlingstein et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 7203 (1995). [CrossRef]
          15. V. Brovkin et al., Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 3, 1027 (2002). [CrossRef]
          16. K. E. Kohfeld et al., Science 308, [74] (2005).
          17. H. J. Spero et al., Nature 390, 497 (1997). [CrossRef]

          10.1126/science.1128908
          1S. A. Zimov is at the North-East Scientific Station, Pacific Institute for Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Cherskii, Republic of Sakha 678830, Russia. E-mail: sazimov@cher.sakha.ru

          2E. A. G. Schuur is in the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.

          3F. S. Chapin III is at the Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7000, USA.

        • #2534091

          It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Sorry so long to reply to this

          It is not that “greenhouse gasses” serve to block the [i]conduction[/i] of thermal energy, but that CO2 and H2O serve to reflect the [i]radiation[/i] of such.

          http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png

        • #2533850

          So now

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          water’s bad too?!?!?

        • #2533732

          And of course,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          that still doesn’t help explain why the earth has been warmer in the past… with [b]less[/b] CO2.

        • #2533091

          TonytheTiger: Warmer in the past – When? Less CO2 – How much?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          Source of your info?

        • #2534546

          Source Abs

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          for about the sixth time 🙂

          http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

        • #2526666

          Yes, Tony, water [i]VAPOR[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does [b]not[/b] serve to diminish the fact that, [b]for [i]any[/i] given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/b]

        • #2526277

          Assumes [i]ceteris paribus[/i] deepsand.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          [b]Yes, Tony, water VAPOR.[/b]
          [i]And, to repeat, and repeat, and repeat, that the Earth may have at some time been warmer with a lower level of atmospheric CO2 does not serve to diminish the fact that, for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.[/i]

          [b]Other things being equal[/b], “for any given level of solar radiation, the temperature will rise in direct proportion to the CO2 level.” Cyclical temperature fluctuations, and the observation that these fluctuations lead rather than follow changes in CO2 concentrations, tends to suggest a more complex, dynamic equilibrium, and to contraindicate application of [i]ceteris paribus[/i] as assumption. It may yet apply, but proof is in order.

        • #2532131

          Absolutely: not based on observations, but on underlying physical …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          processes.

          Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.

          Now, enclose said body in a shell of matter that is not completely transparent to IR. Now, some of the energy that would otherwise have been shed by said body will be confined to that body and any matter between it and said shell. The new equilibrium temperature of said body will now be higher than that in the absence of said shell.

        • #2532057

          Do you REALLY believe your crap???????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.[/i]

          You’re an idiot, deepsand. To even spew such nonsense proves an imbalanced mind. You’re an absolute fool.

        • #2532050

          That’s laughable!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.”[/i]

          That’s laughable. If you really take yourself seriously, you’re deranged.

        • #2532048

          deepsand is the kind of person. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          ….who believes in man-caused global warming. He says it all! This is the kind of person you global warming advocates are aligned with! YOU’re ALL IDIOTS!!!!!!!

          deepsand said, [i]”Take a black body, at thermal equilibrium, and irradiate it; its temperature will increase, whereupon it will re-radiate energy until it again reaches equilibrium, at a higher temperature than before.”[/i]

        • #2527954

          max, study Physics, and then tell me with a straight face that I’m wrong.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s the [i]absorption spectrum[/i] of CO2 that matters.

          Until then, you seem to have nothing to offer with regards to matters of Science.

        • #2535399

          Because it’s the [i]net gain[/i] in thermal energy that counts, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Why chose Carbon?

          not simply the influx of Solar radiational energy alone.

          Were the Earth, including its atmosphere, a perfect black body, then its thermal energy would be directly proportional to the influx alone. Were it a perfect reflector, it’s thermal energy would be wholly independent of said influx. However, the Earth is neither of these.

          The Earth’s albedo, determined in great part by its ice and snow coverings, determines how much of the Sun’s radiant energy is reflected.

          The IR reflectants in the atmosphere serve to determine how much of the Sun’s radiant energy, comprised mostly of wavelengths shorter than infrared (IR), after being absorbed and [i]re-radiated[/i] as IR, can escape into space.

    • #2535517

      Some Interesting Numbers

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      I want to take from another posting, because it was curious to me, and build upon it.

      The USGOV reports 98% of the greenhouse gases come from fossil fuels and estimates that 6,008.6 million metric tons are dumped into the atmosphere annually as of November 2006 report. The US is believed to be the largest contributor worldwide to these gases.

      These numbers came from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

      The Earth’s for the most part is a sphere with a diameter of est 12713 km +/- 75 km; a 0.5% variance. While the Atmosphere extends to 800km, the effective atmosphere (upto the ozone) is 50 km. Therefore, the math follows for computing the volumen of the atmosphere:

      volume of a sphere = 4/3*Pi*r^3

      Atmospheric volume = Volume to the ozone – the Earth’s volume

      volume of the atmosphere = 25,574,515,366.3 cubic km.

      Density = pollutant tons / volume of atmosphere

      The annual green house gases = 6,008.6 million metric tons.

      This equates to a density of greenhouse gases emissions of .235 Metric tons per cubic km. (The original poster made an error not accounting for the word “million”).

      pollution density = .235 Metric tons per cubic km or 5.18E-7 lbs/cubic meter.

      Now if I take this density and compare it to STP density of ordinary air, what percentage is attributed to pollutants?

      STP density = 2.649 lbs per cubic meter.

      Pollutant contribution to global atmospheric density = 1.96E-7 %

      I would say this is way neglible and hardly enough to cause global warming. Remember its a Oxygen-Nitrogen atmosphere making up nearly 98% of the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 is estimated to be about 3.6E-2%. The percentage addition of pollutant CO2 is 5 orders of magnitude smaller or nearly 1 millionth of the natural amount present.

      Okay folks, is that reasonable? Can that amount cause ice caps to crack? Can that amount ignite raging brush fires? Can that amount raise the earth’s temperature not only one degree but several? I just don’t see it.

      • #2535510

        Or it could just be the Sun

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        We have this nuclear furnace nearby. It is always on. If there is a thermostat no one has shown us how to use it. A fraction of a percent difference in solar output could account for the added warmth here and on Mars.

        • #2535492

          It Could Be!

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Or it could just be the Sun

          The sun does contribute far more than the human population is able to contribute to cosmic and global events. This is my point in the numbers of human contributions being so small.

          Next I would like to compute the numbers for the Sun’s contribution.

      • #2535412

        Well, that’s not quite the whole story.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        Without re-visiting the calculations presented, as such was previously in another discussion, the following should be observed.

        1) The burning of fossil fuels produces not 1, but [b]3[/b] inputs in to the mechanism in question: water vapor, carbon dioxide and thermal energy.

        2) Both water vapor and carbon dioxide have adsorption spectra that cause them cause them to [i]reflect[/i] infrared (IR) radiation. (Contrary to popular belief, the “green house” effect is [i]not[/i] caused by atmospheric components serving as “insulation,” but by the reflection of IR radiation.)

        The overwhelming portion of the Sun’s radiant energy received by Earth lies within those wavelengths shorter than IR. Most of this energy is absorbed by the Earth’s surface, with the balance being reflected, at the original short wavelengths, back into space. As the Earth’s ice and snow caps diminish, less and less is reflected.

        That greater portion which is absorbed is then re-radiated as IR. Of this IR, along with the above said waste heat from the buring of fossil fuels, some portion [b]cannot escape[/b] back into space, but is reflected back to Earth, thus increasing the total thermal energy of Earth and raising its temperature.

        And, as such temperature rises, the ice and snow caps slowly melt, thereby decreasing Earth’s albedo, reducing the amount of short wavelength solar radiation reflected, and increasing the amount absorbed and ultimately re-readiated as IR.

        Left unchecked, this positive feedback loop serves only to raise Earth’s thermal energy.

        The key point to observe and understand is that IR reflectors do not in and of themselves increase Earth’s thermal energy, but that they do [b]not allow for its free escape.[/b]

        Incidentally, it should be noted that this mechanism is not one newly proposed, but dates back to 1897!

      • #2535352
        Avatar photo

        Nice figures but you’ve forgotten

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        to cover all the CO2 emissions since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution where Industry Polluted without control for many years till the adverse effects could no longer be ignored. It was at that stage that Governments stepped in and put controls on these industries to meet certain Minimum amounts of Pollution. Unfortunately Exhaust Gasses have never been included in these Pollution Emissions controls as the Elected Officials couldn’t see them and couldn’t gather any problems from their existence so they till recently have been ignored.

        There is one Big Difference between the AU Federal Government and the US Federal Government and that is that th AU Federal Government accepts that there is Global Warming happening now where as the US Federal Government refuses to accept this fact even though the Climate is changing and the weather patterns are changing.

        In recorded Human History it has not been common for Icebergs to run ships aground on them but they have previously sunk ships. But today there are Icebergs bigger than some countries floating around in open Ocean and they are constantly getting further and further away form the Polar regions in both the North & South Hemispheres.

        Today Shipping is looking out for Icebergs bigger than countries that they need to avoid to prevent grounding and the subsequent loss of profit because the ship is delayed till it can get free. When there are Icebergs floating around the Equator will you begin to worry then?

        So next test redo your figures but take into account several hundred years of Pollution caused since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and do not just look at 1 years figures thinking that they somehow no longer exist the next year and everything begins again from a clean sheet.

        Col

      • #2535349

        Lack of understanding…

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        Your figres are a waste of space. You do some ridiculous calculations on the volume of the atmosphere to see how many zeroes you can rack up and – either by design or total ignorance – you fail to take into acount little things like the drop in atmospheric pressure as you get higher. Oh, and neither Oxygen nor Nitrogen are greenhouse gases so they are simply [b]ignored[/b] in any real calculations (takes off a few zeroes, doesn’t it?) 🙂

        Why did you produce your silly mathematical gyrations when the figures are there to be looked up?

        The total quantity of atmospheric CO2 is currently at around 3×10^12 tons. The US [b]alone[/b] burns fossil fuels to the equivalent 0f 6,000m tons CO2 pa. The world, as a whole, burns the equivalent of 24,000m tons fossil fuel CO2. (UN figures so they’re probably lying about the US producing 25% of the crap beacause they hate the US).

        CO2 measured in the same place since 1950 to the present day shows arise of atmospheric CO2 from 0.030% to 0.38% (US figures). Small numbers, I know, but anyway, to continue, isotopic measurements show that, of the increase, it is ALL – or near enough to make no difference – derived from fossil fuels. That’s an increase in the last fifty years of over 25%. Much bigger number.

        As Colin said, you add it on, year on year. The carbon sinks in the ocean can remove some of it, but not all.

        Now CO2 is a greenhouse gas and simple physics makes it impossible to deny that fact. If you can state categorically that an increas in CO2 of 25% over the last fifty years is having no effect then you need to justify it a little better.

        So, if you want to produce toruous figures about volumes of spheres, that’s OK, but if you want to then use those figures as some sort of “scientific” argument then we end up with a crock of crap and you need to accept that.

        Neil 😀

      • #2535184

        OK To Answer All…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Some Interesting Numbers

        Deepsand seems to be discussing the Earth in terms of the White or Black Body effect and presents another science behind the alleged phenomenon. The other two known sciences are the blanket-in-the-sky and a statistical thermodynamic model. According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained then 100% of that is re-radiated again back into outerspace. NASA calls this the Gray Body effect. My question is if 100% is radiated back into space then where is the heat increase? The other questions I have is how long is water retained in the atmosphere before being precipitated?

        Hal9000 points out that the result of CO2 is cummulative, he believes that the EPA numbers do not include emission amounts, and that the US Government does not accept Global Warming. A review of the EPA webpage indicates that the numbers cited are emissions estimates. While there may be a cummulative effect there are counter processes depleting the CO2 emissions other than capture by the oceans. Photosynthesis is a major natural method of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Gases are also absorbed into rain then into the soil and contribute to fertilization. I would have to research a realistic residual based on the biospheres capacity to processes gases. My guess is that not much hangs around year to year as the ecosystems autocorrect somewhat quickly. As for the US Government not accepting Global Warming they are certainly doing an aweful lot of talking about it. Gore put out “An Inconvenient Truth”

        Neil thinks the calculations have already been completed and has figures of his own. Please cite your sources. The math was design to demostrate the percentages based on EPA figures. Regarding standard density, it is a standard used in the aeronautical, meteorological, and other science communities. Standard density is taken at standard temperature and pressure. Based on the official figures I am pulling there is no such 25% increase of CO2. In fact, the percent contribution for one year is 5 orders of magnitude smaller that the total naturally occurring percentage. Even if multiplied by 50 years at 100% residual at 2005 levels it would not be enough to close the gap in terms of orders of magnitude. The number is so ridiculously small that its influence is questionable.

        • #2537269

          Sources

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          The key marker – the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, US government figures from the observatory at Mauna Loa cross-referenced for comparison with UK and Australian official government figures. As for the 25% increase in 50 years, well the sum is 80/300*100 and not a pi in sight! The increase is actually 26.7% but I thought that I’d be kind.

          For the CO2 released into the atmosphere, UN figures for 2002 and referenced at the Kyoto Climate Conference, the last year that they were complete. Figures for subsequent years for individual countries are available and show that it ain’t falling.

          O2 and N2 as not being greenhouse gases. Any reference you want to look for. Find out for yourself, it’ll be more profitable than the calculations that you’re doing.

          Isotopic data relating to the increase being from fossil fuels. Can’t be bothered – look for it yourself.

          But, back to the key data, the rate of increase is increasing http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1324379,00.html

          Believe what you want but don’t try to get clever with calculations that don’t work and aren’t relevant.

        • #2536163

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained…”

          I was able to confirm that much:

          “Not all of this light is absorbed by the Earth. Roughly 30 percent of the total solar energy that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space by clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, desert sand, rooftops, and even ocean surf. The remaining 70 percent of the TSI is absorbed by the land, ocean, and atmosphere. In addition, different layers of the Earth and atmosphere tend to absorb different wavelengths of light. Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone. Twenty to 24 percent of the TSI and a majority of the near infrared radiation is absorbed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), mainly by water vapor, trace gases, clouds, and darker aerosols. The remaining 46 to 50 percent of predominately visible light penetrates the atmosphere and is taken in by the land and the oceans.”

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_02.html

          However, I could not confirm the latter clause:

          “According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained [b]then 100% of that is re-radiated again back into outerspace.[/b]”

          What I did read, at the same page cited above:

          “For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun.”

        • #2535991

          There is that mention of the sun again

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “According to NASA 30% of the energy…”

          “For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun.”

          So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets warmer.

        • #2535972

          Nobody said the sun isn’t involved.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Science requires quantifying your claims.

        • #2537218

          This is funny

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Nobody said the sun isn’t involved.

          I said, “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Abso said, “Science requires quantifying your claims.”

          Well. Let us think about the options. Either it gets warmer, stays the same or gets cooler. If I am standing next to a blazing fire and it gets hotter am I likely to stay the same, get cooler, or will I get a little bit warmer? My experience says I will get warmer. What does yours tell you?

        • #2537173

          This is funnier!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to This is funny

          [i]I said, “So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer.”

          Abso said, “Science requires quantifying your claims.”

          Well. Let us think about the options. Either it gets warmer, stays the same or gets cooler. If I am standing next to a blazing fire and it gets hotter am I likely to stay the same, get cooler, or will I get a little bit warmer? My experience says I will get warmer. What does yours tell you? [/i]

          Flawless logic – as far as it goes!

          If you’re trapped inside an insulating chimney, you will get hotter than if you are standing next to a well-ventilated campfire!

          :p

          PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it’s true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn’t, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven’t shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!

        • #2515187

          Knowing about science

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to This is funny

          Abso said, “PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it’s true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn’t, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven’t shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!”

          Yes. I know something about science. I know something about engineering. I know something about history. I know something about the military.

          Thank you.

        • #2515155

          I should have said…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to This is funny

          “a campfire in an open camp”, maybe with a cool breeze. There’s something funny-looking about a “well-ventilated campfire”.

          Oh well, I’ve written more important things than that, badly.

        • #2516379

          You long ago ceased being funny.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to This is funny

          You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved; rather, you seek to simply pursue your denial of anything and everything that fails to comport with your perceived right to act in a manner that is irresponsible and detrimental to others by way of nonsensical verbalizations.

        • #2516380

          Only if it’s not reflected and/or re-radiated.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          Stop over-simplifying.

          If you know the sciences involved, then state them honestly; if you don’t know, don’t pretend, and don’t make flippant and specious remarks.

        • #2516290

          The discussion; science or politics?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to There is that mention of the sun again

          deep wrote, “You obviously have no intention of engaging in a discussion re. the scientific issues here involved;”
          Conversely, you have no intention of discussing the far more dangerous political issues involved.

          Therefore we have no common ground upon which to discourse.

        • #2534109

          Form follows Function.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The discussion; science or politics?

          Policy follows Facts.

          Get the facts straight [b]before[/b] you determine the appropriate policy.

        • #2535101

          Origins of policy

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Form follows Function.

          deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy.”

          This is sage advice seldom followed in the real world. Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
          that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years. Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.

          I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.

        • #2535080

          [i]deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts….”[/i]

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Form follows Function.

          [i]deep wrote, “Policy follows Facts. Get the facts straight before you determine the appropriate policy.”

          This is sage advice [b]seldom followed in the real world.[/b][/i]

          Do you agree that if that “sage advice” is heeded in the real world more often, the real world would be a [b]better place[/b]? What would you say to changing the format of the ‘global warming conspiracy’ vs. ‘no global warming conspiracy’ [b]debate[/b] to something more like [b]cross-examination[/b] of the prosecutions’ witnesses?

          [i]Take, as an example, the theory of man-caused global warming. There are data
          that have been fitted into speculative models whose end states range from a one to five degree average global temperature change over the next one hundred years.[/i]

          That looks to me very much like something a defense attorney might say about the case against your witness.

          [i]Each of these outcomes is deemed to be catastrophic, resulting in cities under water, the destruction of plant life, the extinction of animals and even an increase in allergies for the unlucky survivors. The policy that always derives from these speculative models is to force America to live in a primitive state.[/i]

          ‘Your honor, you cannot be [b]seriously considering[/b] a life sentence of universal poverty, based on evidence that has not even passed the standards of ‘reasonable suspicion’, nor without [b]due process for the accused![/b]

          [i]I am willing to wait on developing the policy until after the facts have been thoroughly established and proved by experience rather than merely by modeling.[/i]

          However, we all know that the global warming zealots are not willing to wait as long as you are willing to wait. They’re after your liberty right now, and they mean it.

        • #2516382

          Several simple mistakes and errors of omission in that post.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to OK To Answer All…

          1) “[i]if 100% is radiated back into space …[/i]” It is [b]not[/b] the case that 100% of the influx of solar radiation is reflected and/or re-radiated.

          2) The net influx of solar radiation is at sub-IR wavelengths. Of that, some is reflected, with the balance absorbed. Of that portion absorbed, some is [b]re-radiated at IR wavelengths.[/b]

          3) Atmospheric components such as CO2 and H2O vapor absorb and re-radiate some of this IR radiation [b]back to Earth.[/b]

          4) Combustion of fossil based fuels yields, among others, CO2, H2O and [b]heat[/b].

          5) The byproducts name in 4) serves to both increase the amount of atmospheric components that serve to block the egress of IR radiation while at the same time generating IR radiation.

    • #2535470

      The Real Answer

      by rjpoirier_nb ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      Lot’s of interesting posts and new threads here. Didn’t like the Anti-American stuff, hey we are all to blame. IF??? the Mars meltdown is mathematically and exponentially significantly greater than the Earths meltdown (as it is closer to the sun) then there would be a significant impact, probably from the solar flares from a couple of years ago, but the real point here is that as humans, not as some political or religious group, we are all guilty of the damage that we are doing to Mother Earth. As a cancer to Earth, the human race has set the clock to it’s demise. Charles Darwin said it, and we are doomed. Don’t dwell on it. The world pollution, and generation of heat, electricity, automotive and home heating gases, and heat generated from our computers are heating the earth, and it will get worse for the need of fuels and food to provide for an even greater world population. Tune in next week for the answer to all our problems… We could move the moon a bit to cool things off, lol, Think about it. Anytime man messes with nature he messes it up. We are all to blame! Our History, our future. Ourselves, our children, descendents of our follies, greed, ambitions, ignorance. Don’t have the time to elaborate.

      rjpoirier_nb@hotmail.com
      self-proclaimed scientist and more.

      • #2535438

        To blame or to thank

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to The Real Answer

        rjp said, “We are all to blame!”

        I prefer to think that we must all be thanked. I have lived in the cold and I have lived in warmth. I prefer warmth.

        We have put off the return of the next ice age. What could be better than that?

      • #2535436

        Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to The Real Answer

        That man is whacko. Besides it is fun blaming him.

        I agree that humans are responsible or irresponsible depending on how we frame it for making a mess of things. Your reference to heat is perhaps more closely tied to thermal bubbles over metropolitian areas. Fossil fuels are the contributor to global warming.

        What about nuclear power? It is environmentally friendly and extremely efficient.

        • #2535396

          Yes, nuclear power is a viable option, one that much of the world accepts.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

          Unfortunately, here in the U.S., the Three Mile Island incident, and the ensuing paranoia about Herhsy Bars that glow in the dark, made it policically unpalatable.

          Had we continued with our nascent fast breeder reactor program we might well now not be having this discussion.

        • #2535351
          Avatar photo

          A few problems associated with these

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yeah, But Al Gore is Still To Blame!

          [i]What about nuclear power? It is environmentally friendly and extremely efficient.[/i]

          With an efficiency rating of 18% they are first thing hardly efficient from any prospective and can be downright [b]Bloody Dangerous[/b] The US Reactors because they have a Water Insulator between inner and outer pressure vessels are inherently far more dangerous than the Russian Made Reactors which use sand as an Insulator between the inner and outer vessels. It was the Silica used by the Russians that made the Chernobyl event far less damaging that it should have been.

          If 3 Mile Island had of suffered that type of Catastrophic failure the People of the US would be extremely worried about their Reactors particularly the Fast Breeder type that they like so much.

          Now the real truth about Nuclear Powered Electricity generating systems. They are horrendously expensive to build, maintain and have an extremely short life so the costs for the generated electricity that they produce are more expensive than conventional coal fired Power Stations. Then they also have a massive waste problem that as yet no one has been capable of solving when used fuel rods are consumed they need to be stored somewhere safe where there is no chance of them getting loose. To date no one has found a solution to this problem and are stockpiling their rubbish in abandoned buildings hoping for a solution to be found. To date the best form of storage was found by accident when Chernobyl went into a Full Melt Down and exposed the core materials to the outside world when the hot stuff eventually cooled down the really dangerous stuff was encased in Glass and relatively safe. Unfortunately this only applied to the bottom of that particular reactor and not the top which to this day remains exposed to the atmosphere.

          Then there is the problem that if Nuclear Power is the answer to everything why is there any concern when countries who don’t already have it want it? Why complain about Iran wanting to build their own Nuclear Power Plants?

          The current generation of Hot Water Reactors are both expensive to build and maintain and extremely dangerous the next generation which is currently being developed in China look much safer and far more cost effective to run and don’t have any problems with a Core Melt down as they rely on removable balls encasing the nuclear fuel so a decrease in cooling water level has no adverse effects like what happened at 3 Mile Island.

          But there is still the problem with what you do with the spent fuel once it’s been 50% consumed as the thermal reaction drops dramatically after that point.

          But no matter what any Nuclear Reactor is still dangerous subject to severe unknown damage by tectonic activity and still to date no known way of safely storing the spent fuel and other contaminated materials which is the biggest problem that is associated with this type of power generation plant.

          Col

        • #2535212

          Where On Earth?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to A few problems associated with these

          First off, modern reactors use liquid sodium as a moderator and not water. It hardens when in contact with air preventing spills and clogs the breach minimizing risk. Spent Uranium can be enriched and used again. Regarding efficiencies, a slug the size of a softball can power a city for 40,000 for 25 years or longer before enriching and reusing it. There are no carbon emissions and no sulfur emissions.

          Second, as for waste disposal, it is placed into stainless steel cans and date stamped. The can is stored in a cave dug into a granite mountain then inserted into a granite hole with its lid showing. The waste can be enriched and reused or it can be depleted to lead.

          Third, Three Mile Island was more hype than anything else. The system acted properly and contained Dueterium in a holding tank. BTW Dueterium is heavy water found in every glass of water one drinks. The biggest issue was what to do with the Dueterium. Everything else was what-if scenario paranoia.

          Fourth, Chernobyl proved that humans are far more dangerous than their technology. While the Chernobyl reactor was by all standards (even US Standards) a poor design, it was human stupidity that exasperated it.

          Sixth, the enviro-facist who are making a ruckus over Global Warming also make a ruckus over alternative energy sources. These whackos have no solutions just worries and desire to take the civil society back to the days of campfires and caves. OH! I forgot campfires create carbon emissions. I looks like they just want us to go back to caves and raw meat.

          Seventh, there is no major issue regarding tectonic forces, earthquakes. Numerous strucutures are constructed successful that withstand these natural forces.

          Responsible countries have an alternative solution of nuclear energy. It is safe and reliable source of energy.

        • #2537295
          Avatar photo

          I’m really impressed with your Total Lack of Knowledge

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Where On Earth?

          I suppose that these are the lies being told to you by the relevant authorities right?

          I seem to remember a while ago that some Earthquake Proof highways collapsed and killed several hundred people, but my concern with Teutonic activity isn’t related to the reactors but to the Holding Tanks which are especially vulnerable to this type of activity and leads to contamination of the surrounding Water Table.

          But you didn’t address the main thrust of the entire posting Nuclear Reactors for Power generation are Expensive to Build, Expensive to Maintain and have a short life compared to a coal fired power station. Who is it that pays for these reactors? It’s defiantly not the companies who make them or use them it’s members of the General Public who are the ones paying the increased power bills.

          You are also similarly misguided about the ability to recover exposed or contaminated material as while it it technically possible to render it down to lead it’s also horrendously expensive and not worth the effort for low level contaminated materials.

          Using the same argument with Nuclear Physics it’s possible to turn Lead into Gold but the Gold that you produce would cost more to make than to buy.

          But no matter what Chernobyl is a Perfect example of [b]The China Syndrome Occurring[/b] which is exactly what did happen there but because of the insulation material between pressure vessels it was contained and didn’t eat its way through the concrete floor into the ground water and produce a massive problem that would have been impossible to deal with.

          But this is the one that I just love. [i]Responsible countries have an alternative solution of nuclear energy. It is safe and reliable source of energy.[/i]

          Welcome Iran to the World Club of cheap safe Electricity join right in and do everything that you like as you are helping to preserve the planet. Pity that the idiot politicians have got in the way complaining isn’t it?

          Col

    • #2535410

      Input of Solar radiation is but one input variable, …

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      in a multi-input system.

      As noted above, the end result is not solely dependent on how much radiant energy the Earth receives from the Sun, the overwhelming majority of which is [b]not[/b] thermal energy, but how much is and is not returned to space.

      For a given level of IR reflectants in the atmosphere, an increase in Solar radiational influx will simply result in Earth’s thermal energy rising at an even faster pace.

      • #2535318

        Is it the sun? Could it possibly be?

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to Input of Solar radiation is but one input variable, …

        deep said, “an increase in Solar radiational influx will simply result in Earth’s thermal energy rising at an even faster pace.”

        Yep. It is the sun. We have found the source of the warmth. I always suspected it. Right from my first summer day…

        Of course that confers no additional power on any particular group so it must be dismissed. Right deep?

    • #2537527

      “Global Warming” is the biggest crock of crap ever. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      …..perpetrated on mankind. I’m amazed at how otherwise intelligent people fall for all of it and buy into the junk science.

      However, after years of being one of the few to question such a stupid suggestion that mankind’s activities are causing global warming, and/or climate change, and/or global cooling, and/or more severe weather, and/or more mild weather, and/or melting glaciers, and/or advancing glaciers, and/or….(and they even tried to blame earthquakes and a tsunami on it until they were laughed off the planet!), I’m beginning to see more and more information published that debunks the myth. And I’m also beginning to see more and more information that actually questions the motives of those advancing such a silly notion.

      By the way, I’m selling carbon credits at $100 a pop. How many do you all want to buy? And remember, it’ll be saving the planet! So stock up and use them wisely.

    • #2537480
    • #2537479
    • #2537477
      • #2537437

        To a certain extent, I agree with you

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

        The politicisation of this issue has me every bit as disturbed as it has you. In the US, so far, you are doing relatively little to reduce carbon emissions so the environmentalists are ramping up the rhetoric at an alarming rate with respect to the effects and the speed of onset. When I see environmental scepticism labelled as “Holocaust denial”, I get a trifle annoyed!

        Over here there’s still a lot of apathy and the politicians and committed doom merchants are at it as well. “Climate Catastrophe” is the new black.

        What do we do about getting a proper debate and independent research?

        • #2536181

          You and I couldn’t meet “half-way”, but we could. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To a certain extent, I agree with you

          …..meet somewhere in between. I’m all for a clean environment, less (or no) pollution, etc, but there’s no way I’ll ever be convinced (at least with today’s “evidence”) that such pollution (or whatever you want to call it) parlays itself into affecting the global temperature and/or global climate, at least not on a permanent and/or catastrophic scale. I’ll certainly concede that snowfall, for example, can be made dirty falling through a polluted sky, but there’s no way that polluted sky (or emissions) is affecting the weather patterns. Hell, a weather forecaster is lucky to predict a week out; and these “expert climatologists” are predicting doom-and-gloom 100 years out. Give me a friggin’ break!

          If there was an impartial jury to hear the case, listening to both the prosecution and the defense, and they had to base their ruling on evidence that presented the case beyond a reasonable doubt, mankind would certainly be acquitted of causing global warming or climate change, or anything else other than dirty air. And no, it’s not even close enough to reasonable doubt to justify acting or being alarmed “just in case”. Add to that the fact that those screaming the loudest aren’t doing anything about it themselves, it all points to nothing but a big scam.

          And think about this. If “some” arctic ice IS melting, (but Antarctic ice isn’t) how can it be due to “global warming” air temperatures that never rise above zero degrees Fahrenheit? It’s colder than hell up there! And ice won’t melt with such cold temperatures. How is it happening then, one might ask? How about the INTERNAL temperatures of the earth, increasing volcanic activity, and such.

          Sorry, Neil. If I’m on the jury, I say not guilty to mankind for causing these things. Moreover, I say guilty to a lot of people for the attempted extortion of mankind.

        • #2537216

          What to do?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to To a certain extent, I agree with you

          neil said, “What do we do about getting a proper debate and independent research?”

          I wouldn’t worry about it. If there is anything to the science it will stand the test of time and peer review. We will all come around to agreeing with its assumptions, when it is shown that it can predict correctly what is occurring.

          But if it is not real it will fall on its own. That is why I say the “science” is less interesting than the politics, and lots less dangerous.

        • #2537016

          Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to What to do?

          It’s good to know that, as London sinks into he Thames, that I’ll be able to come over there and slap you a resounding “Told you so!”. Unless I’ve drowned, of course.

          🙂

          I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting. We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians and scientists from the US, the world at large and ([i]shudder![/i]) the perfidious United Nations who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy and enslaving your people into a lifetime of dependency hand-outs and control. Yet your government is doing NOTHING. The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you’re even doing that ineffectually. Actually, “totally crap” would be a better description.

          SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

          Sit back, shut up and let the rest of the developed world tie itself in knots over Kyoto and others. Oh, you are. Except for the “shut up” bit, of course.

          All we did back in the Clinton days was ask you – nicely – to stop producing [b]quite[/b] so much carbon dioxide as you currently produce. Back then, you agreed (a bit) but since you’ve had this CLOWN in charge, you’d think that we wanted to bend you over a table and perform international rape!

          Ah, well. You saved our asses in five world wars, two alien invasions and at least six meteorite strikes so we should be grateful. I’d be speaking German, no, Russian, no, I’d be an incubator for a giant beetle inhabitant of the planet Smeeegheeed if it wasn’t for you.

          The planet is your plaything. We can’t stop you f’cking it up so we shouldn’t even try.

        • #2536961

          Neil said, [i]Yet your government is doing NOTHING[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          Okay, what’s your point? Personally speaking, I love it when our government does nothing. That’s what OUR government is supposed to be doing — NOTHING to infringe on individual liberties. When the time is right and when the people are so inclined, the market will do something.

          This is one thing I can point to as an illustration to PROVE the “global warming scare” is a bunch of bunk. If it were genuine, those “individuals” beating the drum the loudest would be DOING SOMETHING! But they’re not, and their inaction speaks volumes.

          In the meantime, I’m all in favor of our government DOING NOTHING!

        • #2536907

          Then why are YOU getting excited?

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil said, [i]Yet your government is doing NOTHING[/i]

          You and sn53 and others are getting exactly what you want in terms of your government’s response to issues of climate change and yet the vitriol that you pour onto the “leftist environmentalist whacko traitors” is extreme.

          I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration and watch the World’s greatest polluter continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen. There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).

          I accept that we, as foreigners, have no “right” to say or do anything contrary to the will of the mighty US but you have to accept that at the very least “IT PISSES US OFF”.

          Ah well. We can wait and see what the next administration does.

          🙂

        • #2536900

          Do I really need to answer this?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Because there are forces, from both within and without, who ARE trying to force the government to do something. Without resistance and dissent, they’d get their way. But actually, if one really studies the “actions” of those advocates, one has to wonder why 8 years of a Clinton-Gore administration ALSO did nothing.

          P.S. The [i]”vitriol that you pour onto the leftist environmentalist whacko traitors is extreme”[/i]? Oh really? Well, Neil, those leftist environmentalist whacko traitors, of whom you speak, advocate having ME tried for crimes against humanity for my “global warming” denial. And you call ME extreme?

        • #2515348

          Yes, but I don’t

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          want to put you on trial for Climate Denial.

          Actually, I’m interested in finding out if you’ve really room to moan. I’ve had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there’s a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into “The Greenest City in the World”.

          Neil 🙂

        • #2515307

          Why the global warming zealots are dangerous (Rant Warning!)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Frivolous lawsuits, in the name of global warming, being filed against auto makers (and others?). It will achieve absolutely nothing, except add to the cost of an automobile, not to mention the fact that it will place additional burdens on an already struggling auto industry. We need to find ways to boost our auto industry, not beat it down even more.

          CO2 “reduction measures”, by way of regulation and control. Any attempt at forcing business and industry to adopt “new technologies” before the natural market forces lead to such change, will only cost the consumer more to purchase that particular product or service.

          Carbon credits and/or carbon taxes, especially the ones being advanced by the United Nations. The power of taxation is the power of control. We’ve seen it in the USA since 1913, and the United Nations is foaming at the mouth to get its claws of control into the USA. No thanks. Moreover, if the USA’s very own global warming zealots get their way, you can bet your sweet bippie that some sort of carbon tax is on the horizon. (By the way, what’s a bippie?)

          The Democrat Party and the Democrat Party activists are using “global warming” as a wedge issue, one to influence people to vote for them. Their disingenuous claims are a veiled attempt to scare voters, hopefully securing their support for the sole purpose of gaining power. Once in power, they can then use their positions to advance their more socialist agenda (nationalized health care, for example, something that would never fly unless they’re in the majority).

          I could go on, but that will do for now.

          —– Rant warning!

          Bottom line: It never was, it isn’t now, and it never will be about [i]protecting the environment or saving the planet[/i]. It’s about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won’t let you drill for your own. And on it goes.

          Not only that, but all the advocates make me want to puke. All the disingenuous Al Gores of the world are sickening. I don’t want them preaching to me, all the while not doing what they ask others to do. I can’t stand hypocrites, and they’re hypocrites of the worst kind. And to segue into another example, people like Bono preaching to the world to spend more money to “help the poor”, all the while taking his own money out of his very own country in order to avoid taxes. They’re all advocates for some pet cause, one that in reality, they couldn’t care less about. They do it to get exposure, to sell books, to sell films, and stroke their own over-inflated egos. And they take the public for being fools, trying to get them to buy into it. (Of course, some of them are so damn stupid, they have no idea what they’re spewing.)

          And it’s the politicians and advocates, not only leading the pack of global warming zealots, but who make up almost ALL of the “cause”. It’s 99 percent all this crap, and only 1 percent science. And people like Colin have the nerve to suggest I’m always dragging politics into the issue. He has it bass-ackwards!

          —– End of rant!

        • #2515176

          I don’t mean to pick on you Neil

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          “You and sn53 and others are getting exactly what you want in terms of your government’s response”

          True. Today. But there are socialists in the wings would would be King. They love Euro-socialists more than their country or its Constitution. We must remain vigilant.

          “…and yet the vitriol that you pour onto the “leftist environmentalist whacko traitors” is extreme.”

          Leftist environmental whacko is an accurate label. “Traitors” is another thread. It is for people who are working for their nation’s defeat. Being stupid is not traitorous, just stupid.

          “I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration”

          You may do as you wish with your own country. Just keep your hands off my freedoms and liberty. It really doesn’t matter that you “feel”.

          “and watch the World’s greatest polluter”

          Really? Is that some sort of a record? The World’s Greatest Polluter”? Wow. I had no idea. Everywhere I look around me is clean.

          The former communist nations are the truly dirty places, the truly polluted places.

          “continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen.”

          Or continue on as if global change has always occurred and will continue to occur. Even if it hurts your feelings.

          “There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).”

          My advice to you is for you to bloom where you were planted. If you feel strongly about it then do whatever you think you must in your country. And leave mine alone.

          “I accept that we, as foreigners, have no “right” to say or do anything contrary to the will of the mighty US”

          We agree after all.

          “but you have to accept that at the very least “IT PISSES US OFF”.”

          But you see, I don’t really care if you don’t like it. I think your real problem just might be p e n i s envy.

          “Ah well. We can wait and see what the next administration does.”

          Here is to hoping for a Euro-socialist to control the US. That really is the hope of the world, isn’t it?

        • #2515167

          re: “but you have to accept” – Au, contraire!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          [i]I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration and watch the World’s greatest polluter continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen. There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol’ US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn’t deny THAT, at least).[/i]

          Build me an electric…does Britain even manufacture any automobiles any more?

          I hope the irony isn’t lost on you, Neil.

        • #2515150

          maxwell edison is right: “It’s about control.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          You can see it in neilb’s message:

          “Actually, I’m interested in finding out if you’ve really room to moan. (Translation: I want to know if you’re likely to suffer enough for my liking.) I’ve had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. ([b]No exposure?[/b] You know a great deal about GWB’s climate policies, when it suits you to know [b]that![/b]) Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there’s a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into “The Greenest City in the World”. (Translation: I want to know if you’re likely to suffer as much as I expect to suffer.)

          maxwell edison:

          “It’s about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won’t let you drill for your own. And on it goes.”

          People who expect the right to control they haven’t earned make me [b]sick![/b]

          Maxwell, I apologize for not being clearer about the politics of this issue all along. I’ve been recently paying attention to the cultural aspects of the various parties to this and some other debates, and I’m decided: Leftists can kiss my hairy mule!

          I’ll be looking into the scientific research you have posted to support your position next, but I plan to be thorough, so I might not say much about it for a while.

        • #2516054

          Absolutely: A few, but generally smaller engined…

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          But every bit as fast and mostly faster than the total slug of a car that I hired when I was in the US last.

          Irony only works if the statement that you make is actually obviously untrue.

          🙂

        • #2516029

          But of course Britain also produces such economical cars as

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          The Aston Martin, Land Rover, Jaguar, Lotus, TVR etc.

          Though to be fair there is a Jag with a diesel engine which is relatively economical.

          But it is true that Britains and europeans tend to drive smaller cars. Your roads are smaller, your city streets smaller, you gas incredibly expensive. You will find that places like Quebec City, which have narrow streets similar to European cities, also tend to favour small cars.

          I love watching Top Gear (BBC car show) review American cars and scowl, but simply put they are built for wider, straighter roads where handling is not as important, and gas is relatively cheap.

          James
          James

        • #2516004

          re: “Irony only works if…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          I completely forgot about Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover, and your other marvels of fuel-efficiency!

          :p

        • #2515941

          How could I forget

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lotus….

          But to be fair again, Ford in UK builds mostly small cars as do Rover, Vauxhaul.

          You know what, I realize that in terms of numbers, UK has more auto manufacturers than the US, though some of them are in financial turmoil.

          James

        • #2515938

          Jaguar, Range Rover, etc

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          OK, I’ll take my lumps on those but until I see the likes of the Ford Ka or (bletch!) the Smart on US roads in large numbers, I’ll continue to reckon that I’m ahead on points.

          http://www.pepecar.com/img/vehiculo/ford_ka_g.jpg
          http://dailygameplan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fortwo_smart_car_5.jpg

          Neil :p

          p.s. Don’t come the old crap about you “driving more”. The reason that I owe Maxwell a steak is that I lost a bet about the difference in per capita miles between the US and UK and it was closer that I thought!

        • #2515932

          Smart Car and Ka

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          Well actually there was the Ford Festiva which was sold in the US (it was a Kia, before Kias were marketed in NA).

          The Smart Car has been sold in Canada for a couple of years now – there are a few in my neighbourhood actually. I understand the Penkse group is going to import them into the US (in Canada, they are sold at Mercedes Benz dealers, as they are MB cars).

          The Smart Car by the way is roughly HALF the price of a Prius and gets pretty great mileage(in Canada its diesel only and gets about 60 mpg). But the Toyota Yaris is cheaper and seats 4, and gets pretty good mileage too.

          James

        • #2515927

          Neil, do you play poker?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why are YOU getting excited?

          I’ve made a couple of “bets” with you: I lost the one about outfitting the space shuttle (or some other existing craft) so it could make a quick trip to the moon, but I lost nothing. But you lost a steak dinner with the other bet. Therefore, when I lose, I eat crow; when you lose, I eat steak. Either way I get fed.

          You gotta’ know when to hold em’, know when to fold em’, and know when to raise the stakes (or steaks!). Do you play poker? I’d love to invite you to a game.

          (But wait a minute, I’ve already choked on the crow, but have yet to feast on the steak!)

        • #2536949

          Neil, you said. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          [i]It’s good to know that, as London sinks into the Thames…..[/i]

          I assume you’re referring to the alleged “rising sea levels”. If so, how do you reply to this?

          Q: What is the most dangerous untrue “fact” about global warming that’s out there in the media-sphere?

          A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2185646

          (Or are you going to solely rely on discrediting that Singer fellow?)

        • #2515355

          Assume nothing

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil, you said. . . .

          London is sinking, anyway, a little faster than the historic sea-level rise as England is tilting. I think we can cope with a sustained, slow, predictable rise in sea level.

          The real issue is if the weather systems get more energetic due to increased energy input from warmer seas. London is vulnerable to storm surges down the North Sea and this is why we have a barrier across the Thames to prevent very high tides from funnelling up the Thames. The tidal range outside of my window is up to 23 feet on a normal spring tide and there’s only about 4 feet of clearance to the top of the river wall. (It’s around this level that they shut the barrier.) It wouldn’t take much of a tidal surge at high spring tide to trash the city. The sort of values that surges currently have are around 8 feet for a good storm. The highest storm surge in the last five hundred years plus a high spring tide would top the existing barrier tomorrow if it happened.

          As for the sea-level rise. Yes, of course, it has been regular for a considerable length of time. The projections are, though, for it to accelerate [b]in the future[/b] so any number of studies showing what [b]has[/b] happened won’t do either of us any good in predicting what [b]will[/b] happen.

          Neil 😀

          As for Singer, I’ve no wish or need to discredit him. He’s just on the other end of the skeptical bell-curve from the “environmentalist whackos”.

        • #2515174

          Predictions

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          neil wrote, “The projections are, though, for it to accelerate in the future so any number of studies showing what has happened won’t do either of us any good in predicting what will happen.”

          There just may be a reason why the doom and gloom is all projected/predicted.

          If the science is real it will stand the test of time and peer review. We have the time as the gloomy predictions are all in the future. We must act NOW because if we don’t my model shows I will lose my funding…

        • #2515017

          Let’s say there is no such thing as human caused

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          global warming, but there is global warming.
          So sea level’s are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water.

          So seeing as it’s not ‘our’ fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads?

          Huh?

          In the words of Mr Cheney.

          If you uropeans want to make your industries less profitable by dealing with pollution, go right ahead, we are going to make more bucks.

          Live on CNN, he said that, p1ssed off the rest of the world in one sentence.

          Making a buck now is more important to america than the future of the human race.

          Blame him, not your democrats and not us.
          Him and people like him are as guilty of the polarisation and politicisation of the issue as stumpy the commie eco-freak.

        • #2515954

          Tony, are you always so ignorant?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          You asked, [i]”Let’s say there is no such thing as human caused global warming, but there is global warming. So sea level’s are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water. So seeing as it’s not ‘our’ fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads? Huh?”[/i]

          No, Tony. You deal with it. Are you so feeble that you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what to do? You just deal with things that happen in life, Tony. You just deal with them and do what’s necessary!

          The rest of your message is pure and meaningless crap.

          You said, [i]”Making a buck now is more important to America than the future of the human race…”[/i]

          Get real, you pompous ignorant jerk! (And you wonder why many Americans, including this one, couldn’t care less what you think!)

        • #2515945

          Dealing with natural disasters and/or natural changes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          I’m amazed at how people are so feeble and helpless when it comes to dealing with life. Not to mention people’s inability to cope in society without having to vote themselves the fruits of another’s labor, but whenever the wind blows they’re friggin’ helpless. Our very own California coast is eroding, but if the New Orleans residents lived on top of the hill, they wouldn’t have the sense to move east without someone holding their hands telling them where to go and what to do. Are Londoners like that as well, Tony? Are you so helpless that you won’t know what to do if the waters rise?

          It’s said the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what may have started out as good intentions to help people has ended up making them as helpless as little babies. The [i]”government is there to solve all problems”[/i] mentality has created a bunch of dependents and/or pansies.

          I pity people like you, Tony, who apparently can’t cope with life’s problems without blaming other people for them and/or expecting other people to solve them for you. It’s no wonder you lost your empire! (And it’s the reason we’ll lose ours if we can’t turn it around.)

        • #2514948

          Anyways, Hopkinson, if your city is in imminent danger

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Assume nothing

          you want to hire the Dutch. Even if the United States goes along with your little request, don’t you think we’d ruin it, like we did the Colonies?

          :p

        • #2514958

          Praise him

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Neil, you said. . . .

          Tony wrote, “In the words of Mr Cheney.

          If you uropeans want to make your industries less profitable by dealing with pollution, go right ahead, we are going to make more bucks.”

          If you Europeans want to take yourself out of the running by making yourselves feel better that is okay with me. Just don’t expect my sympathy.

          “Live on CNN, he said that, p1ssed off the rest of the world in one sentence.”

          Thank goodness we still have one or two leaders with testicles. The effeminate Europeans have only one or two decent leaders and you don’t like or appreciate them. Your Tony Blair is magnificent.

          “Making a buck now is more important to America than the future of the human race.”

          Ha! You need to get over yourself. Prospering is more important than the self-indulgent global warming silliness that you are so enamoured of.

          “Blame him, not your democrats and not us.”

          I am sure you meant praise him.

          “Him and people like him are as guilty of the polarisation and politicisation of the issue as stumpy the commie eco-freak.”

          I think he is guilty of not suffering fools gladly. Feel polarized if you wish.

        • #2514885
          Avatar photo

          And the funny thing here is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Praise him

          Recently I bought a couple of Bell Crash Helmets something that has always been good old USA Made and what did I find when they arrived Made In Italy on the box and inside the Helmets.

          Wasn’t a surprise as a couple of years ago i found this out and was appalled that Bell was no longer making Crash Helmets in the USA but I find it funny that you are willing to accept the extra costs in producing something in Europe which is [b]Clean & Green[/b] and still refuse to accept that you can make money without destroying parts of the environment.

          But as you’re sure that Man can not have any adverse influence on the environment I have some Commercial Fishing Licenses Available for you to buy to Fish Parts of Sydney Harbour where eating the fish will poising both you and your children and anyone else silly enough to eat these fish.

          Col

        • #2516917

          Col, Bell is just one company.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Praise him

          “Recently I bought a couple of Bell Crash Helmets something that has always been good old USA Made and what did I find when they arrived Made In Italy on the box and inside the Helmets.

          Wasn’t a surprise as a couple of years ago i found this out and was appalled that Bell was no longer making Crash Helmets in the USA but I find it funny that you are willing to accept the extra costs in producing something in Europe which is Clean & Green and still refuse to accept that you can make money without destroying parts of the environment.”

          [i]How[/i] “clean & green”? How does any increase in cost compare to the savings in labor?

          $$$$$$$

          “But as you’re sure that Man can not have any adverse influence on the environment I have some Commercial Fishing Licenses Available for you to buy to Fish Parts of Sydney Harbour where eating the fish will poising both you and your children and anyone else silly enough to eat these fish.”

          I see you have a straw man. It’s no match for my flamethrower.

        • #2515182

          Minor Rant?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          neil wrote, “I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting.”

          We agree on this.

          “We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians”

          And those with a certain kind of herd-mentality who eagerly and willingly act as their accomplices in whipping up hysteria.

          “and scientists from the US,”

          I am fine with scientists doing what scientists do. Just keep in mind that they are in it for the money. They live or die by their research grants. Do they get more money if they say there is no problem or if they claim that we are right on the brink of the end of life as we know it?

          “the world at large and (shudder!) the perfidious United Nations”

          Corrupt. And ineffective. Did I mention corrupt?

          “who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy”

          Read the treaty. It sets the US back to the bronze age. It has no impact on the chief “offenders”.

          “Yet your government is doing NOTHING.”

          Thank goodness.

          “The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you’re even doing that ineffectually.”

          Let’s see. If we use less oil from the middle east you fault us? Interesting. Would you go completely crazy if we become energy sufficient without mid-east oil?

          “SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?”

          I do not have a problem. I am not a True Believer. It is the True Believers who seem to have all of the problems.

          “Sit back, shut up and let the rest of the developed world tie itself in knots over Kyoto and others.”

          Perfect. If you and your governments are wacky enough to want to return to the Bronze age that is your choice. The countries who do so will soon be found on the ash heap of history. For some countries that may be entirely appropriate.

          “All we did back in the Clinton days was ask you – nicely – to stop producing quite so much carbon dioxide as you currently produce.”

          Yeah? Why? Junk science?

          “Back then, you agreed (a bit) but since you’ve had this CLOWN in charge, you’d think that we wanted to bend you over a table and perform international rape!”

          You are free to do as you wish. So are we.

          “Ah, well. You saved our asses in five world wars, two alien invasions and at least six meteorite strikes so we should be grateful. I’d be speaking German, no, Russian, no, I’d be an incubator for a giant beetle inhabitant of the planet Smeeegheeed if it wasn’t for you.”

          True.

          “The planet is your plaything. We can’t stop you f’cking it up so we shouldn’t even try.”

          You may do whatever you wish. And we will do whatever we wish. Sounds good to me.

        • #2514906

          re: “SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Test of time. Minor rant warning…

          What is yours?

          [i]I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting. We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians and scientists from the US, the world at large and (shudder!) the perfidious United Nations who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy and enslaving your people into a lifetime of dependency hand-outs and control. Yet your government is doing NOTHING. The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you’re even doing that ineffectually. (Right, we don’t quite give a sh!t about screwing the other guy when there’s no possibility of profit for ourselves.) Actually, “totally crap” would be a better description.[/i]

          OK, so we’re not “doing Kyoto” like you hoped. Therefore, what? Are you trying something new, or trying the same tactic that already malfunctioned? I have seen the truism that insanity consists of doing the same thing while expecting differenet results ‘this time’ attributed to one of the United States’ Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin I believe it was. According to ‘quotiki’, the first result delivered by Yahoo.com, Albert Einstein said that. Whatever. Nobody’s paying me to be right about this quote, so I don’t give enough of a sh!t to be careful about the original source. Certainly, it is a popular belief this side of the pond. Get used to it.

          Seriously, you just don’t know how to talk to Americans. You need to remember this is the home of the Ponzi scheme. Even if it’s outrageous, when you propose an environmentalist course of action (We call it “selling” an idea even when we’re talking about politics! Mull that over, mate.) what you have to do is think of something that will benefit the environment, then think of how somebody could imagine making a buck off that course of action. You will not believe how capitalists respond to the remotest of unlikely possibilities of $$$$$$$$$ !

          Oh, and for more anecdotal evidence, don’t forget our Lottos. Sure, other countries have church raffles or whatever, but nobody wastes their life savings $1 at a time like the Yanks!

        • #2516582

          How to get a proper debate…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to To a certain extent, I agree with you

          To get a proper debate on every topic, challenge rigorously every claim that implies any compromise of your liberties, be they essential or only pleasant. Here in the United States, many of us still believe that anybody who wants to limit our behaviour, in any way, had better have a [b]fully valid reason[/b]. This tends to provoke debates, which frequently devolve to excessively petty levels, but some of them also have value. Challenge the stated premises, and the implied assumptions of those premises, and the tyrants will be on the run for a change.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2188709

      • #2515161

        Antarctica [i]gaining[/i] ice?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

        That is the first I have ever read of such a thing! Clearly, I have more research to do…

        • #2516376

          Ah, he said [i]snow[/i], not ice.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Antarctica [i]gaining[/i] ice?

          It is the calving of ice shelves which serves to raise the ocean level; snowfall is here of no consequence.

        • #2516262

          The article mentioned snowfall on Kilimanjaro & ice gain in Antarctica.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Ah, he said [i]snow[/i], not ice.

          http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2006/18/global_warming.html

          “Allegre also pointed out that studies show that Antarctic snowfall rate has been stable over the past 30 years, and the continent is actually gaining ice”

        • #2534106

          “the [i]continent[/i] is actually gaining ice”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The article mentioned snowfall on Kilimanjaro & ice gain in Antarctica.

          It is only the ice [i]shelves[/i] which break free of their continental support, and then float in the water, that serve to both raise the ocean level and decrease its salinity.

          And, an increase of either snow or ice on the Antarctic continent itself have no effect on it albedo.

        • #2533399

          Yes, the continent.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “the [i]continent[/i] is actually gaining ice”

          [i]It is only the ice shelves which break free of their continental support, and then float in the water, that serve to both raise the ocean level and decrease its salinity.[/i]

          It would be logical to assume that with the seasonal cycles, there are some ice shelves which break free of the continental support, [b]naturally[/b], and that on average, absent a temperature increase trend, the breaking of those shelves would be approximately matched, averaging over several years, by snowfall on the surface of the continent. More data is needed than just [i]some ice breaks free of the continent.[/i] How much? How much is added in the form of precipitation? Is there equilibrium in these processes, or not?

          [i]And, an increase of either snow or ice on the Antarctic continent itself have no effect on it albedo.[/i]

          I did not suppose that it would.

      • #2515159

        Impressive credentials!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

        [i]But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth’s crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l’ Express and his revulsion at the [b]nihilistic[/b] nature of the climate research debate.[/i]

        I have [b]much[/b] more to learn!

    • #2535711

      Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      Global Warming is not (was not) a scientific discovery, per se, that went on a search for political support, but rather a political agenda that went on a search for scientific justification. (At best it may have also been a scientific theory that went on a search for research money!) Its premise, if you will, has a foundation in politics (or money), not science. For you (and others) to insist on debating just the science only shows that you’re missing the bigger picture — and the bigger piece of that picture.

      Moreover, you’re about as qualified as Brittany Spears to debate “science”. What are your qualifications? What’s your expertise? If you were called as an expert witness in a trial and were asked such a question, your reply of [i]”I read it in a science magazine”[/i] would not only disqualify you, but it’d turn you into a laughing stock. At best, all you could possibly do is present an expert on your behalf.

      My expert witness, Professor William Gray of Colorado State University, says [i]Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause.”[/i]

      Okay, your expert witness will challenge that.

      Then I call to the stand my second expert witness, Dr. Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and currently president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group. The Q&A might go something like this:

      [i]Q: Here’s a line from a recent Mother Jones article: “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise.” Is that true?

      A: It’s completely unsupported by any observation, but it’s supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.

      Q: What’s the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening?

      A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight — a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.

      Q: An epic New Yorker series said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it because of global warming?

      A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then it cooled. And it’s warming again, but it hasn’t reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That’s the best prediction.

      Q: What is the most dangerous untrue “fact” about global warming that’s out there in the media-sphere?

      A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

      Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him?

      A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate.

      Q: How did you become “the godfather of global warming denial”?

      A: That’s easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called “The global effects of environmental pollution.” At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.

      Q: Climate is extremely complicated — is that a true statement?

      A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It’s just too complicated.[/i]

      Okay, your witness, Absolutely

      But here’s another of mine:

      Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for University of Alabama, says, [i]”Belief in dangerous manmade global warming is as much faith-based as it is science-based.” [/i] (Oh my! FAITH based? And the athiests Absolutely, Neil, and deepsand are banging this drum the loudest around here!)

      http://www.capca-carolinas.org/Fall%202006%20Presentations/Roy%20W.%20Spencer.pdf

      ….. and on it goes. At best, you call yours, I call mine, you call another, I’ll call another….. Therefore, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS in the “scientific community”.

      Which brings us to the politics of the issue, and therein lies the real debate. For some reason, however, you fail to see that.

      • #2535534

        I Tend Agree…

        by fluxit ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        There is nothing scientific about a scientific consensus. It is a group agreement on a sentiment or belief. I don’t know what is scientific about a sentiment or belief. If the science was clear then there would no need for a belief or sentiment; a consensus.

        To date I have heard three different sciences on the order behind Global Warming. One is the blanket in the sky of greenhouse gases, another is a themodynamic explanation, and the third is this IR radiance theory. So what is it?

        I am not convinced that Global Warming is an honest threat to humanity. I am convinced that there are people who believe that. I am also convinced that Planetary Warming and climate has mechanics to it involving gases and vapors in the atmosphere. But given the sheer magnitude of numbers we are working with, they are nearly surreal. Human influence on these scales is nearly unmentionable.

        This was the thrust of demonstrating the percentage of the total composition of air to the total contibution to pollution. Even if I looked CO2 alone the order of magnitudes between the contribution and natural density remains far apart. This is not much of a significant impact.

        I wonder why then, for what purpose, is Global Warming being touted. On the surface obviously are environmental concerns but there seems to be more to it than that given the mix of people and the fevor that Global Warming instills in certain kinds of people.

      • #2537170

        No further witnesses, Your Honor.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        I’m not trying to be right, I’m looking for The Truth. And what I have seen is that American Leftists are extremely suspect, and not interested in safeguarding any Individual Rights, [i]unless it allows them to take away somebody else’s[/i]. I’m going to Google your researchers from Princeton and Colorado State and Alabama before I reply. When I do, I won’t promise deepsand that it will be to rebut.

      • #2537161
        Avatar photo

        UM Maxwell are you aware that the Dr. Fred Singer

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        That you are quoting here is the same Dr. Fred Singer who claimed that there was no evidence to link smoking to cancer of the lungs or any other disease? He also insisted that as he was funded by the Tobacco Industry he wasn’t swayed in his opinion or the outcomes of his Scientific Testing. According to this Scientist Smoking shows no adverse Health effects and has no signs of being Addictive.

        For some strange unexplainable reason I’m more than slightly suspect of this particular persons ability to be capable of coming up with something that is both acceptable and real.

        Col

        • #2537159

          Are you being disingenuous or were you misled?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to UM Maxwell are you aware that the Dr. Fred Singer

          Correct yourself.

        • #2537023
          Avatar photo

          Well Maxwell I’m back now that I’ve got that dirty

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Are you being disingenuous or were you misled?

          4 Letter word [b]WORK[/b] out of the road and you want what exactly?

          The good Dr who you mentioned above has recently been involved in Climate change Studies Allegedly but he has also undertook at least 3 studies funded by Phillip Morris to debunk the theory that Smoking had any adverse Health affects.

          He has presented evidence several times to various US Government enquiries saying that firstly there is not direct Scientific Proof that those who Smoke have a higher chance of Lung Cancer than those who don’t, he’s also on record as saying that from his observations that Smoking isn’t Addictive and has gone on to say that Secondhand Smoke has no adverse Side Effects on those not smoking. The fact that you can not find anything with a quick Goggle search doesn’t meant that it didn’t happen and that there is no evidence of him doing this just that he hasn’t [b]Published[/b] anything of merit along these lines that has been accepted by any reputable Scientific Publication. As for his evidence you would have to look up the various Enquiries held by the US Federal Government into the Tobacco Industry. It’s there my friend without a shadow of a doubt he’s the same man that I saw 2 nights ago on TV saying that Smoking had no adverse side effects to a Congressional Committee.

          When Looking at the link here where they have his photo

          http://tinyurl.com/2kqysb

          It’s the same man who not only appeared before a televised US Government Enquiry something like Congressional Enquiries or the like defending the Smoking Industry but he is now doing the same thing for the Oil Industry.

          So Yes I do Question this particular Persons Motives.

          Col

        • #2536917

          Okay, Colin. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well Maxwell I’m back now that I’ve got that dirty

          If you question his motives, why don’t you also question the motives of the global warming alarmists? For example, name one global-warming advocate scientist who is not receiving public money, from some source, to “study” the issue. How’s that for “motive”?

          When you start questioning the “motives” of one, you better also question the motives of all.

          Moreover, you have not addressed one thing he claims. He could believe in little green men from Mars, for all I care, but he makes an enormous amount of sense on this issue. Address the issue, Colin, or continue to be duped by “your experts” whose motives you conveniently overlook.

        • #2515124
          Avatar photo

          OK Maxwell I’ll make some comments

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Okay, Colin. . . . .

          the Good Dr Singer appeared and defended his stance in a Canadian Produced Documentary called

          [i]The Denial Machine”, a program made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.[/i]

          It was rebroadcast here a couple of days ago and while I wasn’t watching it specifically I did prick my ears when I heard that particular name. Assuming that we are talking about the same person but I don’t think that it’s likely to have two people with the same name doing the same work in the same area so I think that we are actually talking about the same person.

          On the Side for Global Warming there was no one who appeared of any substance a couple of people from Greenpeace and the like so I didn’t really make to many distinctions on the program in question just the fact that this one person willingly appeared on it and insisted that the people who fund his research had no bearing on the outcome of it.

          If I find that this one particular person is Suspect I’m entitled to say so in any conversation that I am involved in and if you look closely I didn’t make mention of any one else that you listed. Also as there has been no legal action brought against the Canadian Produced Program I would tend to believe that the stated facts are correct or the good Dr Singer would in quite natural Self Righteous Rage have sued the company responsible for producing that program and insisted that at the very least his Bio be removed from the program if not much more that was damaging to his credentials.

          This didn’t happen so again I tend to believe that what was said was correct.

          If you trot out some supposed expert with [b]Clay Feet[/b] I’m perfectly entitled to point out the fact that his work is at best suspect. I didn’t make mention of a single other persons actions in the above post and what I posted is correct.

          You are entitled to believe that the Sun is Black if you like but that doesn’t mean that others have to believe it. However when you trot out [b]So Called Experts[/b] who clearly are not I feel perfectly happy to point this out to anyone who’s interested.

          Cheers

          Col

        • #2516373

          But, he also “made sense” re. smoking.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Okay, Colin. . . . .

          Hell, I recall a time when it was openly claimed on TV the Doctors endorsed smoking as being good for your health. And, not knowing better, I believed them.

        • #2537124

          [i]Ad hominem[/i], HAL9000

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to UM Maxwell are you aware that the Dr. Fred Singer

          I’m an equal opportunity critic of logical fallacies.

          In addition, maxwell cited 2 other scientists.

          Finally, you haven’t analyzed a single datum of those scientists’ research. (Neither have I, but I haven’t attempted to rebut maxwell on them, either.)

        • #2516370

          Goes to questions of both motive and credibility.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to [i]Ad hominem[/i], HAL9000

          The good Dr. Singer should here be subject to no less scrutiny than would be one introduced at trial as an “expert witness.”

        • #2516260

          If the question were posed properly, sure.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Goes to questions of both motive and credibility.

          But the question has not been posed in form appropriate for ‘one introduced at trial as an “expert witness.”‘

      • #2537091

        Singer is an interesting chap

        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        He’s one of the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health. I always enjoy reading what they have to say although they are a collection of professional skeptics so I have to take anything they say with a pinch of salt – or I would if salt were not so dangerous!

        In Colin’s defence, Singer has gone on record saying that there is no link between [b]secondary smoking[/b] and health problems.

        Neil 🙂

        • #2537059

          In Colin’s defense?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Singer is an interesting chap

          I’m the one who asked him to correct himself; and he’s the one who totally misrepresented the man’s position. It’s a typical ploy — discredit the person by misrepresenting his position.

          Moreover, I don’t want to debate the merits of the “claim” that second-hand smoke increases one’s chances of developing lung cancer, but there’s no “consensus” on that either. You can find “experts” who claim one thing, another person could find “experts” who disagree; and then let the discrediting begin.

          Nonetheless, it no more than a typical ploy to avoid replying to an argument that challenges one’s stated position. He simply can’t argue against a person more qualified than him, so he simply finds a way to dismiss him — something you are bordering on doing as well.

          You guys don’t want “the truth”, as absolutely suggested. You (and your ilk) simply have too much invested in your claim to flip positions on it.

        • #2536980

          Probably depends on what you define as “second-hand smoke”.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to In Colin’s defense?

          My guess is that occasionally passing smokers on sidewalks, or getting a waft while sitting in the non-smoking section of a poorly-ventilated restaurant which has a smoking section, doesn’t even remove a minute from a lifespan, but that living in the same house with an indoor smoker is as good as being a smoker. Just my guess.

        • #2536947

          I don’t really care to go there

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Probably depends on what you define as “second-hand smoke”.

          It has nothing to do with the subject at hand (whether that be first or second!).

          Address the points he makes or concede them. If you, Colin, or anyone wants to discredit this person, thereby dismissing his argument, then you better apply your discredits equally and apply the same treatment to YOUR experts. Anything less is being dishonest.

        • #2536929
          Avatar photo

          OK I had to go out and do some work

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to I don’t really care to go there

          But I have replied to your question and so far there is no response to my reply so I thought that was the end of that.

          Col

        • #2536916
        • #2515171

          Interesting.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I don’t really care to go there

          I meant that as acceptance of the possibility that his study is valid, before reading it. I had not read, and still have not. I’m keeping an open mind to your sources. It that isn’t good enough for you, get used to frustration.

        • #2536936

          I’ve seen references

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to In Colin’s defense?

          that claim that radon exposure is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but since “second hand smoke” and radon are usually found in significant amounts in the same kinds of places (namely: indoors!), I don’t know how they seperate which cancer was caused by one or the other.

        • #2536915

          Therefore, we. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve seen references

          ….ban the indoors!

        • #2515324

          Or else

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Therefore, we. . . . .

          require all homes and businesses to be retrofitted with lead sheeting (Oh, but wait… lead will kill you too, won’t it?).

          I know! I know!

          We need a constitutional amendment prohibiting death!

        • #2537058

          By the way, Neil. . . . .(Edited)

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Singer is an interesting chap

          ….to reiterate my position. I would never suggest silencing the global warming alarmists — something they, themselves, would support doing to the skeptics. My position is that there is no place in politics and/or policy making for the debate; and that’s exactly where 99 percent of it is taking place.

          On second thought, I would never suggest silencing [i]the scientists studying “global warming”[/i], but as to the rabid and zealous activists, they should be laughed off the planet, and/or imprisoned for attempted extortion and attempted denial of liberty, and/or locked up in a padded cell, and/or ……..

        • #2537033

          Silencing skeptics

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to By the way, Neil. . . . .(Edited)

          is the last thing that I want to do myself. We are not – ever – going to get informed debate on this any more. The media have taken charge and have dragged the politicians along with them. There’s nothing the media like more than good headlines and “catastrophe” is as good as it gets.

          I’m stuck in the unfortunate position that I believe that there’s some truth in a lot of things such as human influence on climate change, smoking dangers to non-smokers, trans fats not being good for you, Man’s role in the ozone depletion, the link between ultra-violet and skin cancer and others – all these things being categorically denied by the good Dr. Singer and the ACSH. What I don’t know – and probably never will – is whether any elements in the list I have posted above are in any way meaningful to me. Is the “disease” real? Is the “cure” worse than the disease? How can I ever know now?

          We, you and I, are a good example of the polarisation of this debate which is why I’ve generally stopped commenting except where someone posts some significantly and obviously bad science.

        • #2537005

          [i]The media have taken charge and have dragged the politicians…”[/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Silencing skeptics

          On that, Neil, we can agree.

        • #2536976

          Don’t you suppose there is an enormous [i]latent[/i] market

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Silencing skeptics

          …for responsible journalism, especially regarding science? Considering the reception of Michael Moore’s movies, can you imagine the public reception of a work of cinema that told the truth about a topic of importance, [b]dis[/b]passionately?

          I think Hollywood is afraid of what they would have to provide for an encore.

        • #2516063

          If an american hero

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Don’t you suppose there is an enormous [i]latent[/i] market

          can’t kill the bad guy and get the gurl, Hollywood just ain’t interested.

          If they had a choice between a disaster movie where california sank into the pacific and John Q Public thoroughly insulating his house and buying a windmill…

          If some of the direr predictions of global warming did come true, then maybe we could have a conspiracy movie, with whistle blowers, corrupt scientists and politicians guided by malevolent aliens instead of those nice upstanding corporate execs. 😀

          Me and thee recycling tin cans, vs Steven Seagal battling Michael Cain, hard choice for film company exec?

          Mind you they could get some good product placement opportunities with all the logos on the cans.

        • #2516002

          All those tired Hollywood cliches

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to If an american hero

          …were novel and bold — [b]once![/b]

        • #2536963

          By the way, on cancer, et al – The data are clear

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Silencing skeptics

          As a point of reference, the life expectancy in 1900 was between 45 and 55 years; today, it’s around 75.

          There is a clear correlation between living longer and the chances of developing not only lung cancer, but heart disease and diabetes as well. Moreover, living beyond one’s life expectancy, increases one’s chance of developing Alzheimer’s.

          And an unintended consequence of the longer life expectancy is the burden it places on younger generations. Whereas in our 1940 “collective”, there were upwards of forty (40) people “supporting” the medical and retirement needs of one (1) elderly person, today the ratio is down to three-to-one (3-1). In a very short time it will be two-to-one (2-1); after a bit more time it will be one-to-one (1-1)…… then one-to-two (1-2)?

          A solution to all the above problems — all of which are clearly supported by data — ban longer life expectancies.

        • #2536938

          Multiple causality and complexities of living longer

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to By the way, on cancer, et al – The data are clear

          We try and make things too simple in many of these cases. Of course smoking, and other particulates has an impact on lung cancer and heart disease. But of course changes in diet and other factors help us live longer.

          But there are genetic factors involved as well. That helps explain why there are some 100 year olds who have smoked for 85 years and will die of other factors, and others who work in smoky bars and get lung cancer through second hand smoke.

          And lifestyle also factors in. I’ve seen runners who smoke, and they will probably outlive many non smokers if their genetics don’t play a role, but overall, they would be better off quitting.

          Whats changed since 1900 is that fewer of us die through industrial accidents, die from things like the flu, premature birth,diabetes (which used to be fatal) and a whole host of diseases which to us now are minor and if not preventable, are able to be managed. We have access to cheaper food and virtually everyone can afford a well balanced healthy diet(if they so chose).

          That doesn’t mean that all is rosy. We are becoming more sedentary, eating more processed foods which contain more sodium and fat that home made. Our continual improvement in life expectancy may stall.

          I’ve always worked under the assumption that since the boomers are retiring before me, that I need to make my own plans for retirement, and save what I need. The Canadian government pension plan is in pretty good shape, but I know know Murphy is around somewhere.

          James

        • #2536935
          Avatar photo

          Maxwell have you been watching

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to By the way, on cancer, et al – The data are clear

          [b]Logan’s Run Again?[/b]

          I’ve actually given up attempting to speak rationally to you on scientific topics like this as you keep dragging Politics into the discussion. I can only assume that there is some form of [b]Conspiracy Theory[/b] over in the US about the Federal Government becoming a Communist Dictatorship and running everyones life like in George Orwell’s book 1984.

          God only knows there are enough Expatriate Yanks here decrying the US Government as the [b]Evil Monster Bent on World Domination.[/b] Everyone just ignores them and they eventually go away to try to pervert others who may listen to their rubbish for several nanoseconds or so. I would offer to send you some of their rubbish but that would mean being in contact with them again and that is something that I don’t want to do actually I would prefer to have JW’s visit every day several times a day rather than one of those Idiots once a Decade but if you are interested look up [b]The Confederate Action Party[/b] all of the ones who belong to it are Yanks for the south and band together under the Southern Flag. A bunch of total wackos if you ask me but then again the KKK is in a membership drive here trying to pervert the children’s minds and get new life time members from the high schools when they are 15 years old and slightly up wards. They are currently targeting this age group and the federal Police are chasing them away.

          But you’re welcome to visit here where Politics are totally ignored by most sane people but on Friday here we are going to [b]Level 5[/b] water restrictions, we don’t actually know what Level 5 water Restrictions are as no ones bothered to actually tell us and previously there has never been any water restrictions higher than Level 4 so we are facing a [b]Brave New World with Unknown Restrictions.[/b] I suppose I’ll be sharing a shower with all the neighbours God only know what’s going to happen but I can honestly say that we have had plenty of rain here in South East QLD for a long time now and just about every day there is some rain in Brisbane and the surrounding areas but still the Dam levels are now down to 26% or there abouts as the figures change depending on which news service you listen to. The only rain that has fallen into the Brisbane Dams was 4mm into Somerset on Tuesday when we had 6 inches of water over the road out the front of the house that was washed straight out to sea. While we are getting rain there is none falling in the Catchment Areas so there is no water in the Dams something that hasn’t happened since settlement so I suppose this is a once in 200 year event right?

          OH BTW in 2003 the Brisbane Dams where at 90% capacity and now 3 years or so latter we are under 30% capacity and in a position that if every dam suffered a catastrophic failure and collapsed we wouldn’t even get the soles of our shoes wet in anyplace but the lowest areas of Brisbane on boat ramps or if you attempted to walk on the Brisbane River. That would only rise about 3 inches in the surge that would be the result of the destruction of the dams.

          Col

        • #2536908

          I keep dragging Politics into the discussion?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          That’s because “man-caused global warming” IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. It IS NOT a scientific issue.

          I don’t drag politics into the issue, but rather politics has inserted itself into the issue. Go ahead and disagree with me (and Neil) all you want, but the “science” has been hijacked by politics and their accomplices in the media. If you can find a way to get politics OUT of the issue, I would discuss “global warming” as much as I discussed things in the EL thread — and that’s not at all!

          That’s my whole friggin’ point, Colin!

        • #2515117
          Avatar photo

          Well Maxwell I can not comment on the goings on in the US

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          But here there is no Political argument about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever you want to call it here. Every Politician accepts it is real and happening [b]NOW![/b]

          Maybe it could be the fact that we are as a country in the middle of the worst drought in our entire history where places like the Murry River have not reached the ocean in the last 6 years and this river system is very important to the livelihoods and lives on many Australians. It’s also accepted that the Farming Practises that are currently being used here are the cause of a Salinity Problem that is getting worse and that covers most on AU by the way but in the inland it’s much worse than most other places even if there is a major salt buildup on the external bricks of the house that I’m living in.

          About the only thing political involved is an argument between the major parties on how to fix the problems. Neither of which have a clue and because they have insisted on having [b]Yes Men[/b] as their leading Scientists in the CSIRO who advise the Government on what they need to do there is no clear cut way of finding a solution. Incidentally both sides are responsible for the mess and both have heavily contributed to it as well with their take it all Now approach and worry about the results latter when we are no longer in office so it will not be our problem.

          About the only possible good thing to occur out of the current drought is that the Water Table has been lowered so the salinity issue has temporally been pushed away and isn’t of a major concern compared to the lack of available fresh water. But when a solution is found to allow enough water into the inland the Salt issue will again raise it’s ugly head with a vengeance.

          Col

        • #2515990

          HAL: “in the middle of the worst drought in our entire history”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          Do you keep track of how many gallons are used for irrigation around there? Maybe the presence of more people, using more water, is at least part of the cause.

        • #2514967
          Avatar photo

          Abs not only do they keep records of every Litre of water

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          But they have cut back the allocations for farmers Irrigating but not the costs so they are paying the same for less.

          Currently there are 2 dams in the Locker Valley which have never had any water in them and the farmers in those areas are paying for water that they can not get granted they do need to pay for maintenance and this is what the Water Board is claiming but after 5 years things start to get a bit draining when you are paying for something that you are not receiving.

          As for the Murry River System the Idiot State Governments issue water Permits to Irrigate so one state will have heavy Irrigating at the heard waters who virtually drink the river dry and then there is wonder why there is very little water available further downstream. But still the allowed amount of water for irrigation has been dropping steadily for the past 6 years and that is the actual volume not some figure made up from a Per Capita Basis.

          As for the discussion on drinking recycled water it’s actually already happening as the people of Adelaide are drinking the Sewerage produced in Cantberra which is treated and then feed into the River and is eventually drunk by every major settlement down river.

          As the infrastructure is going to take a lot of time to put in place for recycling Sewerage the QLD Government is currently rushing through a Desalination Plant to offset the immediate needs but eventually the Sewerage is going to be recycled and fed back into the drinking water system.

          Col

        • #2514947

          HAL, I think you implied ‘no’ to this, but I want to verify.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          I’m clear on the reduction of water allotted, per farmer. What I’d like to know for certain is whether there are [i]more farmers[/i], and also whether the [i]total consumption allotment[/i] has been reduced during this drought. If it isn’t, it is logical to assume that the source will not revert to its initial, ‘full’ or baseline quantity, and you will continue to experience shortfalls.

        • #2514932

          Have you considered nuclear desalinization plants?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          HAL wrote, “But here there is no Political argument about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever you want to call it here. Every Politician accepts it is real and happening NOW!”

          And I bet that is really satisfying.

          “Maybe it could be the fact that we are as a country in the middle of the worst drought in our entire history”

          Maybe you should stop wringing your hands over a possible problem and work toward solving the actual problem. If you have a drought in a desert perhaps you ought to consider a national effort toward creating a series of nuclear powered desalinization/reverse osmosis water purification stations. Put them near the oceans (you have plenty of those) and turn salt water into fresh.

          You guys used to be great! Don’t go down without at least trying to solve the real problem.

        • #2514875
          Avatar photo

          Abs There are now

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          Fewer Farmers and Less water being removed in total numbers of Mega Lites so what is left in the river which is still falling is only there because of the reduction in Irrigation that is being allowed.

          There are also a couple of Endangered Species in the Murry River like the Murry Cod which have been moved from In Danger to Close to Extinction but at least if the river drys up we’ll be able to get rid of all the foreign invaders like the carp which are destroying the river for the Murry Cod.

          However for that to happen several dams would have to be run dry and that would mean a reduction in Hydro Electric Power that is generated at these Dams.

          Actually announced today Level 5 Water Restrictions will involve the reduction in available water of 40% to one power station and 25% to another which will not adversely impact on available Power but will mean that any excess generated will no longer be available to sell Interstate so the States Income will drop accordingly but this reduction should allow another 3 months of available water. Not sure yet what happens to domestic residences but Industry this time seems to be taking the brunt of the restrictions so they will have to stop wasting water and start some form of recovery. I’ll know more when the Official Announcement is made. Currently the State Government is [b]leaking[/b] what they want us to hear. 😀

          Col

        • #2514866
          Avatar photo

          Actually the QLD Government is in the process

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          Of laying a pipeline from the ocean to one of the dams should be finished in about 9 months if things go to contract. To pipe water from a Solar Powered Desalination Plant to one of the dams. This is an immediate step till more Desalination Plants can be built and come on line as well as Sewerage Recycling plants be built and come on line within a couple of years time. Currently the Desalination Plants are fast and easy to build but ultimately will never be able to provide enough water so they are at best a Stop Gap Measure till the Water Recycling plants can come On line.

          As for Nuclear Desalination Plants firstly after the 74 Floods nothing is safe from Flooding in this part of the world unless it is really far inland which defeats the purpose of the plants and we currently don’t have the Infrastructure to support any form of Nuclear Industry other than mining Yellow Cake. Then the Federal Government would have to have control of any of these plants as they hold all the Nuclear cards and couldn’t allow a State to have something that they can not control and place a entire Departments worth of Bureaucrats in charge of to make sure that it’s safe. X-(

          It would go something like this in costs the Reactor costs $2.50 to buy & run but you need to pay 84 Billion for the Bureaucrats to monitor it to make sure that it’s safe and first commission a study on what you can use. [i]No I’ll stop there as that is one of my bugbears Bureaucrats and Safety is an Oxymoron when used in the same sentence.[/i] Besides we don’t have the time for them to do an assessment as to what would be best then an Environmental Impact Study by the time that they finished we would have all died from dehydration. :^0

          We have 1 Medical Reactor in service that will be taken out of service as soon as the replacement one is finished off which should have been 25 years ago and the Cyclotron that I was approached to run 15 odd years ago to produce Medical Isotopes is yet to have funding allocated for it. But just to add a bit of Interest I did a paper on the Holding Tanks and recommended a different design to prevent ground water contamination in the event of any Tectonic Activity which was laughed out of existence and when they where doing the earth works for the new reactor they found a Fault Line directly under where it was supposed to be located. It’s since been moved but not far enough to be considered as safe and I wounder if I’ll eventually get paid for that report that wasn’t necessary 28 years ago. :0

          With Interest I could retire and never need to lift a finger again. :^0

          But knowing the Bureaucrats they will use my plans and I’ll not get paid for the time and effort that I went to. 😀

          It doesn’t matter that since that Paper was written there has been a Earthquake that flattened Newcastle and a major Fault line found directly under where a Reactor was supposed to be placed. The same old argument still stands Australia isn’t subject to Earthquake activity so you don’t need to worry about this and it’s a waste of time and money.

          Col

        • #2516990

          scientific topics like this

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          When you start talking about fault and what should be done about it, it ceases to be a scientific topic and turns into an attempt by one group to bully another group. In other words, politics!

        • #2516839

          Agreed, Tony. Now, does that logically imply…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          [i]scientific topics like this
          When you start talking about fault and what should be done about it, it ceases to be a scientific topic and turns into an attempt by one group to bully another group. In other words, politics![/i]

          Agreed, Tony. Now, does that logically imply that it is more or less important to address the science in this than in other topics?

          [edits: punctuation & syntax]

        • #2516793

          It’s no more or less important

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          but claiming to be talking about the science when really talking about the politics affects perceived credibility.

        • #2516675

          Tony: credibility among whom?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          “It’s (topics in science with political overtones) no more or less important
          but claiming to be talking about the science when really talking about the politics affects perceived credibility.”

          I understand that it affects credibility as you perceive your opponents. They, however, are not persuaded, even though you perceive them as not credible. So, by dismantling what they are calling their “evidence”, you would not only establish your credibility, but get rid of the onerous taxes associated, if that’s really something you’re pursuing.

        • #2516206

          The taxes

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Maxwell have you been watching

          are but a small part of it. I’m pursuing a world where people are freed from the control of others, and I will resist to the best of my ability attempts to strengthen such control (which is what I think the global warming issue is). And while there are undoubtedly some more able, that will not prevent me from trying.

        • #2536913

          For those who didn’t recognize it. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to By the way, on cancer, et al – The data are clear

          ….my “cancer” message was dripping with sarcasm.

        • #2515321

          There is a cancer that is more prevalent in our society

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to For those who didn’t recognize it. . . . .

          than any other. However, it cannot be described medically.

        • #2515252

          Yep.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to By the way, on cancer, et al – The data are clear

          If you’re 114 when you die of lung cancer, the bean counters call it a smoking related death. I wonder… if you stop in a crosswalk to light one up and get mowed down by a bus, would that be a smoking related death as well? 🙂

        • #2515939

          No, in that case. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Yep.

          ….the family of the dead guy would sue the bus driver.

        • #2515801

          Or the tobacco company

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yep.

          I mean, if he had been a non-smoker, he wouldn’t have stopped in the crosswalk to light up 🙂

      • #2515169

        Are you annoyed by the [i]ad hominem[/i] crap yet?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        It gets tiresome, doesn’t it?

        • #2515162

          I’m sick of [i]ad hominem [/i]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Are you annoyed by the [i]ad hominem[/i] crap yet?

          [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i] [i]ad hominem [/i]

          Talk English, for Pete’s sake. Deepsand has infected you with his feeble attempt at sounding intellectual.

        • #2515146

          I’m sick of arguing side issues

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m sick of [i]ad hominem [/i]

          such as the person’s place of birth, hair color, lucky number, etc. Maybe deepsand overuses the phrase, but it really is a more concise phrase than “appeal to authority” or “appeal to ridicule”, which I just found on wikipedia. However, the English would be more precise in this case, which is the scientific purpose of well-defined names & nomenclatures.

        • #2515145

          As to how deepsand may be attempting to sound…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m sick of [i]ad hominem [/i]

          I much prefer a person who attempts to seem intellectual than a person who attempts to seem authoritative according to some other attribute: charm, wit, force, charisma, for examples.

        • #2516216

          Evidently, I don’t refrain from [i]commenting[/i] on side issues.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to As to how deepsand may be attempting to sound…

          Discontinuing this practice would probably reduce the amount of possible [i]arguing[/i] of same side issues.

          To-do list:
          1. Comment less.

      • #2515119

        “A debate needs to be conducted” – I couldn’t agree more!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        http://www.institutmolinari.org/editos/20070221.htm

        [b]Claude All?gre: Against the Ecologically Correct[/b]

        Xavier M?ra – 21 f?vrier 2007

        After previewing [i]An Inconvenient Truth[/i], Al Gore?s documentary film about global warming, with his fellow Members of the Parliament, Yves Cochet declared in the French newspaper [i]Le Monde[/i]: ?There are no longer any global warming revisionists today, except Claude All?gre?. Was Mr. Cochet implying that ?dissenting? views on climatological issues should be put on the same plane as revisionism relative to the Armenian genocide which has just been criminalized after a vote at the French National Assembly? Is he issuing an invitation to close the scientific debate through the force of law?

        Just like the frosty reception that several journalists and scientists had in store for the views expressed by Claude All?gre, a former minister of education, (in [i]L?Express[/i], dated September 21, 2006 and more recently in [i]Le Point[/i], 15 F?bruary 2007), such reactions reveal that Mr. All?gre has put his finger on a truth, namely, that no genuine consensus prevails about human-induced global warming.

        This truth upsets because it stands in contradiction to what the media deliver day after day as a conclusive argument in order to break down the ultimate barriers towards policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If all ?experts? predict a disaster if ?nothing is done?, on what grounds are we to go against it? But, contrary to the impression one might have after the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) meeting in Paris, it is simply not true that all experts agree about the anthropogenic nature of climate change and about the scope of the phenomena.

        In the US, the former President of the [i]National Academy of Sciences[/i], Frederick Seitz, set up a petition signed by more than 17 000 scientists, including 2 660 physicists, geophysicists, meteorologists, and oceanographers(1), which threw back into question the utterly pessimistic thesis. Among the signatories, one can find notably Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, to whom Claude All?gre referred to as the author who led him to change his mind on these issues.

        In France, scientists like Jean Jouzel, the Director of Simon Laplace Institute, have protested against the views held by Mr. All?gre through an open letter. But, who approached Marcel Leroux, Professor of Climatology at the University of Lyon III and Director of the Laboratory in Climatology, Risk and Environment, in order to seek his opinion on the issue? Contrarily to Mr. Lindzen who throws back into question the causes of climate warming rather than the warming itself, Mr. Leroux claims that the latter is not even proved ([i]Fusion[/i], No. 95, March/April 2003).(2)

        The literature on climate change is more divided than what it seems and this is a quite natural state of affairs. Who can believe in all seriousness that scientists tackling so complex issues can speak with the same voice? In any case, perpetual repetition of the consensus thesis as a proof is at odds with the scientific approach; this is quite embarrassing since this ?chorus?, as All?gre calls it, seeks to convince citizens that Science has brought in its verdict. In experimental sciences, skepticism is indeed a virtue: researchers in experimental sciences do not usually fear debates as the search for truth proceeds by confronting assumptions with empirical observations, the goal being to reduce as much as possible the unavoidable uncertainty that shrouds results. There is no room for incantations in this process.

        Lastly, even if we were to reckon that the issue of climate change is resolved along the lines of the alleged consensus, the interventionist conclusions that this dogma deems as ?responsible? would not ensue automatically. Proficiency in climatology does not confer to someone the competency in economic analysis or political philosophy required in order to assess the pros and cons of the Kyoto Protocol or dictate priorities. For example, if greenhouse gas emission restrictions were to hamper the development of some countries, it is not obvious that these restrictions would have to be implemented at all costs.

        A debate needs to be conducted on the issue of climate change as well as on related economic and philosophical issues. Can it start at last?

        (1) http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
        (2) http://www.revuefusion.com/images/Art_095_36.pdf

        [edit: runaway [i]italics[/i]]

      • #2516392

        All lies. And, global warming was 1st suspected in the 19th century.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Absolutely (and others) doesn’t get it!

        And, for the record, as I’ve clearly stated on several occasions, I am an [i]agnostic[/i], not an atheist; that’s a distinction with an important difference.

    • #2516761

      Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      • #2516636

        “Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences,”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion

        [i] “Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences,” much like the idea of communism or other “-isms” such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that “environmentalism is a religion” that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide. [/i]

        That is an excellent point! Every other ‘movement’ is studied, as a movement. Environmentalism absolutely [b]should[/b] be studied, “just as communism or other “-isms” such as feminism” — other ideologies being currently analyzed in schools include capitalism, naturalism, surrealism — add environmentalism to the list, and let’s see what contributions it has made to our world.

        • #2516629

          Are you leaving the dark side?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences,”

          They worship at the alter of Environmentalism. It’s tantamount to a religious movement. Big oil and SUVs are the devil, Al Gore is their prophet, and he attempts to place the fear of God … I mean the fear of doom delivered by the hands of the devils. And “global warming” is the apocalypse. But there’s hope, for one can be converted; they use guilt to convert; they use fear to convert, especially the fear of the unknown; and they use force and manipulation to convert. And all those who don’t convert are evil sinners.

          [i]Beware of the dark side… Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate…. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.[/i]
          –Yoda

        • #2516621

          I am not yet a Jedi, but yes, I am leaving the dark side.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Are you leaving the dark side?

          I just stumbled across a quote from Christopher Hitchens: “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. It reminded me of you, and this thread specifically.

          As a matter of fact, I’m only visiting TechRepublic right now to tip my hat to you. I’ve grown to truly admire the way you dismiss inappropriate claims, not wasting time on mountains of inconsequential “evidence”, but jumping straight to the point, which in politics is always: “therefore, what?”

          You keep arguing the good argument, and I’ll keep learning to skip past the BS to the “therefore, what?”

          To all the “global warming” zealots: Instead of complaining about my emissions, I invite you to buy me one of these:

          http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/

        • #2516620

          Wow! You made my day!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I am not yet a Jedi, but yes, I am leaving the dark side.

          I think you’re the first “global warming proponent” I’ve drawn away from [i][b]the dark side[/i][/b]! You made my day!

          One down and about 50 million to go!

          Now, about this Scooter Libby travesty of justice……?

        • #2516610

          Scooter Libby? Sounds like a brand of moped…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Wow! You made my day!

          What does an off-brand Vespa have to do with a travesty of justice?

          Seriously, paying serious attention to these fiascoes & scandals just encourages more of the same media sensationalism, which in turn, through phenomena familiar to all of us, leads to more corruption in politics. In addition to pure, intentional collectivism, another contributing factor to the Big Government problem is politics as entertainment. These voter-citizens who are so “offended” by the misdeeds of politicians could be a lot more efficacious by [b]pursuing[/b] a goal than [b]getting in the way, and putting more government into the way[/b], of the goals of their opponents.

        • #2525802

          hehe

          by jck ·

          In reply to Are you leaving the dark side?

          Which is worse…worship of the earth…or the worship of money?

          If you’re any kind of a Christian, go read your bible about greed. It’s the root of all evil you know.

          And if you’re not Christian…well…good luck.

          Let me just modify your diatribe to substitute a different scenario.

          [b][i]They worship at the alter of money. It’s tantamount to a religious movement. Big oil and Bush are the God, anyone against them is the Devil, and they attempt to place the fear of God … I mean the fear of doom delivered by the hands of the devil. And lack of democracy is evil. But there’s hope, for one can be converted; they use guilt to convert; they use fear to convert, especially the fear of the unknown; and they use force and manipulation to convert. And all those who don’t convert are evil sinners.[/i][/b]

          [i]Foolish is the man who gains his wisdom from a muppet.[/i] – jck

        • #2528130

          Wittiness is a poor substitute for intelligence.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to hehe

          So, you claim maxwell edison also holds an ideology of fear & guilt do you? You claim that he resorts to force & manipulation?

          [i][b]and they attempt to place the fear of God … I mean the fear of doom delivered by the hands of the devil. And lack of democracy is evil. But there’s hope, for one can be converted; they use guilt to convert; they use fear to convert, especially the fear of the unknown; and they use force and manipulation to convert.[/i][/b]

          That’s a witty bit of word play, jck, but the [b]facts[/b] are that ecochondriacs are for more [b]taxes[/b] and less freedom and that maxwell edison is for lower, and fewer taxes and more freedom. Oh, and I do believe that the time is running out for your magic word ‘greed’. Christians of the even-slightly-intellectual kind are becoming aware of the subtleties of meaning of the original form of the various stories to which you refer, and pursuit of personal happiness is not evil.

        • #2527938

          “the facts are that …”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Wittiness is a poor substitute for intelligence.

          not all that you would call “ecochondriacs” fit your description, but that they do ask that humans recognize that they do not own the Earth, but merely hold it in trust, and, accordingly, have a responsibility to its good care.

        • #2527887

          re: “they do not own the Earth” – Are you owned by it?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “the facts are that …”

          ?

        • #2527010

          Does the absence of one necessarily imply the other?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “the facts are that …”

          .

        • #2527491

          Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Wittiness is a poor substitute for intelligence.

          BTW…you’re saying I said those things about Max…when…I did no such thing.

          It was just to show that those who Max puts on a pedestal (such as the Bush administration) serve their own propaganda and speel as much $hit as the nutty left wing environmentalists.

          So…why the f*ck are you ranting on about?

          BTW…just for your information:

          Iraqis never pursued democracy.
          Iraqis never pursued taking out Saddam.
          Iraqis never pursued having Halliburton get a $5,000,000,000 no-bid contract to fix petroleum assets.

          The Bush Administration has [b]forced[/b] those things upon the Iraqi people and the American taxpayer.

          Q: Can you guess who still holds tens of millions in stock in Halliburton?

          A: Vice President Dick Cheney.

          If the shoe was on the other foot and those in the Arab world came into the United States and forced us to take Islam as the state religion and accept monarchies and dictatorships…you’d be pitching a fit.

          Q. So…why is it so different you don’t go haywire about us doing it to them?

          A. Cause you’re the typical, pious American who thinks we do no wrong. That’s why.

          What the Bush administration has done has [b]nothing[/b] to do with doing what makes the Iraqi people happy and everything to do with funnelling off money to give to their buddies in big business at the expense of the American taxpayer.

          [b]Facts[/b] are that “ecochondriacs” want more taxes to pay to correct the environmental hazards, the majority of which are caused by large corporations who have no commitment other than to padding their own pockets. Absolutely true.

          And what has big business done? Over the last decade, lined the pockets of the Republican party mostly. Go check out campaign finance for the past decade.

          What has that done? The Republican controlled congress and White House through 2006 wrote tax changes that mostly benefitted, tax wise, the upper 3 percent of wage earning Americans.

          Q. And can you guess who runs all those big corporations that line their pockets?

          A. Members of the top 3 percent of wage earners.

          Good ole boy politics at its finest.

          Oh…one last thing:

          Real Christians, unlike Bush, won’t stab others in the back to fulfill their own desires and wants.

          Christian = being like Christ. Remember that, oh great soothsayer.

          Christ died for his cause…he didn’t send over 2000 people to die for him.

        • #2527026

          Envy at its worst

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          jck said, “Q: Can you guess who still holds tens of millions in stock in Halliburton?

          A: Vice President Dick Cheney.”

          Really? Can you prove this? It seems very unlikely. Usually upon attaining any high office all of one’s stocks go into a blind trust. I would be very surprised if Mr. Cheney knows what stocks are held in his name until he leaves office.

        • #2527008

          Envy? Assumes facts not in evidence.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          No surprise there.

        • #2526949

          Assumes facts not in evidence

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          [i]Q. So…why is it so different you don’t go haywire about us doing it to them?

          A. Cause you’re the typical, pious American who thinks we do no wrong. That’s why.[/i]

          Heh-heh, you should see some of what I’ve posted about Iraq. You assume too much.

          [i]What the Bush administration has done has nothing to do with doing what makes the Iraqi people happy and everything to do with funnelling off money to give to their buddies in big business at the expense of the American taxpayer.

          Facts are that “ecochondriacs” want more taxes to pay to correct the environmental hazards, the majority of which are caused by large corporations who have no commitment other than to padding their own pockets. Absolutely true.[/i]

          Most people, including me, go to work 5 days a week, with no “no commitment other than to padding their own pockets”. Pursuit of happiness is a right, not an assumption of guilt.

          [i]And what has big business done? Over the last decade, lined the pockets of the Republican party mostly. Go check out campaign finance for the past decade.[/i]

          You seem to be interested in convincing me of something, why don’t you post the data? Which reminds me, the topic here is global warming, not ‘Republican vs Democrat’.

          [i]What has that done? The Republican controlled congress and White House through 2006 wrote tax changes that mostly benefitted, tax wise, the upper 3 percent of wage earning Americans.

          Q. And can you guess who runs all those big corporations that line their pockets?

          A. Members of the top 3 percent of wage earners.[/i]

          The wealthiest 3 percent of Americans do not work for a ‘wage’.

          [i]Good ole boy politics at its finest.

          Oh…one last thing:

          Real Christians, unlike Bush, won’t stab others in the back to fulfill their own desires and wants.

          Christian = being like Christ. Remember that, oh great soothsayer.

          Christ died for his cause…he didn’t send over 2000 people to die for him.[/i]

          That’s nice. Back to the subject of global warming?

        • #2526869

          Facts

          by jck ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          1) The Bush Administration awarded to Halliburton a $5,000,000,000 no-bid contract in 2005 on the basis of “having the necessary assets in the region” and called the work “logistics support”.

          No other companies were in all of Europe and the Middle East that could have competitively bid for that?

          sure.

          2) As of assuming office, Dick Cheney still holds in stock options alone over 50,000 of Halliburton , then valued at near $4M alone as of 2006. These are options that still, within his “blind trust”, earn him dividends.

          This does not include the value of standard shares he owns, nor shares he has put into his family members’ names.

          Yes, politicians hide assets under their spouse and other family members’ names.

          Oh yes…perhaps you didn’t know as well. Let me explain how a blind trust works to you, since you seem not to understand.

          Blind trusts don’t keep elected officials from earning returns on investments they held when taking office, nor does it prevent them from influencing decisions to get those stakeholdings work that gives them extra dividends.

          Blind trusts are a front that is a kind of damage control for politicians and other crooked people who would manipulate them to attempt to keep them from looking like they are dealing in impropriety. Keywords here: [b]looking like[/b].

          As Senator Bill Frist said in a 2005 column he wrote:

          [i]A blind trust is a special something that’s designed to prevent what we in Congress like to call a “conflict of interest”; or, to be more accurate, to prevent something else we in Congress like to call “the appearance of a conflict of interest”, which is just a whole lot more important. [/i]

          A guy like Cheney, whose buddy Bush is President, is in a position to move things along to get companies like Halliburton work that directly benefits him and pays him a reward, rather than letting business bid for work.

          So….where’s that freedom again? Cheney and Bush and their administration strapping the hands of free-enterprise from bidding for work is freedom?

          Give me a break.

          Your elected officials are still raking in investment dividends from their holdings in “blind trusts”, for which they influence (and in some cases, vote upon) and gain financial reward.

          And now…back to global warming, as you’ve requested:

          3) Scientists have already established that different factors such as atmospheric contaminants, chemicals, erratic oxygen levels and abnormal ocean salinity level changes which contribute to global warming and ecological climate shifting are at a level which are abnormal according to historical data.

          What historical data, you ask? Scientists are able to take ice samples from ancient glaciers which hold records of 10,000s of years of ice which stores these conditions like an archive. So, you can take these samples, dissect them, and analyse what chemicals, gases, etc., are in the atmosphere at any point in the history of the planet and establish what the normal cycle is for the planet for millenia.

          They have concluded: Since the advent of the use of fossil fuels and the industrial revolution, mankind has been affecting the environment in a negative fashion and contributing contaminents to the atmosphere which scientifically are proven to lead to the condition called “global warming”.

          This global warming is now contributing to glacial melting which is affecting the ocean salinity, which will in-turn affect ocean sea convection of water which affects meterological conditions and ecological conditions as well.

          I thought I’d give you a synopsis and save you the headache, but I will go find you the scientific papers if you want specific reading to prove the facts to you.

          But, don’t say I don’t know facts just because I don’t agree with you.

        • #2520888

          jck: You seem to have missed Absolutely’s point, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          which was that the political issues that you raise have no more bearing on the issue at hand than do those raised by, for example maxwell, sn53 or Tony.

          As for the facts of the issue, if you do some background reading of his many posts on this subject you will find that he is well versed in such.

          Do not assume him to be your adversary simply because he is willing to entertain all reasonable viewpoints.

        • #2520359

          Thanks, deepsand. Now, jck, the reason I flamed you…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          is that any mention of religion in political contexts tends to escalate already contentious discussions. (I’ve done my share of discussing religion, but in threads begun on that topic.) Unless you’re a warmonger, escalation of tense situations is not your goal. It is not mine, and I don’t really think it was yours. Your post was fairly obviously critical — of a decision to wage war. But, it was critical, and in a tone that isn’t conciliatory. If you were attempting to play ‘peacemaker’ I think your method was applied, at best, ironically. IMNSHO, people’s beliefs about the Creator of the Universe are too personal to form a useful basis for establishing common ground. As anecdotal evidence, just consider the number of Christian ‘denominations’ and the number of executions that accompanied the most argumentative of those divisions. Didn’t somebody named Thomas More get [b]decapitated[/b] for disagreeing with a king’s wish for a divorce?

          You probably have some good points, but when you bring religious passion into a discussion that isn’t already about religion, I stop reading.

        • #2519998

          it fails me to believe you guys are so obtuse

          by jck ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          You sit and think I brought religion into it…when, Maxwell Edison clearly made that first metaphoric assertions?

          I was making fun of his comparisons and trying to point out that fanaticism is on both sides…not just the one whose view is opposite his.

          Then…yes…I made fun of him quoting Yoda…he quoted the wisdom of [b]a muppet[/b], for God’s sake. What isn’t there to make fun of there?

          Oh well…needless to say…if you’re having fun at the expense of the planet’s health…I truly look forward to the day that the earth’s ecosystem dies off and guys like me becoming alpha males in a more primitive society and hunt down dolts of the world and taking your women for my own.

          Darwin rules.

          Have a nice day.

        • #2540346

          Well, jck, with my experience as a woodman, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Actually…you’re right in one aspect…

          you’ll find it hard to even find me, let alone “take my woman.”

          May the future be kind.

      • #2516609
        • #2516601

          It might just be the sun

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Well, this caused a bit of a stir over here

          Interesting.

          If the science is real it will stand the test of time and peer review.

          If it is not real it will fall on its own.

          Thanks Neil.

        • #2516596

          Neil – Come over from [i][b]the dark side[/i][/b]

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well, this caused a bit of a stir over here

          I’m with you when it comes to reducing pollution and dependence on oil, and I advocate looking for alternative energy sources. But the doom-and-gloom “global warming” and the “oceans are rising” scenarios are way over the top, only intended to scare people into submission (of control and/or taxation). It’s a scam, pure and simple.

          Leave [i][b]the dark side[/i][/b], and become a voice of reason.

        • #2516585

          Interesting…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Well, this caused a bit of a stir over here

          You’re frequently more elaborate. What sort of stir did it cause? Any news or opinion articles about the stir?

        • #2516577

          I think it’s called. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Interesting…

          …..second thoughts.

        • #2516498

          I hope…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I think it’s called. . . . .

          …so.

        • #2516372

          What kind of stir

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Interesting…

          Soryy about the earlier terse post. I have been enjoying the early Spring sunshine following on from the “warmest winter on record” so I’ve been out and about walking on the Downs.

          The stir it has caused is in the fact that it has given the GW-deniers some simple ammunition against the normally overwhelming “evidence” provided for the pro- lobby.

          “Did you see that program on Channel Four, then?” gives the anti-GW more to say than his or her usual “I just don’t think it is our fault”.

        • #2527488

          hey dad

          by jck ·

          In reply to What kind of stir

          Dear Dad,

          Can you help me find a job over there?

          I’ve tried…no luck…want out of egomaniaclandia.

          thanks

          sonny boy

    • #2516584

      Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      • #2516581

        LOL, maxwell!!!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        I haven’t even read your article, I just wanted to tell you I adore that title! Happy Saturday!

      • #2516580

        Should they be meeting with President Bush, or…

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        Should they be meeting with President Bush, or should they be consulting with structural and civil engineers and architects to develop buildings and methods of construction for the future?

        Even if I accept their premise, I can deduce from their presumed solution to it that they are not the minds that will provide the solution to this, nor any other problem. They are transparent. Instead of producing, by their own effort, they always presume to limit the liberty of others, as solution to every “problem”. Their claims of “problem” are now immediately suspect from the moment of assertion. The intelligence to identify a problem logically implies the intelligence to solve it [b]your bloody self![/b].

        We are onto you.

      • #2516571

        message moved

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        .

      • #2516549

        A Viable Postulate

        by thechas ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        The scenario presented in the link you posted is a viable postulate to the global warming theory.

        Is it perhaps over the top? Yes, probably. But, it has been shown time and time again, that mankind only reacts when a situation reaches, or can be shown as, a crisis or catastrophe.

        And yes, I do believe that global warming is a greater threat to the United States than global terrorism.

        This specific scenario like many others is based on the predictions of climate models “IF” nothing is done to control and reduce global warming.

        If you wish to question the results of the extrapolation from the climate model, you must explain what errors exist in the climate model.

        There is one facet of global warming that I do question though;

        Are greenhouse gases a cause or an indicator of global warming?

        I know that climate scientists started taking a more serious look at the greenhouse gases after the data from the Venus probes showed a correlation between the surface temperature of the planet and the levels of certain gases in the atmosphere.

        My point here is that I am not convinced that simply lowering the amount of greenhouse gases that mankind produces will have enough of a positive impact on the environment to allow the eco-system to recover. I believe that we CANNOT bring global warming under control without bringing a halt to the conversion of forest and farmland into houses and roads.

        When I look at the sum of what those opposed to working to control global warming are saying, it looks to me to be just like what was said about limiting air and water pollution back in the 60’s.

        Chas

        • #2516525

          “mankind only reacts when…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A Viable Postulate

          [i]But, it has been shown time and time again, that mankind only reacts when a situation reaches, or can be shown as, a crisis or catastrophe.[/i]

          I refer you to your own message, below, which refers to a great deal of $$$$$$$$ invested in the Internet during the 1990’s, and which [b]absolutely disproves[/b] your statement which I quoted above. “Mankind” also reacts to opportunities to earn $$$$$$$$. If your little pet project is not seen as profitable, tough luck. Your idea is not good enough. Quit your whining.

        • #2516517

          The “climate models”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A Viable Postulate

          [i]”….the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It’s just too complicated.”[/i]

          — Dr. Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and currently president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group.

          [i]”….. all predictions of future warming are based on computer models that don’t work. They can’t forecast one year from now so how would they be able to forecast 100 years from now? In addition, all forecasts made by the models to date have been wrong. The other major weakness the assumption that an increase in CO2 from human activity will result in warming. The evidence shows that CO2 does not correlate with temperature change. Even more damaging is that the 420,000 year ice core record shows the complete opposite with temperature changing before CO2 not as hypothesized. The models all assume a doubling of CO2 will occur. They are all programmed to have temperature increase if CO2 increases and they are unable to include feedback mechanisms. For example, an increase in temperature will result in an increase in evaporation that will cause an increase in cloud that will block the sun and cause cooling.”[/i]

          — Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian with a PhD in Climatology. Dr. Ball has been a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.

          http://www.geocities.com/zacherle_hoag/tball

          [i]”Analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to project catastrophic warming, and have argued that climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis for developing public policy. This paper examines two major limitations that hinder the usefulness of climate models to those forming public policy.”[/i]

          http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/ScienceIsntSettled.pdf

          [i]”To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let’s start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increased by about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

          “These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man’s responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.”[/i]

          — Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial last April for The Wall Street Journal

          [i]”Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don’t know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, ‘Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.’ Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn’t mean that one is causing the other.” [/i]

          — William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine

          More:

          http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm

          And one last thing on “climate models”. They also predicted a more severe 2006 hurricane season in 2006 then we saw in 2005. How did those two years compare? Was 2006 really more severe than 2005?

        • #2516211

          They’re not trying to convince people of intelligence

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The “climate models”

          they’re trying to convince the average voter.

        • #2534097

          Models are not necessary for proof of concept.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The “climate models”

          Having a “successful” model merely demonstrates that you’ve properly indentified the variables and the values of constants in a multivariant equation.

          The lack of a “successful” model does not serve to render any physically and/or mathematically necessary relationship between input variables and the output of the function itself non-existent.

        • #2533313

          That assumes “successful” models

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Models are not necessary for proof of concept.

          All the “models” in question are incomplete; it’s not possible for man to know, and thereby input, all the possible variables.

          At best, all models are inconclusive because of too many missing variables and too many inconsistencies among the known variables. And anyone making predictions that include things like “strong possibility” or “very likely” based on those models, they’re not only fooling themselves, but they’re actually being dishonest.

          If X=1 and Y=2 and Z=3, and variables A through W are either unknown or not even considered, then to conclude that X+Y+Z+A+B+C+D+E+F+G=global disaster to a factor of 6 only shows the mind-set of an idiot (or an extortionist, or…..)

        • #2533957

          On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to That assumes “successful” models

          in order to determine that certain correlations exist. The history of Physics is replete with examples of such.

        • #2532916

          Is it true that you are no Sun Tzu?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          deep wrote, “On need not know all of the variables … in order to determine that certain correlations exist. The history of Physics is replete with examples of such.”

          You sir, are no Sun Tzu.

          In a different thread you objected to me saying that I did not have to know every detail of a 1300 year old argument the Sunni have with the Shia of succession to the throne of their political-religion.

          Yet here you are saying you don’t really need to know the variables before you can decide to enslave American taxpayers.

          You sir, are no Sun Tzu.

        • #2534768

          Possibly …

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          [i]On need not know all of the variables … in order to determine that certain correlations exist.[/i]

          (I don’t have the “real science” rulebook at hand. Perhaps you could point me to a reference.)

          … but if your theory fails to adequately explain observations which contradict the theory, the theory itself is junk, regardless of how many people ‘believe’ it!

        • #2526664

          sn53: It is quite obvious that you neither a mathematician, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences.

        • #2526663

          Tony, I’ve no idea that the hell you meant.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          Your allusions to “failed theories,” with no concrete example of such, leave me wondering if even you know what you meant.

        • #2526345

          Variables

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          If you don’t know all of the variables, your theory may be proven wrong by a future theory, and then wouldn’t you look stupid if you bet the farm on yours?

          I don’t want to bet MY farm on YOUR theory.

        • #2526298

          You say that like it’s a bad thing…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          [i]It is quite obvious that you neither a mathematician, …
          nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences.[/i]

          It’s not 🙂

        • #2526173

          Neither a mathematician nor a hard scientist be…

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          deep wrote, “sn53: It is quite obvious that you neither a mathematician, …
          nor one schooled in any of the hard sciences. ”

          True. I have had my share, both in school and out, but I am not a mathematician nor am I a scientist. Nevertheless, the engineering skills that I have are very highly compensated. That is sufficient for me.

        • #2526172

          Disregard.

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          Disregard. My post doubled.

        • #2532130

          Tony: Re. “You say that like it’s a bad thing”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          It is when trying to judge matters involving said disciplines.

        • #2532128

          Tony: Re. “variables”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          Take, for example, the variable describing the level of atmospheric CO2; one can describe its effect on the system comprised of Earth and its atmosphere [b]in isolation[/b] of any and all other variables.

          With CO2 serving as the described “shell” in the referenced post, please see
          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2198077

        • #2532126

          sn53: Re. “That is sufficient for me.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          Be that as it may, such is [b]not sufficient[/b] for adequately understanding all that involved in the subject at hand. This subject requires, at the least, an understanding of both chemistry and physics.

        • #2532051

          It is a religion that requires a priesthood

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          deep wrote, “sn53: Re. “That is sufficient for me.”

          “Be that as it may, such is not sufficient for adequately understanding all that involved in the subject at hand. This subject requires, at the least, an understanding of both chemistry and physics.”

          Uh-huh. Nazism required knowledgeable National Socialists. Communism requires a knowledge of warped economic theory. But this is not about science. It has not been about science for quite some time. It is about politics. What I know is sufficient for me to suspect a giant con.

        • #2527953

          sn53: [i]non sequitur[/i], as usual.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          Like maxwell, you know naught of the sciences involved, and are therefore perforce reduced to trying to counter facts with beliefs.

          You can delude yourself all you like; just don’t expect others to join in.

        • #2527950

          Knowing all of the sciences involved

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          deep wrote, “Like maxwell, you know naught of the sciences involved, and are therefore perforce reduced to trying to counter facts with beliefs.”

          Fascinating. I bet you keep a white lab coat in your closet.

          “You can delude yourself all you like; just don’t expect others to join in.”

          Dittos for you. You have already deluded yourself all that you like. And we are not joining in your delusions either.

          Great. I am asking to be left alone to enjoy my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness. That is all I am asking of you and of everybody. Oh, did I mention, it is my right to be left alone.

        • #2527937

          sn53: non sequitur.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to On need [i]not[/i] know all of the variables …

          .

        • #2533304

          Yes, models [i]are[/i] necessary for proof of concept!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Models are not necessary for proof of concept.

          [i]Having a “successful” model merely demonstrates that you’ve properly indentified the variables and the values of constants in a multivariant equation.[/i]

          I would rephrase that: Having a “successful” model merely demonstrates that you’ve [b]established a strong statistical correlation between or among the chosen[/b] variables and the values of constants in a multivariable equation.

          [i]The lack of a “successful” model does not serve to render any physically and/or mathematically necessary relationship between input variables and the output of the function itself non-existent.[/i]

          Not non-existent, but [b]certainly unproven[/b].

        • #2533950

          Mathematically necessary relationships …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yes, models [i]are[/i] necessary for proof of concept!

          between input variables and the output of the function, by definition, require no “model.”

          That one knows not the values of any and all constants, etc. does not serve to invalidate such relationships.

        • #2533924

          I think it’s about time for that debate.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          Hopefully, maxwell will agree to a process resembling the cross-examination phase of the prosecution’s evidence. That would require us to present the evidence we intend to cite in our replies, then take the roles of prosecutor and prosecutor’s witnesses. I think it would be fun.

        • #2533863

          Absolutely and deepsand – the “debate”. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          …..HAS BEEN taking place. Just because a new thread is started, it doesn’t mean it would be any different — unless, of course, there really was an impartial moderator and scorer, which is not possible in this forum.

        • #2533830

          Agreed, maxwell. How do you like the idea that this is a ‘trial’?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          Or, that we discuss it like one?

          Suppose that at some time, 50 years ago or more, the idea that Welfare is the birthright of the poor and the duty of the rich, had been discussed in those terms. Now, suppose this issue causes the next third of your annual income to be treated as the ward of the states. Do you agree that a trial is a good metaphor?

        • #2533812

          moderator . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          Actually, I could probably play the part of impartial moderator, if you like. I’m pretty much dead-center on this. My only “bias” on this is that I require some kind of real, tangible evidence of something, without reasonable doubt, before I agree to let someone go off half-cocked and make changes to the way things are run. Perhaps some voir dire (to borrow from the “trial” metaphor) is in order.

        • #2533726

          Trials and Moderators

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          I do like the idea of a “trial”, at least to the extent of having to support certain claims. If mankind is being accused of destroying the planet, then the burden of proof should fall on the accuser, and it should be more than mere speculation.

          I would accept apotheon to not only be a moderator, but to establish the structure and the rules, and to devise some sort of “scoring” system.

        • #2533236

          Speaking of debates

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

          I would wager that Gore declines.

          I’ll even offer 2-1 odds.

        • #2533169

          1. apotheon as moderator, OK

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          .

        • #2533167

          2. I won’t take that bet, even at 2 – 1 odds, max

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          I am interested to see what’s at the other end of that URL, however…

          http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

          I would wager that Gore declines.

          I’ll even offer 2-1 odds.”

        • #2534810

          Just . . . wow.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          I thought I was just volunteering some time and attention, and my relative impartiality on the subject. I didn’t know I was coming up with structure, rules, and scoring systems. I may want some help with that.

          The first thing that occurred to me along those lines was to actually structure it a bit like a bench trial in criminal court (as opposed to a jury trial). There’d be witness lists for both sides, opening and closing arguments, and examinations, cross-examinations, and redirects for the witnesses — with the “witnesses” being source materials available online and examinations being quotes and analyses of the content of those sources. Each source would have to be examined separately, to keep things from getting too confusing while examining a given source, though one could refer back to a previous “witness” to tie a point together. New witnesses (sources) that are not specified in advance could only be brought in as rebuttal witnesses, or via allowances for special circumstances. Identification of problems like logical fallacies would take the form of objections.

          My second thought was simply that the debate could take the form of something like a free-for-all debate, as we tend to have anyway, but with teams rather than people just wandering in and out as they please, with the ability to eject someone if that person is deemed unfit to continue and the ability to add someone if — well, something that we’d have to decide. The ultimate “scoring” in such a case would basically amount to convincing me of your position for the win. I’d of course be likely to interject questions and identify logical fallacies I notice, but otherwise mostly refrain from contributing. This one would be easier to get started, but less structured and (at least arguably) more subjective. That subjectivity comes with a benefit, though, in that unlike a formal trial or traditional school style debate format, there’s a real pot of gold at the end of the rainbow — and if you can convince [b]me[/b], you can probably convince others who are similarly inclined toward logic and evidence.

          We could also just take a traditional school (or political) style debate format, which might amount to an interesting competition for “honor”, but wouldn’t amount to much in terms of practical value other than as an exercise for organizing your thoughts on the matter. This is probably my least favorite of the three formats that came to mind (and that I’ve thought about over since maxwell edison posted his reply to me), but it would be relatively objective and I’m certainly willing to take this approach if that’s what everyone else wants.

          Something that occurred to me:
          A trial-based approach could actually be the genesis of a fun exercise in web development. Maybe create a “trial-format debate” website, designed specifically to facilitate this kind of discussion. Maybe.

        • #2526662

          Civil trial, not criminal.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          As each side claims to have science on their side, we have not one claim, but 2 competing ones. Therefore, each side must present evidence to support its respective claim.

          And, the appropriate measure of success in such should be by the “preponderance of the evidence.”

        • #2526275

          deepsand: 2 competing claims?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          The foes of the claim that global warming is real, and caused by humans, are only defending the [b]continuation[/b] of property rights as they are presently defined, not seeking a change in policy. I don’t understand how you view them as having any claim to defend. Please elaborate.

          [i]As each side claims to have science on their side, we have not one claim, but 2 competing ones. Therefore, each side must present evidence to support its respective claim.

          And, the appropriate measure of success in such should be by the “preponderance of the evidence.”[/i]

        • #2532173

          Not civil

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          You’re making the claim (accusation).
          I am not making a competing claim, I am only saying “you don’t have enough evidence to convict”.

          51% is only a little better than “might be”, and is not enough to sentence the “perpetrators” to life in prison.

        • #2532123

          The issue is one regarding factual claims, not one of policy.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          maxwell and others [b]claim[/b] that [b]science[/b] supports their position.

          I am presently a member of a perspective pool of jurors who will be hearing a civil case involving claims that a gas station’s leaking tank(s) contaminated local well waters, with all parties being required to provide factual evidence to support their respective positions.

          The verdict will be decided on the preponderance of the evidence, with any judgement being [i]separately[/i] decided. That there may or may not be a judgement, and what such, if any, might be, is [b]legally not relevant[/b] to a finding of fact, i.e. the verdict.

          So too with the matter of “global warming.” Whether or not a change in policy should or will result from the finding of facts is irrelevant to such finding.

          Anyone who wishes that policy either be allowed as “evidence,” or grounds for not being required to produce supporting scientific facts, will “debate” the matter without my participation.

        • #2527771

          Should we assume from apotheon’s silence…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          that nobody has been judged to have scored a single ‘point’?

          😀

          Judging from his output, I’d say it’s more likely he’s formalizing a scoring system.

        • #2527042

          what we should assume

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Mathematically necessary relationships …

          Actually, I’ve been out of town for about six days. I meant to say something about that here, but I think TR got lost in the shuffle of dozens of people/places/blah that needed to be informed. It was frankly kinda low on my list of priorities (sorry), after stuff like the guy that would be taking care of the animals and the guy that would be taking over updating a website of mine while I’m away.

          Here’s my thought on the whole trial format thing, re whether it should be handled as a civil or criminal proceeding:

          What do we consider a “win”?

          Is “winning” some kind of debate win with regard to whether or not anthropogenic global warming is a “real” threat?

          Is “winning” a debate win with regard to whether Something Should Be Done?

          Is “winning” a debate win with regard to a general class of policy decision (e.g., impose further governmental controls on the economy to impact global warming trends)?

          Until we have a clear-cut goal in mind for the debate, we can’t really define the conditions of a win. For instance, if you expect that anyone recognizing a “win” would then go vote for Al Gore, we would definitely need a more criminal proceeding version of a trial format. If, on the other hand, you just want someone that accepts the “win” to say “Why, yes, your position makes sense, there is indeed (not) enough evidence to claim that anthropogenic global warming is a very real and imminent concern!” without any admission that one’s policies should actually change any[1], a civil trial is probably more appropriate than a criminal trial as the model.

          [1](a): e.g., “Yes, you’re right, anthropogenic global warming is real and likely to be dangerous if trends don’t change — and evidence suggests they will not change unless we Do Something. On the other hand, I don’t think we should Do Something at all along the lines of fixing the problem, because our real focus should be on colonizing Mars anyway. Just leave the problem behind.”

          [1](b): e.g., “Yes, you’re right, there just isn’t nearly enough evidence to support these theories of anthropogenic global warming with catastrophic consequences. On the other hand, I’d rather be safe than sorry, so I still want all of Al Gore’s suggested governmental policies implemented as law, just in case.”

        • #3014971

          Website Update

          by impactwebsite ·

          In reply to The “climate models”

          The website link “The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate” in Maxwell Edison’s article has recently moved from http://personals.galaxyinternet.net/tunga/OSGWD.htm to http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OSGWD.htm

        • #2516515

          You believe that global warming is a greater threat than global terrorism?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A Viable Postulate

          You’re out of your mind.

        • #2516514

          In other words, you believe it.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A Viable Postulate

          Thanks for fessing up. But then again, as a collectivist-type thinker, you do want to control other people, which is what the “global warming” scam is really all about.

        • #2516513

          But the polar ice caps REALLY ARE melting. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to A Viable Postulate

          …..on Mars.

          Therefore what?

        • #2516212

          Since GWB

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to But the polar ice caps REALLY ARE melting. . . . .

          was president when the Mars rovers were sent there, it’s obviously his fault 🙂

        • #2516494
      • #2516544

        On Pessimism

        by thechas ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        Max,

        In relation to my perceived pessimism, I suspect like many things, it is a relative and arbitrary measure.

        Just the other day, I was chided for being much too optimistic and berated for anticipating the prospect of a positive outcome from change!

        So, as much as you see me as a pessimist, those who I am around at work see me as a hopeless optimist.

        The only explanation can be that on relative scales both statements are true.

        To further expound upon this, my co-workers tend to agree that chicken little was an optimist!

        My point to this comment is that you are looking at global warming in the wrong light. You are taking the pessimistic view of what can happen to the US economy and standard of living if controls on greenhouse gases are strictly imposed.

        Part of my view on global warming is that if the US would embrace it, global warming could spark an even bigger economic boom than the Internet was in the 90’s.

        With the number of people who fully embrace the need to control greenhouse gases, there is a significant market for “eco-friendly” technology. The US could and MUST take the lead in developing, patenting, and marketing devices and technologies that allow mankind to make less of an impact on the planet while still going about our daily lives.

        Even if you don’t believe that global warming is real, there is a growing market for eco-friendly products. The US can either take the lead, or ignore this market and loose more of our economic power.

        Chas

        • #2516510

          It has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to On Pessimism

          Both optimism or pessimism are inward-looking values (or habits, or mind-sets, or whatever you might want to call them).

          An optimist, for example, knows he’ll have a good day even if it rains. The pessimist’s day is ruined by the same rain storm.

          Neither, however, has the slightest thing to do with predicting that weather. (And the “climate models” that predict such weather are often wrong.)

        • #2516509

          On creating economic prosperity based on a lie

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to On Pessimism

          That’s an interesting concept, Chas, I must admit — for a society to create an economic boom for itself based on a lie, or even based on an unproven claim. That is interesting.

          But what would that be called if only one individual did it? Or if only one company did it? That is, if he created an economic boom for himself all based on lies? Isn’t that what Enron did?

          Find a need (or recognize a need), and then fill it; or maybe building the preverbial better mouse trap. That’s usually the underlying basis for creating an economic boom, whether that be for an individual, a company, or a society. (But that society is only the sum total if its individuals and its companies.) I’d rather not create a “false need” to achieve it, but that’s just me.

          Edited addition:

          Brainstorming here …… I wonder ……. yes, it might work …….

          Have you heard about the newly discovered predator that crawls around your house? It’s called a ghouse (sort of a ghostly mouse). But I have this new thing called a ghouse trap that will catch that varmint for you. Send me a hundred bucks and I’ll mail you a dozen.

        • #2516505

          I can beat maxwell edison’s price for a “ghouse trap”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to On creating economic prosperity based on a lie

          I’ll send you 12 for ten cents!

          Of course, they’re all as imaginary as the “ghostly mouse” they’re designed to trap, so you’ll have to just believe that it has arrived, and that they are the reason for the disappearance of your ghice.

        • #2516504

          Free market principles at work.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I can beat maxwell edison’s price for a “ghouse trap”

          When there is [b]really[/b] a profit to be made from the market, competitors abound.

        • #2516502

          No, no, no, no – We need price controls here!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I can beat maxwell edison’s price for a “ghouse trap”

          We need to create an equal outcome, so what you propose is unfair competition. How about we let the government decide how many we can sell and for what price? That would be fair, don’t you think? Oh, and while we’re at it, that same government will tell Chas how many he HAS TO buy!

        • #2516497

          LOL!!!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, no, no, no – We need price controls here!

          I wonder what shades of red TheChas is turning!!

          😀

        • #2517776

          Yes, yes, yes – Price controls are COOL!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to No, no, no, no – We need price controls here!

          They lock in whatever company, or handful of companies, control an industry so that no new competitors can realistically enter that market. Price controls are cool — if you like to pay for more than what you get in exchange!

        • #2516507

          No, [i]you[/i] are looking at this in the wrong light.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to On Pessimism

          [i]My point to this comment is that you are looking at global warming in the wrong light. You are taking the pessimistic view of what can happen to the US economy and standard of living if controls on greenhouse gases are strictly imposed.[/i]

          No, maxwell edison is looking at this in the correct, patriotic, Constitutional “light”, which is that those who [b]claim to believe[/b] there is a problem [b]own the responsibility to produce those eco-friendly products[/b] they prefer. Your wish to solve the problem via taxation is the result of [b]your persepctive[/b] on other people’s rights “in the wrong light”.

          [i]Part of my view on global warming is that if the US would embrace it, global warming could spark an even bigger economic boom than the Internet was in the 90’s.[/i]

          Prove that claim then. Start that boom. Stop your whining. “Embrace” global warming yourself, and become as rich as you wish to be — you’re never right enough to [b]take somebody else’s money[/b]. Whenever you believe you are, [b]invest your own money instead[/b].

          [i]With the number of people who fully embrace the need to control greenhouse gases, there is a [b]significant market[/b] for “eco-friendly” technology.[/i]

          How significant? To whom? Stop [b]asserting[/b] that there is profit, and [b]earn[/b] that profit. When you have done so, you will be worthy of consideration.

          [i]The US could and MUST take the lead in developing, patenting, and marketing devices and technologies that allow mankind to make less of an impact on the planet while still going about our daily lives.

          Even if you don’t believe that global warming is real, there is a growing market for eco-friendly products. The US can either take the lead, or ignore this market and loose[/i] (that’s “lose”) [i]more of our economic power.[/i]

          That economic power is not yours to direct, until you earn it from [b]free[/b], paying customers. If your ideas are good enough, you can profit by them in a free market. If your ideas are not good enough to profit by them in a free market, then learn some better ideas from people who have learned how to [b]earn[/b] a profit.

        • #2516323

          I learned something in Drivers’ ed

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to On Pessimism

          The first thing you should do when you get into a skid is:

          “Look where you want to go. Your hands will naturally follow your eyes. If you look at the tree, odds are, you’re going to hit the tree.”

          I think it applies in areas far beyond driving 🙂

      • #2516367

        Have you checked on the proliferation of poison ivy lately?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Who believes this? Fess up. Who believes this?

        It is thriving in its expanding range of favorable climes.

        • #2516331

          Therefore What?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Have you checked on the proliferation of poison ivy lately?

          Therefore man’s activities are causing global warming which is, in turn, causing climate change, which is, in turn causing the proliferation of poison ivy? Is that what you’re suggesting? Prove it (that all of those are connected) beyond any doubt, or otherwise it’s a meaningless tidbit.

          Or did you have a different “therefore what” in mind? If so, please share.

          Besides, if that’s what you ARE suggesting, we’ll just add it to the looooooong list of stupid and unsubstantiated claims made by you global warming zealots.

        • #2517309

          ignore

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Have you checked on the proliferation of poison ivy lately?

          duplicate post

        • #2517308

          poison ivy expansion — weak support, if any

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Have you checked on the proliferation of poison ivy lately?

          Being a plant of type ‘undergrowth’, the expansion of poison ivy is very likely attributable to the known phenomenon of human population growth, with the accompanying clearing of forests which tends to accompany it. ‘Proof’ requires more substantial, analytical support, and, when challenged, cannot rely solely on mere data.

    • #2516278

      Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

      These are the lunatics who make up the global warming movement. They need to be corrected and discredited, and their lies and true motives must be exposed. Any global warming proponent should be ashamed to be a part of this group.

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      “Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

      • #2516190

        It’s all about control.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’

        Science 9 March 2007:
        Vol. 315. no. 5817, p. 1371
        DOI: 10.1126/science.1139585

        Policy Forum
        CLIMATE CHANGE:
        CO2 Arithmetic
        Wallace S. Broecker*

        If we are ever to succeed in capping the buildup of the atmosphere’s CO2 content, we must make a first-order change in the way we view the problem. Most policies that have been discussed, including cap-and-trade systems and the Kyoto treaty, have treated the problem exclusively in terms of incremental reductions in CO2 emissions. These, however, will not stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels; they only slow the rate of increase. Instead, to actually stop the increase, we must develop the concept of what might be called a “carbon pie.” Currently, for each 4 gigatons (Gt) of fossil carbon burned, the atmosphere’s CO2 content rises about 1 ppm; including deforestation, we now emit about 8 Gt of carbon per year. Further, this four-to-one ratio will only change slowly in the coming decades. Hence, if we set a desirable upper limit on the extent to which we allow the CO2 content of the atmosphere to increase, then this fixes the size of the carbon pie. If, for example, this limit were to be double the preindustrial CO2 amount (i.e., 560 ppm), then the size of the pie would be 720 Gt of carbon [i.e., 4 mult (560 – 380)]. Were the limit to be set at 450 ppm, the size of the pie would be only 280 Gt.

        Once the size of pie has been established, each of the world’s nations would be allocated a slice. In an ideal world, the size of these slices would be based on population. In this case, the world’s rich countries would get only about 20% of the pie. If the limit agreed upon were 560 ppm, then the rich nations’ share would be about 150 Gt. As these countries together currently consume about 6 Gt of fossil carbon per year, if they continued at this pace, their allotment would be consumed in just 25 years. Faced with this limit, each of these rich nations would be forced to rapidly reduce its emissions (see figure). Poor nations would be able to sell portions of their pie slice to the rich countries and still have enough left to permit them to industrialize.

        Figure 1 Hypothetical scenario for use by rich nations of their 150-Gt wedge of the carbon pie. As time passes, the excess of fossil-fuel burning over the diminishing permissible emission limit will likely grow, requiring an increase in the amount of CO2 to be captured and buried.

        PHOTO CREDIT: PHOTOS.COM

        If this scenario were to be implemented, I find it highly unlikely that any combination of increased efficiency in energy use, implementation of non-fossil fuel energy sources, and capture of CO2 produced in coal gasification plants would be capable of meeting the required reduction schedule: An additional element would be necessary. The gap (see figure) between actual and allowed emissions would have to be made up either by purchase of CO2 allocated to poorer nations or by burial of CO2 captured from the atmosphere. Stemming the rise in CO2 would require participation of rapidly industrializing nations such as China and India. Under the pie concept, there would be an incentive for them to join for they would have a considerably longer period of time to adjust their CO2 emissions than rich nations. The sooner such an agreement was put into force, the better the situation would be for these nations. Until this is done, the size of the carbon pie will continue to shrink at a rate of 70 to 80 Gt per decade.

        Because CO2 sales would serve only as a temporary stopgap, capture of CO2 from the atmosphere would be necessary. CO2 capture from the atmosphere is feasible, but has yet to be implemented, and faces several technological challenges. If the CO2 carried by the air streams used to drive wind turbines were to be captured, then on an energy-equivalent basis, the physical dimensions of the CO2 capture devices would be only 1% of the sweep of the turbines (1). In other words, in a sense, air streams carry 100 times more CO2 than kinetic energy.

        In addition to allowing the gap between actual and permissible emissions to be filled, air extraction has other attractive features. (i) It could be done at sites far from population centers and close to the sites of CO2 storage. (ii) Once the rise in CO2 had been stemmed, the CO2 content of the atmosphere could be drawn back down to a level at which the earth’s ice caps were stabilized. (iii) It would provide a mechanism by which the thorny issue of compensation for past CO2 emissions by richer nations could be negotiated.

        While there is no question that CO2 capture from the atmosphere is doable, the cost is still unknown. Capture would be affordable if it caused the price of fossil fuel energy to increase by 10 to 30%. However, a large fraction of the operating cost would be for the purchase of the energy required to accomplish the capture and burial. If the cost of sufficient fossil fuel to generate this energy is too high, then this strategy would be impractical.

        The largest of the costs associated with air-capture will be those associated with the release of the CO2 from the capture material and with the recycling of any chemicals used. As sodium hydroxide, an obvious choice, holds onto CO2 too tenaciously, a better option would be a material that would be able to pick up CO2 but would release it more readily. Regardless of what material is to be used, it is absolutely essential that research on capture and sequestration be carried out to determine whether the energy costs can be brought down to an acceptable level. Capture from coal gasification plants should also be implemented.

        In the present political climate, any attempt to achieve an agreement on either the size of a carbon pie or its allocation among the world’s nations would be difficult. However, unless we advance beyond thinking only in terms of conservation and alternate sources and begin to think in terms of a carbon pie, we will have no chance to stop the rise in atmospheric CO2.

        References and Notes

        1. K. S. Lackner, H.-J. Ziock, P. Grimes, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, B. Sakkestad, Ed. (Coal Technology Association, Clearwater, FL, 1999), pp. 885-896.
        2. I thank K. Conrad, G. Heal, and K. S. Lackner for discussions.

        10.1126/science.1139585
        The author is at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964-8000, USA. E-mail: broecker@ldeo.columbia.edu

        • #2516075

          “… each of the world’s nations would be allocated a slice…”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s all about control.

          If this doesn’t clearly illustrate the motive of some sort of “world governing body”, I don’t know what does.

          Add this to the death threats, and such, received by those scientists who question and dissent, and it should be as clear as day what’s going on. And this is all based on a plan with a foundation in an argument with a premise that’s either flawed or incorrect (in the very least it’s unproven)! It’s amazing, but shocking at the same time to see such a thing happening.

          I used to say that I was amazed at the otherwise intelligent people who buy into this crap and allow themselves to be duped and frightened into submission. The more I learn and the more I see, however, it’s now clear that they either want such a “world governing body”, or they’re just a bunch of idiots (or both).

          Idiots like deepsand who buy into this crap, and even make a lame attempt at debating “the science”, are fools. That article is a bunch of crap. It’s dripping with a bunch of “scientific” mumbo-jumbo that most people could neither follow or understand. Yet, for some reason, they simply capitulate, and “believe” something they can’t see, something that’s unproven, something they can’t begin to understand, advanced by people they don’t know, etc.

          I remember being totally chastised and criticized by Julian for being so obsessed with trying to debunk the global warming myth. The more I see, however, I actually don’t think I’m obsessed enough. I think it’s time I “declare war” on these people.

        • #2517353

          When you do…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “… each of the world’s nations would be allocated a slice…”

          [i]I think it’s time I “declare war” on these people.[/i]

          When you do, I have found ‘therefore, what’ to be a formidable weapon. I think you’re going to win.

    • #2517424

      [i]Global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.[/i]

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      [i]We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The “crisis” is the global warming political agenda, not climate change.[/i]

      So says Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor from the University of London, UK. For the last 18 years he was the editor of the Journal of Biogeography.

      http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1

      (Okay all you global warming zealots; it’s now time to discredit Professor Stott.)

    • #2517419

      [i]A new “world order” to fight global warming [/i]

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070312/wl_uk_afp/britainpolitics_070312082025

      No, that’s not political; global warming is all about science, right? ….. Yea, right!

    • #2517336

      I still think we should argue about it, but…

      by absolutely ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      I would amend the rules to allow political & scientific arguments from both sides, in the same debate thread. [b]Now[/b] who’s in?

      http://www.institutmolinari.org/editos/20070221.htm

      • #2517190
        • #2517175

          Umm . . . broken link?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Gentlemen, to your corners!

          see title

        • #2515467

          It worked for me just now. See if this works for you:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Umm . . . broken link?

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=208151

          If memory serves, ‘no’ is the side of this issue you chose to argue. The link above [i]should[/i] be to the thread for ‘no global warming conspiracy’.

        • #2515406

          To be perfectly honest . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It worked for me just now. See if this works for you:

          I’m more of an agnostic on this issue. My thought is that neither side does a sufficient job of proving its case, or even of disproving the other side’s case, to warrant or justify anything other that further open-minded study. I guess that probably makes me more sympathetic to the “no” side in terms of end result, but not necessarily in terms of reasoning.

        • #2515363

          “…neither side does a sufficient job of proving its case…”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to To be perfectly honest . . .

          I’d say that makes you a skeptic, and I’d still ‘assign’ you to the ‘no’ side, if this were a case for assigning sides. But it isn’t.

          If the ‘no’ side wants only ‘true believers’ or whatever, I’ll be happy to have your help on side ‘yes’, even if you’re only willing to help by pointing out weak spots in the argument. Although I think the politics should be handled much differently, I’ll stay with the side of the scientific question I first espoused, within this exercise.

        • #2517686

          Therefore what?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to To be perfectly honest . . .

          You said, [i]”I’m more of an agnostic on this issue. My thought is that neither side does a sufficient job of proving its case, or even of disproving the other side’s case, to warrant or justify anything other that further open-minded study. I guess that probably makes me more sympathetic to the “no” side in terms of end result, but not necessarily in terms of reasoning.[/i]”

          Therefore, that puts you squarely on the NO side of the debate.

          The NO side, in this case, falls into one of two categories: one is that NO man-caused and/or man-contributed global warming and/or climate change is taking place, and it’s nothing but a bunch of bunk, and I’ll never be convinced until they can PROVE it without any doubt and/or dissenters whatsoever (my position); or the second category is that the preverbal jury is still out, and until the final verdict is read, NO action should be taken until it is.

          Either way, you’re a NO. In my case, I’m not saying no to their claim (even though I really am at this point), as much as I’m saying no to their conclusion. They can claim that an alien race is preparing to invade Earth, for all I care, but I’m not exactly ready or willing to build a global defense system right yet — especially since it means giving up many individual freedoms and liberties in the process, not to mention being fined and taxed (further) to death.

          But consider this. The ploy of having to “disprove” their claims is what sucks all too many people into their argument. It’ll take 100 years of verifying their predictions to prove them wrong (And among this group are the ones who can’t even predict next week’s weather!). That, in and of itself, should be reason to dismiss them. Moreover, they’ve already been wrong in their predictions — one of which was the DIRE prediction of a 2006 hurricane season worse then 2005’s. They couldn’t have been more wrong.

          Now keep your eyes on the little pea under the shell while they explain why their incorrect prediction actually reinforces their overall argument — kinda’ like the arctic expedition that set out to further “prove” global warming was real, but it was cancelled due to extreme cold and when many of the participants developed severe frostbite. (The idiot “scientists” don’t even know how to dress for the cold weather!)

        • #2517639

          Just like in court.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Therefore what?

          (Man is) innocent until proven guilty.

        • #2515401

          re: link

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It worked for me just now. See if this works for you:

          It takes me to a nonexistent project in my own profile/workspace.

        • #2515362

          I wish I were more surprised by that than I am.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to re: link

        • #2534085

          Ditto for me –

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to re: link

          nonexistent project in [i]my[/i] own profile/workspace.

        • #2535074

          I believe we need to re-format the [i]debate[/i] anyway.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to re: link

          The ‘no’ side has been reluctant to participate, for reasons they describe as ‘political’, generally. Several have claimed that the entire topic is political, not scientific, and that the underlying issue is of liberty vs. control.

          “Therefore, what?”

          Therefore, we take into account the evidence that has already been presented, consider the claim that the evidence (because it implies harm done) is tantamount to accusation, and conduct the discussion accordingly: as a trial. By my estimate, an assertion of the existence of evidence, which has been also claimed sufficient to deprive some citizens of the United States of some of their liberties, does require that we allow “cross-examination” of those presenting that evidence.

        • #2535026

          In those terms . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I believe we need to re-format the [i]debate[/i] anyway.

          . . . there definitely isn’t enough evidence to convict anyone. Reasonable doubt can be attributed to the alternate theory of the crime involving solar output cycles alone.

          (edit: . . . at least until the pro-warming people in general stop claiming it’s a settled matter, scientifically speaking, long enough to actually settle the matter scientifically.)

        • #2534984

          In those terms…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I believe we need to re-format the [i]debate[/i] anyway.

          …I hope maxwell edison will consider the debate ‘fair’ and join. He has expressed more passion about the topic than anybody else (on the ‘no’ side), and any debate would be a disappointing anticlimax without him.

    • #2515511
      Avatar photo

      SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      From the good rises in heat and Ocean Levels

      Apparently the good people who live on the [b]Carteret Islands[/b] are being flooded out of house & home as well as having their gardens destroyed by sea water bubbling up through the ground at high tide killing off their crops of Coconuts, Bananas, Taro and Breadfruit. Apparently instead of their previous daily diet of the above and fish that they catch they are now limited to the remaining Coconut Trees that as yet have not fallen down a few fish that they catch and the occasional supplies of rice that are not expected to be common.

      As you like to insist “Scientists usually measure rises in millimetres and centimetres. But on the Carterets, the tides are growing by a phenomenal rate” but to date there has been a marked absence of any study of this region of the world so other than finding its location in a Goggle Search today because very soon they will no longer exist on anything but old maps that have not been updated, there is no other reference to these sinking islands which will be uninhabitable in a very short time as they are effectively underwater now and instead of fresh crops in the stinking mess of stagnant salt water are mosquito’s breeding and spreading Malaria.

      But this is Normal and good right?

      As these peaceful people are basically subsistence Farmers and fishermen who have limited contact with the outside world they don’t need much just a nice area above water where they can continue to grow their food and fish without interference and stay away from the so called civilised world who will contaminate them and lead to their destruction.

      So where are you going to put them and remember that this is only the beginning of a much bigger problem that is on it’s way now but because you don’t look above the ground level where your heads are buried you’ll not as yet know of the problems that are happening [b]NOW![/b]

      If you think that shelling out to clean up the polluters will cost a lot what’s it going to cost to find a suitable living area for these displaced people now and those that will follow them?

      Col

      • #2515488

        Therefore what, Colin?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        [i]Q: What is the most dangerous untrue “fact” about global warming that’s out there in the media-sphere?

        A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.[/i]

        Therefore, Colin, it stands to reason, that islands just barely above sea level would eventually be consumed. Moreover, by your own admission, there has been very little study in that region in years past, so there are no benchmarks to which certain things can be measured — what the sea level elevation of that island was 200 years ago, for example.

        And there are even more unanswered questions. Can an island sink, for example, regardless of the rising/falling elevation of the water around it? Volcanic activity can cause islands to appear and rise above the water that surrounds it, so couldn’t one fall back by the same (or similar) forces? And what about erosion? Can an island erode, just like the shoreline of California? How many islands have been created and/or have been lost over the past thousand years, two thousand years, ten thousand years? Is this the only one, or is it one of many? Is there only one reason, or are the reasons many? And is all island appearing/disappearing over, or will it continue for thousands of more years? Is the Earth dynamic, or is it static?

        What’s your point, Colin? And what conclusion are your drawing? An island is sinking, and/or the water around it is rising, just like it has been doing for thousands (or tens of thousands) of years, and therefore man-caused global warming is real? Is that your conclusion, Colin? If it is, you’re advancing a pretty weak argument (but one that does tug at the heart-strings — a typical ploy), and one with more questions than answers.

        Where am I going to put them, you ask? Well, you “discovered” the problem. Are you “solving” the problem by passing it on to me? Since it’s such a huge issue with you, Colin, I think YOU ought to go get them.

        • #2515463

          That’s what I call a [i]valid[/i] perspective.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Therefore what, Colin?

          [i]Where am I going to put them, you ask? Well, you “discovered” the problem. Are you “solving” the problem by passing it on to me? Since it’s such a huge issue with you, Colin, I think YOU ought to go get them.[/i]

          Point of order: you have a complaint, your [b]first[/b] course of action is to [b]produce[/b] the solution; your [b]second[/b] course of action is to [b]request help — politely[/b].

          Those two courses of action are the extent of your options in The United States.

          Get used to it.

      • #2515464

        “But this is Normal and good right?”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        [i]From the good rises in heat and Ocean Levels

        Apparently the good people who live on the Carteret Islands are being flooded out of house & home as well as having their gardens destroyed by sea water bubbling up through the ground at high tide killing off their crops of Coconuts, Bananas, Taro and Breadfruit. Apparently instead of their previous daily diet of the above and fish that they catch they are now limited to the remaining Coconut Trees that as yet have not fallen down a few fish that they catch and the occasional supplies of rice that are not expected to be common.

        As you like to insist “Scientists usually measure rises in millimetres and centimetres. But on the Carterets, the tides are growing by a phenomenal rate” but to date there has been a marked absence of any study of this region of the world so other than finding its location in a Goggle Search today because very soon they will no longer exist on anything but old maps that have not been updated, there is no other reference to these sinking islands which will be uninhabitable in a very short time as they are effectively underwater now and instead of fresh crops in the stinking mess of stagnant salt water are mosquito’s breeding and spreading Malaria.

        But this is Normal and good right?[/i]

        If a doctor or auto mechanic observed increased fluid levels and [b]immediately[/b] declared the single, preferred prognosis & diagnosis without testing for the known possible causes of those symptoms, that doctor or mechanic would be [b]fired[/b].

        Now, I know that you are not a climate research professional, so I’m not saying you should be fired. But, I have some memory of you knowing a thing or two about auto mechanics, and I suspect you get my point. The first assumption, even if it’s the most likely, is only the [b]beginning[/b] of a professional’s duties; it’s not good enough to cite one instance of flooding, and then declare that to be “proof” of [b]catastrophic, global[/b] atmospheric and/or oceanic warming.

      • #2515454

        Here, Colin, put them here

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        http://www.matangitonga.to/article/tonganews/disasters/new_island061106.shtml

        Or here:

        http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9609/16/loihi/

        Or one of these:

        [i]For at least 80 million years, new islands have been forming as the Pacific Plate moves northwestward over a stationary plume of magma rising from a “hot spot” within the earth’s mantle. The fluid rock makes its way up through the ocean floor and countless eruptions, over hundreds of thousands of years, eventually create a high volcanic island. The plate’s unceasing movement of about four inches per year slowly separates the volcano from its source, terminating its growth even as a new volcano rises from the ocean floor over the hot spot.[/i]

        (I wonder if this affects existing islands?)

        http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands/wnwr/nwrindex.html

        Or (and this might be the best solution) hire the Arabs to build them a new one and/or shore-up the old one.

        http://www.dubaiwaterfront.ae/po_ov.php

        http://www.freesun.be/freesun_news/28_april_2006/dubaiislands.html

      • #2515380

        I am not going to put them anywhere

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        HAL wrote, “So where are you going to put them”

        I am not going to put them anywhere. You are the one who is so eager to give up your freedom, your right to property and your money. If you think it is appropriate to do anything then by all means, do so.

        “and remember that this is only the beginning of a much bigger problem”

        What makes you think so? Is this the very first time in history that the waters have risen?

        “that is on it’s way now but because you don’t look above the ground level where your heads are buried”

        Great. Earlier one of you gave me credit for ending the last ice age. Since I succeeded in that endeavor I have caused the temperature to continue to rise (just for the last 10-15,000 years) and, of course, I have made the oceans rise. Man, I am good.

        So you think I have anything to do with the rise in temperatures? Have you actually heard of the sun? It is hot.

        “you’ll not as yet know of the problems that are happening NOW!”

        Problems are always happening. There is nothing new about this one except for its use by those who would prefer to take away your right to life, liberty and property. And you are clearly drinking the kool-aid.

        “If you think that shelling out to clean up the polluters will cost a lot what’s it going to cost to find a suitable living area for these displaced people now and those that will follow them?”

        I am amazed that you think it is my problem.

      • #2517715
        Avatar photo

        :D :^0 :D :^0 :D :^0 :D :^0

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        Maxwell is the only one with a possible workable result.

        However I got lost when SN53 claimed that they where unwilling to give up their [b]Life[/b] Liberty and whatever else to save these people that I did find confusing. 😀 Perhaps someone would like to PM me with what’s actually going on in the US as that answer just blew me away with it’s stupidity but then again I’m supposing that the same person is Demonstrating against the Patriot Act as well. 😀 At least that one is justified even if it ends up landing them in front of a McCarty Style Kangaroo Court where you have to constantly claim now that you have never been or have had any intention to be associated with the Communist Party in any form even if this in itself goes against the Freedom of Speech that so many in the US claim to protect.

        But everyone had better watch out just in case that [b]Magic Bullet[/b] gets loose again and kills off everyone in the US. :^0

        Col

      • #2535053

        Carteret Islands and enviro-religionists

        by sn53 ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        HAl wrote, “From the good rises in heat and Ocean Levels

        Apparently the good people who live on the Carteret Islands are being flooded out of house & home as well as having their gardens destroyed by sea water bubbling up through the ground at high tide…”

        HAL, I googled the Carteret islands and discovered a few things. First, enviro-religionists are blaming global warming. The Carteret Islands have been sinking for at least 20 years. Second, scientists believe there might be a variety of causes. For example, the Island sits atop a coral reef that is atop a volcano. According to the article these kinds of atolls usually sink back below the ocean levels eventually. Second, the people dynamited large paths through the coral reef some time ago. Waves that might have broken against the coral reefs now break against the atoll that is, at its highest point only five meters above the ocean level. Tides can rise that high, can’t they?

      • #2533865

        Colin, when do you leave for the Carteret Islands?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to SN53 & Maxwell here are your first lot of Refugees

        When are you going to put your time and money where your mouth is? When do you leave? How long will you stay? What are you going to do?

    • #2517744
    • #2526640

      Bush administration interferes with federal research.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      New Scientist Environment

      [b]US fudging of climate science – details revealed[/b]

      12:30 20 March 2007
      NewScientist.com news service
      Kelly Young

      The Bush administration has again been charged with interfering with federal climate science, in order to underplay the significance of global warming.

      In a continuing investigation, the US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held its second hearing on the issue on Monday. Documents “appear to portray a systematic White House effort to minimise the significance of climate change”, said a memo released by the committee.

      The committee heard from James Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and one of the first scientists to warn of the threat of climate change.

      In written testimony, Hansen said: “In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.”

      [b]”Normal review process”[/b]

      However, the committee also heard a former White House aide defending his editing of government reports on climate change, to put them in line with the views of the Bush administration.

      Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) from 2001 to 2005, said this editing was part of the normal review process between agencies. Before he joined the White House, Cooney was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, and he now works for the oil giant ExxonMobil.

      The committee heard of this top-down pressure on climate scientists during the first hearing in January (see US climate scientists pressured on climate change). Former government scientist Rick Piltz said that Cooney had tried to downplay the consequences of climate change in government documents.

      [b]Fudge and delete[/b]

      In a 10-year policy plan, Cooney and Brian Hannegan, also at CEQ, made at least 181 edits to emphasise scientific uncertainty regarding the effects of climate change and 113 changes to minimise the importance of human contributions to global warming, according to the committee’s memo.

      For example, Cooney replaced “will” with “may” in the sentence: “Warming temperatures will also affect Arctic land areas.” He also deleted this sentence: “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”

      Cooney says he thinks his edits, including the scientific uncertainties, are in line with conclusion of a 2001 report on climate change by the National Academy of Sciences (presumably this one).

      In another case, Cooney said he was concerned that a US Environmental Protection Agency draft report was not leaving enough uncertainty on the link between human activities and observed warning. “I wanted a broad quote because it’s an important question,” Cooney said in his first public statement about his changes.

      [b]Right to speak[/b]

      Hansen had previously accused political appointees of trying to silence scientists (see US agencies accused of muzzling climate experts). His case came to prominence in 2006 after he had called for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (see Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him).

      NASA public affairs officer George Deutsch, a political appointee, subsequently denied a media request to interview Hansen and instead offered other NASA managers for the interview. “I’m an American,” Hansen said. “And I exercise my right to free speech. If public affairs people tell me I can’t do that… I ignore them.” Deutsch later resigned when it was revealed he had fudged his r?sum?.

      However, the Bush administration is not the only one to have exerted political pressure in this field of research, according to one witness. Meteorologist John Spencer, who said his position is that humanity’s role in climate change is not fully understood, said he felt political pressure much earlier ? under the Clinton administration. Spencer, also a proponent of intelligent design, resigned from NASA in 2001 after a 14-year career.

      “I’m just pointing out that the political interference goes both ways, but not everybody has felt compelled to complain about it,” Spencer told the committee.

      [b]Climate Change[/b] – [i]Learn more in our continually updated special report.[/i] http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change

      [b]Related Articles[/b]

      US climate scientists pressured on climate change
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11074
      31 January 2007

      US agencies accused of muzzling climate experts
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18925403.900
      25 February 2006

      US climate change assessments misrepresented’
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18625043.500
      18 June 2005

      [b]Weblinks[/b]

      Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, US House
      http://oversight.house.gov/

      James Hansen, NASA
      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

      Council on Environmental Quality, White House
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/

    • #2526639

      Satellite imaging of greenhouse gas movements

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      New Scientist Environment

      [b]Movies map global greenhouse gas movement[/b]

      17:00 21 March 2007
      NewScientist.com news service
      Fred Pearce

      It?s not exactly an Oscar-winning show, but it is a scientific first. European researchers have produced the first movies of how atmospheric concentrations of the two most important man-made greenhouse gases ? carbon dioxide and methane ? change with the seasons.

      The movies cover the period of 2003 to 2005. The data behind the show come from the first space sensor capable of measuring levels of CO2 and methane through the entire depth of the atmosphere.

      The Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Cartography is aboard the European environmental satellite ENVISAT, which was launched in 2002.

      The sensor observes the spectrum of sunlight shining through the atmosphere. This provides a proxy for concentrations of the gases, because their radiation-trapping properties work at distinct wavelengths.

      [b]Breathing in and out[/b]

      What is most immediately obvious in the two movies is how natural ecosystems ?breathe? greenhouse gases. CO2 levels are highest at the end of the winter, before vegetation starts to absorb the gas during the spring growing season. Methane levels are highest in the summer, when forests and swamps release the gas.

      The researchers say these natural cycles balance out over the year. What nature releases, it later absorbs. But on top of the season variations, however, CO2 shows a strong increase in average annual concentrations (see the movie here). This is caused by human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels, but also deforestation.

      While the gases eventually mix in the atmosphere, the seasonal short-term ?hotspots? revealed in the movies show concentrated sources of emissions, and the ?coldspots? reveal sinks, where nature absorbs the gases.

      [b]Model behaviour[/b]

      Michael Buchwitz at Bremen University in Germany, who compiled the movies, says they have real research value. For instance, the methane movie reveals larger than expected emissions from tropical rainforests, confirming some recent research findings.

      The next step is to compare the actual geographical and seasonal variations in gas concentrations revealed in the movies with the predictions of models. This, says Buchwitz, should reveal shortcomings in the models and help researchers improve them.

      The data do not provide direct information on emissions. Nevertheless, they should allow scientists to identify countries that fail to declare all their greenhouse gas emissions to international emissions treaties such as the Kyoto protocol, whose targets come into force at the start of 2008.

      [b][i]All the movies can be found here.[/i][/b]
      http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/

      [b]Related Articles[/b]

      Satellite to provide new test of global warming threat
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn8091
      03 October 2005

      Forests belch out greenhouse gas
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18524925.400
      26 March 2005

      Giant European satellite gets perfect launch
      http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn1990
      01 March 2002

      [b]Weblinks[/b]

      Mapping project’s homepage
      http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/sciamachy/NIR_NADIR_WFM_DOAS/

      • #2532082

        No comments on [i]data[/i]?

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Satellite imaging of greenhouse gas movements

        This is [b]data[/b] deserving of review and consideration.

        • #2532060

          Get real, deepsand!!!!!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to No comments on [i]data[/i]?

          There IS NO CONCLUSIVE DATA to support your assertion than mankind is causing global warming. You’re an absolute fool and idiot if you believe such a thing.

          THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • #2527952

          Non-responsive, [i]non sequitur[/i] & [i]ad hominem[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Get real, deepsand!!!!!

          So, you refuse to even examine the data; no surprise there.

        • #2532043

          Comment

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to No comments on [i]data[/i]?

          There is not enough data to reach a conclusion.

        • #2527951

          You failed to address the data provided.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Comment

          Did you even examine it?

        • #2527495

          Yes, I did.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to You failed to address the data provided.

          It is interesting, to be sure, but says nothing (yet) that answers the question at hand.

        • #2527005

          Not intended to be an “answer.”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Yes, I did.

          It was intended to demonstrate that:

          1) Data which some have claimed to be non-extant does in fact exist;
          2) That such data demonstrate an upward trend in the levels of concentration of “green house” gases;
          3) That said concentrations display identifiable geographic patterns; and,
          4) That said patterns serve to explain why observed uptrends in average temperatures have been more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern one.

      • #2527885

        “The data do not provide direct information on emissions”

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Satellite imaging of greenhouse gas movements

        But, emissions data are available in the form of oil refinery output. I’d say we’re close to a conclusive answer. Tony, max, sn53, are you ready to address the data on its own merits? Fraudulent data would be a career-ending move for a scientist. Just ask the Korean who recently claimed a breakthrough in cloning that he didn’t actually achieve. You have already claimed that many scientists are lying. Can you prove that claim, in even one case?

        • #2527816

          Conclusions

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to “The data do not provide direct information on emissions”

          Abso, you are missing the point. It is not about data. It is about conclusions. It is about who pays and who gets.

        • #2527777

          Of course, it’s about conclusions. The route to which is?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Conclusions

          Do we decide [b]solely[/b] based on our wish to not pay taxes? If so, we can take comfort in holding the moral high ground, while Bush is swayed to Al Gore’s camp, and we pay higher taxes.

        • #2527493

          I would think

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Of course, it’s about conclusions. The route to which is?

          that if they had the proof they desired, then there would already have been civil lawsuits won. Have there even been any filed?

        • #2527021

          Live free or die

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Of course, it’s about conclusions. The route to which is?

          It is more about the yearning to remain as free as it is still possible to be. I pay about half of my income in taxes. It is a very large sum of money.

          I will not give up any more freedom without a fight. If United Nations global warming becomes the rallying call then I guess we are in for a ride.

        • #2527012

          They might want to ask themselves…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Live free or die

          Which will cause more pollution… SUVs or bombers?

        • #2526996

          Easy factual answer – SUVs.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to They might want to ask themselves…

          .

        • #2526999

          Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Live free or die

          And, our Constitution does [b]not[/b] guarantee the latter. Why do you and so many others equate the two?

          I should be very happy were it the case that our climate and other environs were immune to mankind’s influences, if only in that it would relieve me of my duty to well care for that which is entrusted to me. However, I cannot in good conscience allow my desire for such to blind me to any evidence that such may not be the case.

          And so, as a rational being, I am compelled to accept that which physically is, no matter how it pleases me. And, if such sufficiently displeases me, then I must seek out and take such steps as may be available for effecting physical change that would decrease my displeasure.

        • #2526843

          Not [b]just[/b] wealth, but freedom includes

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          the freedom to acquire and use one’s wealth (whether it be great or small) as one wishes as long as one does not infringe on the freedoms of another.

          If you (personally) can prove that I (personally) am infringing on your rights, then society can rightfully exact an equitable penalty from me (personally) for doing so. Any other taking of my property is theft.

          Pretty soon, many people are going to begin earnestly defending their property from such theft.

        • #2520914

          Freedom to be left alone

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          You just don’t get it do you?

          Never mind. You never will get it.

        • #2520882

          Tony: I’ve not argued to the contrary.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          The difference between you and sn53 is that you have allowed that one’s right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibilty to not use it to the detriment of others.

          Not only has sn53 yet to do the same, but he has even gone so far as to deny that rights bear commensurate duties.

        • #2520879

          sn53: You err, in the usual manner, by assuming too much.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          I “get” far more than you imagine.

          If you’d bothered to do some background reading of my many posts here at TR, you’d know better than to assume that, just because I take issue with a particulare statement made by you, I necessarily take issue with all that you believe.

          To repeat, “[i]you can’t learn what you don’t want to know.[/i]”

        • #2520355

          Yet there are those who propose

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          to exact a penalty (Global warming tax) on me without:

          A. Proving that a crime was committed, and

          B. Proving that I am in any way responsible for it.

          That violates my rights!

        • #2532248

          Tony: That’s still putting the cart before the horse.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          If you agree that issues such as this should be judged on their factual merits, then you cannot begin by arguing matters of policy. It is only after matters of fact have been settled that those of policy can be properly addressed.

        • #2532233

          That’s my entire point!

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          Policy changes are already occurring or in the process!

        • #2514643

          Tony: “Therefore, what”?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          [i]That’s my entire point!
          Policy changes are already occurring or in the process![/i]

          If you dislike the policy changes, which are occurring because of what is [b]believed[/b] to be fact, don’t you want to address the “facts” which [b]are[/b] the basis of those policies?

        • #2514486

          address the “facts” which are the basis …

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          Well, that would be a be a different topic altogether, wouldn’t it? 🙂

          Whether you call it socialism or carbon credits, the reason for the political involvement is solely to take from those who earn (please note the use of the word “earn” rather than the word “have” is quite intentional, as those who are running this dog and pony show already have “theirs”) and give to those who don’t (all the while, of course, being [b]in control[/b] of it).

          If they really “[b]believed[/b]” what they claim as fact, they would not continue to do the very things they claim are bad for the planet.

        • #2514473

          Tony: You are contradicting yourself.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          If you believe that policy is being altered without sufficient facts to justify such, then it becomes all the more important that you [b]give priority to addressing the facts[/b], not the policy, as without such, you will be unable to affect policy.

          Therefore, you must [b]stop debating policy, and chase the facts posthaste.[/b]

        • #2514457

          No contradictions here.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          “Human caused global warming” is the (current) excuse, not the reason.

        • #2540358

          Tony: That merely evades the contraction addressed.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Freedom and wealth are [i]not[/i] one and the same.

          .

        • #2532549

          Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Live free or die

          deep wrote, “The difference between you and sn53 is that you have allowed that one’s right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others.”

          I would like to hear from you how a right, for example the right to be left alone, imposes a responsibility on me. Or, if you prefer some of the other recognized rights like the right to speak, to assemble, to bear arms…

          “Not only has sn53 yet to do the same, but he has even gone so far as to deny that rights bear commensurate duties.”

          One you impose an obligation upon me then it is no longer a right. It is merely something the state allows me to do if I pay the state enough. Rights impose limits upon the power of the state. They do not impose limits upon the individual.

        • #2532247

          The lessons in ethics that you seek will not be found here.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          You may wish to begin by consulting a pastor and/or a philosopher.

          I could, of course, explain it all to you; but, as I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to engage in that which you yourself are capable of, I’ll leave it to you to educate yourself.

          Thanks for the opportunity; but, no thanks.

        • #2514641

          Rights & responsibilities both derive from the same source:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          Reality.

          I do not impose on you the responsibility to eat, your stomach does. Our Constitution recognizes that individual liberty is an essential attribute, endowed by the nature of what we are, as our “Creator” made us. Whether that Creator is called Nature or God is secondary. Our fundamental nature is that we are individuals, and as such, free to pursue our happiness individuall, and responsible to care for ourselves individually. Even if I were willing to do you the favor, I could not spare you the necessity of eating.

          The ethical argument for collectivism because of global warming is based on the fact that [b]if[/b] the ecochondriacs are right, we will all sink together. I think it’s unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.

        • #2514530

          Those pesky rights

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          abso wrote, “Rights & responsibilities both derive from the same source:”

          Let us try out a few rights. Let me begin by stating that rights limit the power of government to interfere with me. If you went to a government school you probably believe that rights are granted by government and are matched up with responsibilities. To whom am I responsible when I exercise my rights? So let us begin.

          I have the right to be left alone. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

          I have the right to speak freely. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

          I have the right to defend myself. I can be armed. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

          I have the right to peacefully assemble with others. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

          I have the right to own property. What responsibility do I have? And to whom?

          Let us begin with these rights.

        • #2514477

          Don’t fall into the trap, Abs.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [i]I think it’s unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.[/i]

          They’ve created a religion out of this issue and as you know, it’s impossible to prove the [b]non-existence[/b] of their god.

        • #2514470

          sn53: Try re-reading, [i]very carefully[/i]

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          “one’s right to freedom is [b]not exclusive to that of others[/b], that it brings with it the [b]responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others[/b].”

          “Others” includes all those now living and yet to live; and, perforce, it includes the environs in which we live.

        • #2514469

          Tony: We’re trying to discuss facts, not faith.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          You constant injection of terms such as “religion” does not well serve us here.

        • #2514468

          Even peskier

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          You have the right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, and to or for whomever you want. Government exists to curtail as many of those rights as much as is necessary to ensure the continued existence of the government. Your “responsibility” is that which is imposed on you by the government in the form of consequences for mis-asserting those (curtailed) rights.

        • #2514462

          Don’t like it when the light is shined on you, eh?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          Any discussion of future events requires faith in something.

        • #2514450

          Not exactly, Deep

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [i]”one’s right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others.”[/i]

          Change “others” to “the government”.

          “People” assert their rights to the detriment of “others” all the time.

          [i]”Others” includes all those now living and yet to live;[/i]

          Oh no!!!! Not the abortion thread again…

        • #2514443

          Rights? Or not?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          deep wrote, “sn53: Try re-reading, very carefully”

          You do the same.

          “one’s right to freedom is not exclusive to that of others, that it brings with it the responsibility to not use it to the detriment of others.”

          You are arguing that we have no rights. We will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion your beliefs always lead to tyranny.

          “”Others” includes all those now living and yet to live; and, perforce, it includes the environs in which we live.”

          See what I mean? You can create any argument you want once you eliminate any real meaning to that pesky word “rights”.

        • #2514341

          Thanks for your concern, Tony, but…

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          “[b]Don’t fall into the trap, Abs.[/b]

          [i]I think it’s unavoidable that the libertarian argument against global warming taxes and legislation be based on the science.[/i]

          They’ve created a religion out of this issue and as you know, it’s impossible to prove the [b]non-existence[/b] of their god.”

          That’s true. This religion also relies for its existence on something whose similarity to the proverbial ‘fig leaf’ is easy to fathom. It is also [b]easy[/b] to undermine.

          The christian church enjoyed better catapults, and other military advantages that early science provided to its affiliated governments. It wasn’t until about the time that science [b]proved[/b] that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, or even of the Solar System, that the church began persecuting scientists for ‘heresy’. Today, knowing science fact from science fiction is also treated as heresy in some circles of rabid environmentalists.

          Today, the unincorporated church of primitivism similarly is attempting to use science to provide to it evidence that technology is the root of all evil — the modern, ideological equivalent of the catapults that science provided to popes and kings. ‘Environmentalism’ is aimed directly at the minds of productive people. I’m firing back in kind, and my intellectual ammunition is far greater. The only question now is whether the loudest or the truest voices will win the argument.

          I think that SHOUTING makes me close to indistinguishable from my enemy, whose method is to appeal to emotion, particularly to fear & unearned guilt. To defeat my enemy requires that I undermine it at its claims to any semblance of factual & rational validity, and to do so objectively. The worship of primitivism on the basis of science is ludicrous on its face. Yet, a lot of people are voting for exactly that. I don’t need to prove [b]non-existence[/b] of this particular god, because all but the most hard-core, nihilist primitivists have been convinced in the ‘evil-ness’ of technology on the basis of pseudo-scientific dogma. I only need to undermine the dogmas to kill the environmentalists’ ‘god’. They have fear on their side; I have reality on mine. May the best side win!

        • #2540361

          Tony: Misrepresenting my statements will not suffice to rebut.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          .

        • #2540360

          sn53: What [i]you[/i] advocate is [i]ANARCHY[/i].

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          Have you taken leave of your senses? Or, are you just being deliberately obtuse and argumentative?

        • #2540458

          rights and anarchy

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          I haven’t read this entire subthread. I only skimmed parts of it. The word “anarchy” caught my attention, and prompted a response, though.

          1. There’s nothing ethically wrong with anarchy. Anarchy is nothing more than a lack of governmental “authority”. The only problem with anarchy is an engineering problem. That’s why I prefer a constitutional libertarian minarchy.

          2. Rights do not impose obligations. They are sacrosanct and sovereign. Rights cannot be taken away — they can only be violated or given up. To violate another’s rights with malicious intent, depraved indifference, or willful negligence is to demonstrate a rejection of rights — to abdicate rights by deed rather than by word. One cannot simply accept rights for oneself: one must accept and honor rights themselves, regardless of the people to whom they might apply, else one rejects rights in principle. Thus, rights in some sense do come with responsibility — one effectively shoulders the responsibility of respecting the rights of others by accepting the rights one has oneself, because they are one and the same. If you do not treat all rights as equal (barring those who demonstrate their rejection of rights), anything you claim for yourself you essentially claim as a privilege.

          Take that and run with it — fit it into the discussion how you like. I imagine someone will take vitriolic exception to my statements.

        • #2539800

          Well, apotheon, how then do you balance the rights …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          of one against those of another, if neither has the obligation to exercise such in a responsible manner?

          For example, under our 2nd Amendment, I’ve the reight to bears arms. And, as a hunter, I possess and use a number of firearms. Would you hold that I’ve the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I’ve the obligation to use them wisely?

        • #2539005

          Exhaust pipes are not firearms, deepsand!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          I know you addressed the question to apotheon, but I have an answer of my own for you.

        • #2538972

          deepsand, re: rights and obligations

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          I’m afraid I don’t understand your question, in the context of what I said. It seems as though you have the impression that only via acceptance of obligation can a society exist wherein people respect each others’ rights, and thus take my statement that an obligation is not necessarily attached to a right as a statement that there’s no compelling reason for anyone to respect others’ rights. Please let me know if that’s not what you infer, and thus what you subsequently intend to imply.

          This is, in fact, purely antithetical to the thrust of my comments — that one respects the rights of others by definition, if one accepts a meaningful definition of one’s own rights at all, and that otherwise one abdicates one’s own rights.

          [b]Absolutely:[/b]
          I think he brought up firearms only as a more immediate manifestation of principles of social order and ethics, meant to stand in as an analogy for other matters where one may similarly presume an obligation to respect the rights of others (if one accepts his assumptions about the nature of rights), such as on the subject of pollution and environmental effects.

          Knowing deepsand isn’t stupid, I must operate on the assumption (unless and until he convincingly disabuses me of the notion) that he chose firearms as the subject of his analogy because he knows I’m a strong libertarian thinker who unequivocally supports a broad interpretation of the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. He’s probably aiming to get me to agree to something related that will then relate in turn to the main subject of this discussion, and “score” a point.

          Of course, I’m not going to be drawn into the debate much here. I only commented in an opinionated manner because of careless use of the term “anarchy” and the associated discussion of rights — one of my favorite subjects. I’m willing to be convinced, though, if he has a convincing argument.

        • #2538852

          Deep: What statement?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          .

        • #2538850

          Firearms

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [i]Would you hold that I’ve the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I’ve the obligation to use them wisely?[/i]

          You have the right to their indiscriminate use. (however you also have the right to bear any consequences for such indiscriminate use).

        • #2538683

          not exactly the “right”

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          I would say he has rights that provide him the freedom for their indiscriminate use — right up to the point where the consequences hit home. I would not, however, say that he has the [b]right[/b] to use firearms indiscriminately.

          Rights do not obligate you to a course of action — but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another, whether willfully or with depraved indifference.

        • #2538650

          Who said

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [i]but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another[/i]

          No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you.

          It’s no different than the law of the jungle.

        • #2539727

          There you go again

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          deep wrote, “Well, apotheon, how then do you balance the rights … of one against those of another, if neither has the obligation to exercise such in a responsible manner?”

          You really have no idea what a right is do you deep? It is a limit imposed on governments.

          “For example, under our 2nd Amendment, I’ve the right to bears arms.”

          Yeah. Why do you suppose that is a right? You have the right to defend yourself against others and against the awesome power of the state.

          “And, as a hunter, I possess and use a number of firearms.”

          Interesting, but irrelevant. Your right to self defense is not about hunting. That more rightly falls under your right to pursue happiness.

          “Would you hold that I’ve the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I’ve the obligation to use them wisely?”

          I knew that you had no idea what a right was. The right you mention is the right to defend yourself. It imposes no obligation on you whatsoever.

          Maybe, just for practice you ought to try to explain how some other right imposes an obligation on you.

        • #2539689

          TonytheTiger, re: taking away rights

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          “[i]No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you.[/i]”

          Incorrect.

          Rights cannot be taken. They are not granted by the magnanimity of others, nor by the forbearance of others to take them away. One person has no effect on the existence of another’s rights. Rights are intrinsic and, in the words of the founders of the US, inalienable.

          Rights are not taken away by those who impose their will — they are only [b]violated[/b]. To claim that they are “taken away”, or that they cease to exist under circumstances of imposition from above, is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the term “rights”.

          You might argue that there is no such thing as a “right”, and I’d argue against you, but the idea that rights can go away just because someone else doesn’t respect it is patently false. That rights, assuming their existence at all, cannot be simply taken from you is a tautology. It’s a bit like saying that water is composed of dihydrogen oxide: that is central to the very definition of the the term “water”. Analogously, rights are intrinsic and not dependent upon the whims of others: that is central to the very definition of the term “rights”.

          I speak, of course, of philosophy and ethics — not of legal precedent. Legal precedent imposes a pragmatic set of half-baked descriptivist definitions on terms that properly have other, more correct, meanings.

          edit: broken italics

        • #2539642

          You forgot one thing.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          The one doing the imposing gets to set the definition.

        • #2539597

          moral and ethical relativism

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          With that level of moral and ethical relativism in your view, TonytheTiger, I’m surprised you bothered to get involved in this discussion at all.

          Once you decide that ethics is entirely a matter of might-makes-right definition of terms, you’ve made yourself entirely irrelevant to a discussion of what constitutes a right. When I say “you”, of course, I mean [b]you[/b], TonytheTiger.

        • #2539573

          moral and ethical relativism

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          My values are quite simple:

          I have the right to do whatever I want, to or for whomever I want, as long as I don’t harm anyone else.

          I have the right to not be harmed by others.

          It’s the second one I am having trouble with, because a “mighty” government has determined that certain others’ rights supercede my right to be free from harm.

          [i]I’m surprised you bothered to get involved in this discussion at all.[/i]

          Sometimes surprises can be good.

        • #2539415

          okay . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          “[i]I have the right to do whatever I want, to or for whomever I want, as long as I don’t harm anyone else.

          I have the right to not be harmed by others.[/i]”

          That actually sounds a lot like what I’d say about what rights people have — though my phrasing would be different. Of course, that directly contradicts the implications of your earlier statement:

          “[i]The one doing the imposing gets to set the definition [of rights].[/i]”

          So which is it? Do you have those rights, or are you merely subject to the whim of the guy with the biggest fist? They’re mutually exclusive statements about rights.

        • #2539038

          I am

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          merely subject to the whim, I guess. The only right I have is the right to think I should have a couple more rights, and even that one is only temporary.

        • #2531661

          To all

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [b]Absolutely[/b]

          I raised the issue of firearms simply as an example of a right which can be exercised, in the extreme, to the detriment of others, so as to violate their rights.

          [b]Apotheon[/b]

          Re. “[i]Knowing deepsand isn’t stupid, I must operate on the assumption (unless and until he convincingly disabuses me of the notion) that he chose firearms as the subject of his analogy because he knows I’m a strong libertarian thinker who unequivocally supports a broad interpretation of the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. He’s probably aiming to get me to agree to something related that will then relate in turn to the main subject of this discussion, and “score” a point.[/i]”

          I choose firearms, not in the hopes of “scoring” a point, but in the belief that you would clearly understand the thrust of my point, which, as evidenced by your statement “[i]I think he brought up firearms only as a more immediate manifestation of principles of social order and ethics, meant to stand in as an analogy for other matters where one may similarly presume an obligation to respect the rights of others[/i],” does seem to be the case.

          [b]Tony[/b]

          Apotheon has, in his own words, quite accurately and clearly re-stated my point; i.e. “[i]I would say he has rights that provide him the freedom for their indiscriminate use — right up to the point where the consequences hit home. I would not, however, say that he has the right to use firearms indiscriminately.

          Rights do not obligate you to a course of action — but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another, whether willfully or with depraved indifference.[/i]”

          As for your statement “[i]No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you,[/i]” it must be noted that there is a distinction between “natural” and “civil” rights. While it is true that the latter can be granted or withdrawn by force of Law, such is not true for the former; “natural” rights are those which are held to be an inherent quality which accrues to all men by virtue of their simply being “men.”

          That such may or may not be recognized and respected by others does not serve to either validate or negate them.

          [b]sn53[/b]

          As usual, you offer up a plethora of opinionated conclusions, both about myself and “rights,” but make no attempt to support such.

          Furthermore, you fail to make the important distinction between “natural” and “civil” rights.

          Rather than individually address the many flaws in your post, I will suggest that you read Apotheon’s posts, as he both clearly understands the issue raised by me and has well explained that which you seem to either fail to grasp or choose to ignore.

        • #2531579

          Do tell

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          [i]it must be noted that there is a distinction between “natural” and “civil” rights[/i]

          Any distinction is only in the mind of he who makes up the definition.

          [i]That such may or may not be recognized and respected by others does not serve to either validate or negate them.[/i]

          If they are not recognized or respected by others, what good are they? When the light turns green I have the right to proceed through the intersection. If I get broadsided and killed by a drunken semi-truck driver who blew the light, I would submit that my rights have been quite thouroughly negated!

        • #2541368

          And in that, Tony, you have made my point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Explain how rights impose responsibilities

          “[i]If they are not recognized or respected by others, what good are they? When the light turns green I have the right to proceed through the intersection. If I get broadsided and killed by a drunken semi-truck driver who blew the light, I would submit that my rights have been quite thouroughly negated![/i]”

          We concur. Rights are [b]not[/b] unfettered; they are in fact bounded by the responsibility to respect the rights of others.

        • #2532548

          How much does deep get?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Live free or die

          deep wrote, “I “get” far more than you imagine.”

          I don’t imagine that you get very much.

          I think you are likely smart or at the least clever. I think in another 20 years or so you just might begin to get it. Just not today or tomorrow.

        • #2532244

          That’s because your imagination is limited, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to How much does deep get?

          by your own self-imposed constraints.

        • #2526993

          Conspiracies are difficult to maintain.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to “The data do not provide direct information on emissions”

          With each additional member, the probablity that a conspiracy will be revealed increases exponentially.

        • #2526976

          Exponentially?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Conspiracies are difficult to maintain.

          Your point is certainly valid without the assertion ‘exponentially’. I’m not so sure, though, that each new conspirator is really twice as likely as the previous one to reveal the conspiracy. Hyperbole?

          Either way, I certainly agree that ‘conspiracy’ tends to be a less believable ‘explanation’ as the number of conspirators increases.

        • #2526745

          Three can keep a secret

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Exponentially?

          if two are dead 🙂

        • #2520875

          Close; but, only if [i]all 3[/i] are dead.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Three can keep a secret

          .

        • #2520876

          To restate mathematically, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Exponentially?

          Let [b]N[/b] be the number of people entrusted with a secret.

          Assume that the probability of each to maintain that secret is the same.

          Let [b]P[/b] be the probability that any individual will keep the secret.

          Then, the probability, [b]S[/b], that [b]all[/b] such persons will keep the secret is [b]N ** P[/b], where “**” stands for the exponentiation operator.

          And, the probability that the secret will [b]not[/b] be kept by at least one person is [b](1 – S)[/b], or [b](1 – (N ** P))[/b].

        • #2539011

          To restate politically, …

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to To restate mathematically, …

          If 99% of people stand to gain from defrauding only 1% of the populace of our earnings, then the motivation of those entrusted with the secret is exactly equal to zero. Even infinitely recursive multiplication of that probability will leave it unchanged: 0. The exponentiation operator is only shorthand for the aformentioined recursive operation. Like all socialist transfer-of-wealth schemes, the plot need not be secret, but only more beneficial to the many whose production is less than that of the productive few, in order to motivate allegiance to the lie.

        • #2521107
    • #2526206

      The jury is in!

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      • #2526166

        WARNING: Off-topic rant.

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to The jury is in!

        [i]?They?re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,? paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute ?trial? in his classroom.[/i]

        Take your low expectations, and shove them Ken Poppe. Your low standards and willingness to accept less than excellence from your students are the reason that so many children have been left behind by the “education system” of this country. [b]STOP BEING SURPRISED THAT CHILDREN ARE SMART.[/b] Be surprised when they aren’t.

        X-(

        Sorry, maxwell, off-topic rant concluded.

    • #2526987

      You just can’t win.

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      • #2526975

        Pessimist!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to You just can’t win.

        LED lights are more efficient than compact fluorescents anyway.

        • #2526901

          Not to mention

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Pessimist!

          they last … well, I don’t know … has one ever actually ever burned out? 🙂

        • #2520872

          Yep, they do eventually fail.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Not to mention

          Have you never seen a LED tail light with one or more dead element?

        • #2521172

          “eventually” tends to describe long intervals

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Yep, they do eventually fail.

          This case is no exception. Plus, they fit well into easily-manufactured ‘breadboards’. Thomas Edison will still be famous, but his invention is now obsolete.

        • #2520360

          Not personally,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Yep, they do eventually fail.

          I DID see half the lights (whichever half was lit at the time) in an entire section of a city’s traffic light grid blow when 440 Volts was accidentally applied. This was particularly bad because the transformer in the (incandescent replacement) unit [b]didn’t[/b] blow, meaning the controller didn’t know it! Luckily it was in the middle of the night, and no accidents were reported because of it.

          In theory they should at least last for years, perhaps decades. Provided they are operated within their spec.

        • #2520290

          parallel or series

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Not personally,

          Intelligently connected, low resistance, low current LED lights would totally bypass the problem TonytheTiger described above.

      • #2520874

        Just save them; some day they’ll be collectibles!

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to You just can’t win.

        .

    • #2526866

      Nice try, but

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      I didn’t see anybody successfully sue anybody else for “causing global warming”.

    • #2520885

      My repsonse was correct with respects to your implied question.

      by deepsand ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      You did not ask if anyone had succeeded in such a suit.

      And, you seem to have overlooked or avoided the issue that a suit brought against Sovereign can only be tried if the Sovereign so agrees.

      Did you determine the status of any of the cases sited by Google, or any other SE? Did you try any other search terms?

      Or, did you just blow off the matter?

      Since information re. your question is as easily available to you as it is to me, why did you not first research the question yourself?

    • #2521099

      Proving claims

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      How often do I have to suggest that it’s not possible for us to “prove” any such claims among us? Neither you (Absolutely), or I, or deepsand, or Tony, or SN53, or anyone around here is QUALIFIED to prove or disprove anything that supports or debunks the notion of man-caused global warming. At best, all we can do is provide sources to people who ARE qualified to agree or disagree with the notion.

      Even if you THINK you’re somehow qualified, perhaps even as an interested hobbyist, unless ALL parties are, in the very least, equally “interested”, it’s an effort in futility. Go ahead and try to discuss the nuances of playing chess and the various playing strategies all you’d like, but if the person with whom you’re conversing doesn’t know the difference between a rook and a knight, what’s the point? There simply aren’t any “scientists” hanging around this water cooler!

      And quite frankly, I believe I’ve provided MORE real and qualified sources to dispute the notion that those who’ve tried to support it. I’ve provided names and links to real people, while my opposition has provided more general sources, lacking specifics, or ones that (who) aren’t, themselves, qualified. Al Gore is leading the global warming charge! Give me a break!

      Nonetheless, it’s silly to think we can “interpret the data” and form an accurate “conclusion”. Deepsand’s insistence on doing just that is only a smokescreen for his inability to debate me on the REAL issue, which is the politicization of unproven and unsubstantiated “science”, based on “claims” that are, at best, unproven theories (ones that other qualified people have debunked), and how the socialist left has hijacked the issue to advance their political agenda.

      The “issue” is not whether or not mankind is, in some way, affecting the global temperature and/or climate, because it’s not conclusive; there is no consensus; there’s plenty of disagreement; there’s no proof. The “issue” is whether or not people’s liberty will be denied because of questionable claims by unqualified people.

      The issue (or better stated, the question) belongs in science, not in politics. Not only am I — not only are we — unqualified to discuss the science, but I have absolutely no interest in doing so. Until the question is answered in the affirmative, beyond any doubt whatsoever, and until it’s as clear and obvious as the moon is round, then keep your science out of my politics.

      You keep the science out of the politics, and I’ll keep the politics out of the science. How’s that for a deal? Discuss your “science” all you want, but don’t include others in your “therefore what” conclusion. And until you can do that, until everyone can do that, it’s simply not possible to discuss one without discussing both — and that’s why deepsand is the biggest global warming blowhard in the history of earth — a warming one or otherwise. He refuses to acknowledge that simple and very obvious FACT. But then again, he [i]can’t learn what he doesn’t want to know[/i], right deepsand?

      And here’s something interesting to consider on the “global warming” question. Which came first, the science or the politics? And a second question. Who butted their noses into the other’s business first, the scientists or the politicians? You honestly answer those two questions, and it’ll be obvious what kind of issue this is, one of science or one of politics. And “politics”, by the way, takes on many meanings here. Consider ALL meanings of the word.

      • #2520361

        Which came first? Who butted in?

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Proving claims

        We’ve been getting along pretty well recently, so I figure it’s time to tick you off, just a little bit.

        😀

        I’m not sure, but the phrase you used, “butted their noses into the other’s business,” brought [b]business[/b] to mind. Juxtaposed in my mind with the question of government, World War 2 came immediately to mind, that being the first military conflict after which US taxation did not quickly return to pre-war levels. That also marked the dawn of the atomic age, via the Manhattan Project. I haven’t checked the history of government funding for scientific research, nor the date that the National Science Foundation or other government agencies were founded, but a semi-educated first guess is that government started interfering in scientific funding about the same time that the government took a greater interest in scientific research for military purposes. Now, please excuse me while I go check whether my guess was close. When I have the founding dates of a handful of government agencies copied & bookmarked, I’ll post them, and discuss in terms of global warming research.

        Later,

      • #2520347

        “highlights” of the history of government in science

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to Proving claims

        NASA, founded 1958

        http://history.nasa.gov/

        Billions of Dollars, and growing steadily.

        http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/FY_2007/index.html

        National Science Foundation founded in 1950

        http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/

        NSF to request [b]6.8%[/b] raise (Outstanding annual performance review?), for $6,430,000,000 (I believe it disingenuous to abbreviate LARGE amounts of money with words like “million” & “billion”, although the Foundation reported this amount as “$6.43 billion”. The more money is involved, the more I want to see all the zeroes, and all the commas!)

        http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2008/index.jsp

        Now, let’s see about “Noah”…

        http://www.noaa.gov

        $3,480,000,000 for 2008

        “Lautenbacher said NOAA’s request totals $3.8 billion or an increase of 3.4 percent over the administration’s 2007 request.”

        http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2789.htm

        Environmental Protection Agency, founded in 1970. That would have been during the reign of Mr. “Great Society”, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the epitome of the bleeding heart “liberal”.

        EPA financial assets reported for FY 2005, $18,144,197,000

        http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/finservices/fininformation.htm

        It was not fun to locate the EPA’s “Performance & Accountability Report”. The other agencies put convenient links to their present budget requests for the upcoming year right on their main pages. Not the EPA.

        • #2520346

          [i]Data[/i] on the government’s involvement in science.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “highlights” of the history of government in science

          I say maxwell edison has made a fair point. To wit, to the extent that government [b]funds[/b] the very research that is cited in support of the claim that we are all harming the Earth, and therefore should give up some of our [b]essential Liberty[/b], it is reasonable to suspect an essential conflict of interests: the interest in expanding government power for its own sake versus the interest of providing factual & objective research for the sake of better understanding Nature.

          [ps I thought I would tick you off by speculating, but I didn’t clarify that small joke. You cook a frog by putting it in comfortable water and increasing the heat gradually. This process began when commendable industrialists were first vilified as “robber barons”. Earned wealth is the by-product of successful, honorable exercise of the right to pursuit of happiness.]

        • #2520324

          I’m not ticked off. But you confuse. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “highlights” of the history of government in science

          …..government and politics. There is a huge difference, albeit a foggy distinction in many ways.

          I actually anticipated someone mentioning the Manhattan Project, an obvious example of government and science working hand-in-hand. Another example was the quest to reach the moon in the 1960s. Both of those examples, however, were goals in search of a way to achieve them, not really unlike the Lewis and Clark expedition of the early 19th century.

          Thomas Jefferson wanted to find an inland route to an ocean he knew existed; John F. Kennedy wanted to find a way to get to a moon that was known to exist; and Franklin Roosevelt knew (or at least strongly suspected) that the atom could be split and/or contained and/or do whatever they did with the atom to make the big boom. All of those examples were policy decisions in search of a way to make them happen. All of those examples were goals with a clear concise reasons and specific deadlines, or target dates, or the quest to reaching an achievable goal. Lewis and Clark were to find a path and chart their findings; the moon mission was the goal to land before the end of the 1960s decade, and the Manhattan Project as soon as friggin’ possible. And none of those examples of partnership between government and science infringed on the liberties of the average citizen, nor did they presume to force those citizens to do anything.

          Keeping these things in mind, you’ll realize that there’s a huge difference between politics and government. You’ll also notice that not once in my original message did I mention “government”, but only politics. And you did not widen the definition of “politics”. (Think “politics” within a private business as one such application — or the “politics” in search of grant money.)

          If government were to enter into a partnership with our big three auto makers, for example, with a clear and specific goal to find a way we can mass produce an oil-free automobile, and give it a ten year target date, and do so for the reason to relieve our dependency on foreign oil, I’d actually be quite interested in the “mission”.

          But you mark my words; this nonsense we’re beginning to hear about people like Al Gore and John Edwards “buying” carbon credits to offset their “wasteful” lifestyle is only the start of what will be forced payments (taxes) on the rest of the people for their lifestyles.

          Never before in the history of the United States has “science” attempted to either control the behavior of our country’s citizens or deny them their due liberty. That alone should illustrate how this “issue” is not one of science, but rather one of a political agenda — and a socialist agenda at that. The “goal” in this current global warming nonsense is not to map the continent, or reach the moon, or split the atom, but to “control” the populous. It hasn’t yet reached “government”, but those advancing their political agenda are sure trying hard. Slowly but surely, they might be making it happen. And that ought to scare the hell out of anyone who places liberty at the top of the importance list.

          By the way, how do you cook a frog?

        • #2520298

          Please, stop calling it “socialist”.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’m not ticked off. But you confuse. . . . .

          There is no [b]social[/b] value in communist totalitarianism. Self-described “socialists” are no more the friends of [b]society[/b] than so-called “liberals” are the friends of [b]liberty[/b]. Words have literal meaningns. If people of your caliber do not defend good ideas at the point of the literal meaning of words, I guarantee you, nobody will, nor will 50% + 1 of voters recognize good ideas as such. I have no other complaint regarding your post.

          May the road rise to meet you and the wind be gently at your back,

        • #2520176

          You haven’t convinced me. They’re Socialists

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Please, stop calling it “socialist”.

          Words do have literal meanings, as you suggested, but they also have implied meanings. Moreover, the language has evolved since the days of the gay 90s (the 1890s, that is), and to communicate effectively one has to use the language as it will be best understood. James Madison’s definition of welfare, as another example, is vastly different than how it’s used today. As I’ve suggested before, often times your views, definitions, etc. are too “absolute”. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in all cases, but if those definitions and views can’t be applied and/or implemented in the reality of the day, your efforts will be futile.

          Would I have a better chance convincing people that the “leftist-leaning” party in America is [i]Socialist[/i] or [i]Totalitarian[/i]? The answer is the former. Just as Republicans espouse the principles and philosophies as defined by the Republican Party (at least in theory), and the Libertarians espouse the principles and philosophies as defined by the Libertarian Party (which are too absolute, by the way, which only results in making them insignificant in today’s reality), I can show that the “so called” Democrats not only espouse the principles and philosophies as defined by the Democratic Party, but ALSO the ones of the American Socialist Party of 1932. I could also be successful in comparing them to the Socialist-Democracies of Europe. I’d have a much harder time, however, defining the principles and philosophies of the Totalitarian Party, since there is no such thing. Besides, totalitarian more accurately describes a method of imposing a philosophy, not the philosophy itself. Totalitarian is a adjective, Socialist is a Noun. There could be a totalitarian socialist system, which would implement its philosophies in one manner, or a democratic socialist system, which would implement its philosophies in another — kinda’ like they do in Western Europe.

          http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/totalitarian

          http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/socialist

          The modern Socialist has evolved, and so must our language in describing them.

          http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism

          By the way, I’ve posted the comparison of today’s Democrats to the Socialists of 1932, and not once — not one single time — has anyone challenged me or disagreed with me. They know WHAT they are, and they know WHO they are, but they are SO AFRAID of that dreaded S-Word. Afraid of the S-Word, just like they were in 1932. And those Socialists actually shifted their efforts towards infiltrating and changing the Democratic Party from within. They were VERY successful; it only took them 30 or 40 years, and now those philosophies are an integral part of the Democratic Party platform. Study the history of the American Socialist Party, and you’ll discover that it was indeed a conscious and concerted effort on their part. (And that’s the best way to implement libertarian ideals as well — by focusing efforts on changing the Republican Party from within, not by trying to make the Libertarian Party a major player from without. The former is possible; the latter is not.)

        • #2520043

          You said it yourself: “(at least in theory)”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You haven’t convinced me. They’re Socialists

          That phrase always implies deviation from the theory being discussed. I can see your point about working from within to reform an existing political party rather than trying to create an upstart, but the reason you have to stipulate “at least in theory” is deviation in practice from the literal meaning of the words used. This is too fine a point to be easily adopted, by everyone, quickly, “in today’s reality”, but it is also the source of the problem.

        • #2532487

          At least in theory

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You said it yourself: “(at least in theory)”

          You’ve certainly heard me refer to the Republicans as baby Democrats — thus, “in theory”.

          Nonetheless, if you spend your efforts trying to make the Libertarian Party a major force, you might as well piss in the wind.

          Do us both a favor. Instead of looking for that little “something” in my message that you can disagree with, try taking it in its totality.

        • #2514554

          Your message, in context

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You said it yourself: “(at least in theory)”

          I don’t disagree with some “little thing” in your message. I disagree with the idiotic habit of Republicans to treat every item on their social agenda as a “war” — on crime, on drugs, on abortion. You talk a lot about principle, sometimes, but in other contexts you’re awfully emphatic about your expectation of others to compromise ours.

        • #2532232

          I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You haven’t convinced me. They’re Socialists

          to be able to transform themselves sufficiently for my liking within my lifetime.

          With one party seeking to spy on me while the other seeks to disarm me, both in the name of “security,” I find it best to sleep with neither.

          As I’ve repeatedly stated, I have always been, and will always be, fiercely Independent.

        • #2532228

          To be [i]fiercely Independent[/i] is to be. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          …..totally irrelevant

          Like it or not, for better or for worse, one of the major two parties will control Congress and win the White House. By failing or refusing to choose even a “lesser of two evils”, you concede possible control of Congress to the worst of two evils. The same applies to third-party presidential candidates without a snowball’s chance of wining. By remaining [i]fiercely Independent[/i] by voting for neither major party, again, you run the risk of helping elect your least desirable candidate.

          You might claim to be making a statement, but it’s falling on deaf ears and you remain an outsider — and neither party can be changed from the outside. The majority party controls Congress, and that’s the reality of our system. And as such, they chair the committees, set the agenda, decide which legislation to bring forward for a full floor vote, confirm judicial appointments, etc.

          By remaining [i]fiercely Independent[/i] you render yourself irrelevant, insignificant, and without a real voice.

        • #2532204

          It’s just like the country.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          If you don’t like the way things are going, you work to change it. Same with your party.

        • #2514644

          H. Ross Perot

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          H. Ross Perot was a serious enough contender — OUT OF NOWHERE! — that “irrelevant, insignificant, and without a real voice” strike me as a pessimistic exaggeration. He had billions of dollars. Third Party candidates may have more limited financial resources, but they also have (albeit limited) name recognition, if only within their party’s membership. There will also tend to be existing journalism of these candidates, from a political perspective, which the subset of voters who attempt to inform themselves can use to learn about “upstart” candidates.

          Changing from within is a good idea. So is reform due to competition against third parties, which in some states are of real concern to the Republicans. Whether I register Libertarian or Republican will depend on whether the Libertarians can get their acts together. So, probably R this year.

        • #2514498

          You’re mistaken on Perot

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          While he did receive a significant percentage of the vote, it was only around 19 percent (If I remember correctly), and he didn’t carry one state — not even one. I remember that election quite well. It was, in part, my support for Perot that led me to my conclusion.

          Did he come close to winning? No. Did he ever have a chance of winning? Again, no. Did it send that proverbial message about fiscal responsibility that I “thought” I was sending. Yea, right! All it did was send Bill Clinton to the White House instead of George HW Bush for a second term (A personal and political enemy of Perot, by the way).

          It was the most foolish vote I ever cast.

        • #2514458

          Well, max, since only [i]people[/i] can change a Party, …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          that’s why I [b]vote for the person[/b], not for a Party.

          Voting for a Party [b]assumes[/b] that all of that Party’s candidates will collectively act in a manner so as to achieve a result that is more desirable than that which would be effected by choosing the best candidate without regard to Party. As I’ve yet to see any evidence to support the former, I choose the latter.

        • #2514446

          Perot

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          was a Republican who didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the Republican nomination or, as was later proven, the Presidency.

        • #2514405

          deepsand, that’s illogical

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          Whether you want to admit it or not, one of the two major parties fall more in-line with your most important sets of values and policy preferences. If goes without saying, of course, that not all party platform issues would agree with any one given person’s position preferences, but anyone who knows even the slightest bit about our two parties could clearly choose one with whom he/she is closer aligned.

          I prefer the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater, for example, and there’s absolutely no way I can do my part to bring about party change towards that end by voting for a Democrat. You’re a fool if you think so. And what you said, [i]only people can change a Party[/i], is ONLY true if that person is within the party you’d like to change.

          You simply do not make sense with what you said.

        • #2540356

          Well, max, just remember that I voted for Ford, while you voted for Carter.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to I’ve neither faith nor trust in either the Democrats or the Republicans …

          And, while you continue to vote the Party line, I’ll continue to very carefully pick and chose those who get my vote, taking into account many more factors than you will allow exist.

          For example, I may in fact deliberately choose a candidate whose expected behavior may [i]not[/i] directly well comport with my goals, but will [i]indirectly[/i] result in a change in the behavior of others, such that my desired goal will in fact be advanced.

          In short, I take the long view, not unlike that of a skilled chess player.

        • #2520158

          Whenever someone

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Please, stop calling it “socialist”.

          thinks the government knows better than the citizens how to manage their own affairs and their own resources, they are socialists, no matter what they call themselves!

          [added: What do they call it in the book? (you know which one)]

      • #2532239

        Which came first? The Science, in the 19th century!

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Proving claims

        The study of climate science is much older than most people realize. For example, that CO2 acts as a “greenhouse gas” was 1st formally hypothesized in 1897.

      • #2532230

        Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the Sciences involved.

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to Proving claims

        Yes, you are right in saying that I’ve steadfastly eschewed arguing matters of policy; and, for a very good reason.

        [i]Good[/i] policy is based on the best possible understanding of the pertinent facts. Such is nothing more than an application of the principle that “Form follows Function.”

        Having been schooled in the Sciences I well understand this principle, and do not lightly abandon it.

        • #2532200

          The Science is manipulated

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the Sciences involved.

          deep wrote, “Good policy is based on the best possible understanding of the pertinent facts.”

          Perhaps. But in this case it looks far more like a power grab than it does an argument over facts.

          The science is manipulated by scoundrels. If it is real it will stand the test of time and serious peer review. Man-caused global warming is a theory. There are facts. They are being used to strong-arm us into submitting to yet more government control and taxation.

          For the record I prefer it to be warmer. If we are causing warming I think the people of the world owe us their gratitude.

        • #2514652

          The “science” is irrelevant. . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The Science is manipulated

          …..until it becomes fact. This has not become fact. deepsand is a big blowhard!

          And his ONLY retort, sn53, is to attack you. That’s ALL HE DOES — attack prople. He’s a first-class ASS!

        • #2514452

          The facts are available; by your own admission, you don’t understand them.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The “science” is irrelevant. . . . . . .

          .

        • #2514395

          Neither do you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The facts are available; by your own admission, you don’t understand them.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2203934

          For you to make such a claim [i]assumes facts not in evidence.[/i]

        • #2540353

          Saying that, max, won’t make it so.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The facts are available; by your own admission, you don’t understand them.

          Why don’t you try to study the sciences involved, rather than continueing to put your foot in your mouth?

          You claim to have offered a plethora of qualified sources to support your position. However, since, by your own admission, you do [b]not[/b] understand the science involved, you therefore are also [b]not able to judge[/b] the very sources and the statements that you put credence in.

          In fact, it is the case that you have very carefully selected only those sources which support your contentions, and knowingly and with intent disregarded those that do not.

        • #2514453

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The Science is manipulated

          “[i]The science is manipulated by scoundrels.[/i]”

          By scoundrels on which side?

          And, where’s your proof?

        • #2514441

          Proof

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Assumes facts not in evidence.

          deep wrote, “By scoundrels on which side?”

          On your side of course.

          “And, where’s your proof?”

          I have given the biggest reason already. The people who are making the greatest claims are the ones who have research money at stake. They have a vested interest in the direst of conclusions. It is simple human nature.

        • #2540352

          Saying such dos not make it so.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Proof

          You continue to engage in nothing but sophistry, to the point where you now bore me.

          If you’ve scientific facts to offer, then do so; otherwise, you’ve nothing to here contribute.

        • #2540325

          Goofy beliefs

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Saying such dos not make it so.

          deep wrote, “If you’ve scientific facts to offer, then do so; otherwise, you’ve nothing to here contribute.”

          My, my my. The real deep comes out. Not a pretty picture.

          You still think it is about facts? Once you figure out that it is about the power to control and to tax, come back. Until then you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

        • #2539798

          Goofy, non-substantive response, as usual.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Saying such dos not make it so.

          Silly rabbit.

        • #2514655

          Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the policy consideration

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the Sciences involved.

          You can have your “science”, but keep it out of policy considerations.

        • #2514635

          [i]You can have your “science” but keep it out of policy…[/i]

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the policy consideration

          OK, suppose we keep science out of policy. Do we stop using DNA evidence? Eliminate the entire field of forensic anthropology? Bar the actuarial profession & the insurance industry from testifying before the government?

          Of course, I know you don’t mean to prohibit the scientific method from being cited in government proceedings, but your literal meaning was, honestly, a bit difficult to understand.

          I won’t try to put into my own words what I think you mean, but I have enough of a sense of your views to ask this:

          If I promised to cite only research that is in no way government-funded, would you be willing to hold the debate? If so, would you also refrain from citing government-funded sources?

          PS neilb & deepsand: we can get good carbon emissions data from the petroleum extracted. We don’t need government data to present the case, if we’re any good at it.

        • #2514568

          My “literal” meaning

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to [i]You can have your “science” but keep it out of policy…[/i]

          You really need to comprehend instead of just read. You take “literal” to a ridiculous extreme, and render true understanding impossible. I’m not going to indulge you in such an exercise.

        • #2514528

          It might just be the sun

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to [i]You can have your “science” but keep it out of policy…[/i]

          abso wrote, “If I promised to cite only research that is in no way government-funded, would you be willing to hold the debate? If so, would you also refrain from citing government-funded sources?”

          Data are not necessarily the issue. The models were derived with a conclusion in mind. The Earth has been in a general warming trend since before the end of the last ice age. Americans were not driving SUVs 13,000 years ago. Other planets in the solar system are also showing signs of warming.

          It might just be the sun.

        • #2514501

          cite only research that is in no way government-funded?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It might just be the sun

          That would be interesting to see, but I doubt you can find any.

        • #2514403

          I doubt that I can find very much.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to cite only research that is in no way government-funded?

          If I recall correctly, NOAA has the most data on the actual temperature points. What I have in mind is reviewing the thermodynamics and the infrared emission/absorption spectra and the atmospheric composition (which is available to any dork with an elementary school chemistry set!) to prove either that there is so much CO2 being emitted that we’re in for it, or that there is so little in comparison to the total mass of the atmosphere that it’s delusional to think that automobile exhaust can have any relevant effect, or that it’s too close to call without more data.

          A valid scientific model should be based on unbiased acknowledgement that each of those three scenarios is possible. So should an honest debate. Finally, an honest debate should begin with the simplest theoretical models, and progress slowly, after proving each point conclusively, not jump from any assertion of fact directly to ‘therefore, ride bicycles to work and take the bus to do your grocery shopping’.

          As much as environmentalists ‘care’ about the Earth, they should be motivated to adopt their own advice voluntarily, whether or not the rest of us choose to do so. The very fact that their agenda has been [b]legislated [i]before it began to be[/i] engineered & manufactured[/b] is extremely suspicious.

          Hats off to those few who put their effort & their money where their mouth is.

          http://www.teslamotors.com/

          Sincere middle finger to those that just run their mouths.

        • #2514396

          You won’t be able to find much. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to cite only research that is in no way government-funded?

          …..because there’s no profit in it. Who’s going to pay somebody to study the atmosphere or an ice core a thousand feet deep? Where’s the profit motive? That’s why all such studies are, in some ways, funded by either government of education (which is, in most cases, also funded by government). At best, you might be able to find some private university funding such research, but not much else.

          You can certainly find a lot of scientists in the private sector, but they all work to produce some sort of product or service that could generate a profit.

        • #2514445

          You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It might just be the sun

          The issue you here raise has been amply addressed here and in other discussions; re-raising it will not change anything. So, I’m not going to waste my time with yet another explanation as to why your conslusion is mistaken.

          I’ll give you the same advise that I gave max; study the underlying sciences, such as physics and chemistry, rather than engaging in speculation that supports your desired conclusion.

        • #2514404

          deepsand, if I want your “advice”. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          …..I’ll give it to you.

        • #2514398

          You continue to show lack of respect for governance by [i]consent[/i]

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          “The issue you here raise has been amply addressed here and in other discussions; re-raising it will not change anything. So, I’m not going to waste my time with yet another explanation as to why your conslusion is mistaken.”

          Assuming that both the threat of global warming and the passion for liberty that you claim in matters of religion are valid, ‘waste’ is the wrong word to use to describe your use of your time. You have taken some time to post the dismissal to which I’m replying. You could have used that time to explain the science you advise others to study. You complain that they are not receptive to your [b]reasoning[/b], which is frequently outstanding.

          But, you & I also [b]know[/b] that they do not desire your conclusion. ‘Therefore, what?’ Does their disinterest in the conclusion you have reached put the burden on them to ‘agree’ after we legislate our conclusion, or does it put the burden on us, to present the facts on which we based our conclusion, slowly and meticulously enough that their intellect overcomes their wishes, and they are truly convinced? I know which approach is consistent with [b]my principles[/b].

        • #2540349

          Re. “slowly and meticulously enough that their intellect …”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          “… overcomes their wishes.”

          Been there; done that. It doen’t work.

          sn53 has repeatedly re-raised the “it’s the Sun” argument. I’ve elsewhere spelled it out in detail for him, to no avail. He will not allow that you or I know anything of the sciences involved; therefore, if he is to come to understand such issue, he must learn them through his own efforts.

          He is [b]deliberately obtuse[/b] and deserves no more time spent in repeating that which he [b]does not wish to learn.[/b]

        • #2540332

          sn53 is only one voter

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          The loudest and most opinionated ones do not represent the mainstream, majority of relevant opinions.

        • #2539794

          True; but, it was to him that I was replying.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          Just as you reached the point where you asserted that you had quit trying to engage in rational discourse with zealot44 re. ID, so too here re. sn53 and science.

        • #2539009

          I can relate, deepsand

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          I enjoy your dispassionate style even when I disagree with you, and hoped to encourage you to keep arguing. But, I completely understand that with some people there is a point after which communication is irrelevant. More importantly, I think there are more important arenas for this and other political discussions than this technophilic microcosm.

        • #2531658

          Amen, Absolutely.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You too continue to show a lack of understanding of Science.

          In the strictly secular sense, of course.

        • #2514408

          OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to It might just be the sun

          Although TonytheTiger has made some astute & hilarious points about the similarity of environmentalism to religion, there are also measurements available. I don’t quite accept that all who take global warming research to be factual and objective are quite as impervious to reason as the most outrageous zealots in Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. I think an organized debate among interested adults could be worthwhile.

          It might just be that I’ve been out in the sun too long!

          😉

        • #2519607

          As a latecomer . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I think this has something to do with the fact that I came along so late to this party.

          “[i]I think an organized debate among interested adults could be worthwhile.[/i]”
          I definitely think that something like this needs to start out with its own thread, or otherwise with its own specialized, from-scratch venue, with some ground rules laid out in advance (i.e., in the original post of the new thread).

          This would be especially important if you’re going to have me moderate, as I started out lost in this thread and have mostly stayed that way. One of the reasons I don’t tend to get involved in discussions here at TR after they get past about fifty posts or so is that the interesting topics fragment into subthreads that have their own discussion histories and contexts, but at the same time interlink through references to each other. It’s much easier to grasp all the necessary details as a complete system if you’re involved in the organic growth from the beginning than trying to catch up later on, I think.

          Is that what you had in mind when you started talking about a more formalized debate structure? That was my initial impression, but there hasn’t been much discussion in that regard.

          I’ve got some ideas for how to lay out some ground rules, if you (all) are amenable to them and if the above is pretty much what you had in mind. Let me know, please.

        • #2518174

          All of that looks good to me.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          In particular, I think a separate venue that would allow posting of common file formats for graphical presentation of statistics would be ideal.

        • #2519971

          I suppose I could set something up.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I might create a website for it, if you think that’d be appropriate. I’m thinking of invitation-only membership with moderated uploads and members-only discussion forum for the actual debate. It shouldn’t take too long to get set up, with the right CMS.

        • #2538064

          I think that’s a great idea.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          But the sticking point previously was a set of ground rules.

          Am I the only one who thinks that apotheon’s proposed terms for this debate are close enough to a middle ground to proceed from his suggestion, possibly with some minor modifications?

        • #2538967

          one more idea

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I think perhaps the best idea I’ve had so far for a debate format may be the newest — and one that occurred to me while I was reading deepsand’s reply to me on the subject of rights and firearms above. It’s simple:

          Two teams are organized (as you’ve done). Each team takes turns presenting an argument. The chain of logical point and counterpoint related to that argument will continue until a conclusion is reached. My role, as moderator, will be to determine when an argument stands validated or is sufficiently undermined as to be declared a lost point. Each point must begin with a simple listing of premises, valid arguments, and conclusion. For example:

          [i]Premises: Cars are capable of causing harm to human beings. The greatest value is human life.

          Arguments: Causing harm to human beings reduces the net value of cars. Other forms of transportation also exist, further reducing the net value of cars.

          Conclusion: Cars should be outlawed.[/i]

          Obviously, the above is full of holes, but it’s an example of a clear argument format. Links to related materials may be cited, but there should be no need to read the content from such external resources to discern their value — they should only be useful for verification purposes, and any “facts” may be disputed on the basis of an absence of cited sources for verification.

          Each such argument discussion then becomes its own thread of discussion, and a new one may not be started until the previous is declared concluded (win, lose, or draw).

          The whole thing strikes me as an interesting hybridized format, intermingling aspects of standard formal debate with those of a court trial proceeding, adjusted to fit the circumstances of online forum discussion. This being the case, I think I have just the software in mind to use for this. I’ll go ahead and set it up, the moment I get the go-ahead from three people — you, plus one member each of the two proposed teams. I’ll need a list of users with desired usernames for membership on the website, then I’ll set everything up. I should be able to get it all put together within a day’s time when I get started on it — and we can be ready to begin in earnest the moment all members of both teams are ready.

        • #2538874

          I’m in

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          .

        • #2538813

          apotheon – Count me in

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I suppose it goes without saying, but I’m on the side that claims man-caused global warming/climate change is a huge scam, and that the REAL debate/question has its roots — and catalyst — in politics, not science. Inasmuch as establishing public policy, to any degree whatsoever, it’s simply (or should be) a non-issue. If global warming/climate change really IS happening, which I won’t deny some “qualified” people suggest, it’s all part of the natural cycle of nature, something the earth has been experiencing since its beginning, and there’s nothing we can do about. And if — a VERY BIG IF — human activity is, somehow, contributing to the process, which is nowhere near “proven, but is often touted as undeniable, then it’s insignificant in the overall scheme of things, and should simply be a non-issue.

        • #2531848

          missing someone

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          Isn’t there a member of the “global warming is all our fault and it’ll kill us” team to agree or object? We’ve got the “this debate was my idea” guy (Absolutely) and a member of the “global warming is a scam designed to get certain politicians elected” team (maxwell edison), but not the a member of the other team.

          No interest?

        • #2531652

          Who’s missing?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          Absolutely long ago assumed the mantle of “leader” of the “global warming is real” team; maxwell has now commited to acting in opposition to such, although it’s not clear as to whether or not he steps forward to lead his team. Therefore, both camps are now represented by willing participants.

          What [i]does[/i] remain to be determined is those who will lend their participation.

        • #2530929

          deepsand is Absolutely right there

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I’ll continue posting data & analysis for the argument that “Global warming is real & caused by humans”, although I will be voting for politicians who call that argument a crock of shi!

        • #2530851

          Wow, TR email notification has been hosed up.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          I didn’t get notice of any additions to this thread until today — when I suddenly got notice of everything in the last month or so. Sorry I didn’t notice these responses sooner.

          I had intended to consider Absolutely a separate entity for purposes of this from the two teams, but yeah, I guess that’ll do. I’ll get to setting something up by the end of the weekend at the latest.

        • #2529852

          re: “setting something up by the end of the weekend at the latest”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          Please don’t use TechRepublic’s hosed-up email server, either, even if that delays our schedule!

        • #2530470

          Apparently, I exaggerated.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          It was only about a week’s worth of notifications that I received, as a result of a known (and now fixed) issue at TR. I apologize if I made the situation sound worse than it actually was, and thus gave anyone any false impressions.

          . . . but no, I won’t be using any TR servers for this.

        • #2541949

          I must apologize for the delay.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          The events surrounding my birthday have resulted in almost nothing getting done in the last four days. I’m afraid I don’t have the site set up by now, after all, though I was sure I would.

          It’ll get done this week. Peccavi, nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

        • #2542497

          Happy birthday!

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          🙂

        • #2540804

          Thanks.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, government-funded models off the table, then?

          It [i]was[/i] happy, indeed. Thank you.

        • #2540321

          You can fool all of the people some of the time

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to It might just be the sun

          abso wrote, “The loudest and most opinionated ones do not represent the mainstream, majority of relevant opinions.”

          Uh-huh. You may have a few people frightened and intimidated. The truth will come out. It is already coming out.

          I hate the useful idiots who pretend to know, who support the enemies of freedom and liberty. Every generation has had useful idiots. In the recent past they have mostly been liberals, enlightened intellectuals, who were on the wrong side of history. Why is it that some people, like you and deep, are so easily swayed to fall into line with would-be tyrants?

          Do you just not know how rare and precious a thing liberty is?

        • #2540430

          Partly.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          [i]I hate the useful idiots who pretend to know, who support the enemies of freedom and liberty. Every generation has had useful idiots. In the recent past they have mostly been liberals, enlightened intellectuals, who were on the wrong side of history. Why is it that some people, like you and deep, are so easily swayed to fall into line with would-be tyrants?

          Do you just not know how rare and precious a thing liberty is?[/i]

          Partly, I haven’t considered climate change as a primarily political question until recently. Partly, I’m unimpressed by name calling, so that when some yokel calls me a “useful idiot” instead of providing [i]data[/i] to support his position [i]on the topic at hand[/i], which is political not personal, I just consider you and other name callers to be [b]useless idiots[/b].

          I don’t “fall into line” with anybody, including you.

        • #2540201

          Useful idiots and political power

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          abso wrote, “Partly, I haven’t considered climate change as a primarily political question until recently.”

          It is a start.

          “Partly, I’m unimpressed by name calling, so that when some yokel calls me a “useful idiot”

          I sometimes forget that not everyone has the same background. The Communist dictator, Lenin, wrote that about the English and French intellectuals who acted as his apologists and primary support in the 1920-1940s. They believed he was creating a paradise when, in actuality, he had devised a brutal dictatorship that resulted in 20 million murders. My use of “useful idiots” was not name-calling but labeling. I believe that people like deep, and you, are today’s useful idiots who will apologize for the necessary loss of liberty and freedoms.

          “instead of providing data to support his position on the topic at hand, which is political not personal, I just consider you and other name callers to be useless idiots.”

          What data would you want? Others on this board have called for suppression of global warming dissenters. And at least once I have been told to stick my freedoms and liberties where the sun don’t shine. So those who believe as you do are a violent bunch bent upon my suppression. They are useful idiots as they will not be part of the emerging power structure that runs this brave new world that will emerge.

          “I don’t “fall into line” with anybody, including you.”

          Maybe. But by all appearances you have. You may choose to be on the right side of history or you may fall in with brutes and tyrants. You cannot have it both ways.

        • #2540176

          “pretend to know” & “But by all appearances you have.”

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          I have been clear from the outset about what I claim to know, and what I claim only to find most likely based on available data.

          [i]I hate the useful idiots who pretend to know, who support the enemies of freedom and liberty. Every generation has had useful idiots. In the recent past they have mostly been liberals, enlightened intellectuals, who were on the wrong side of history. Why is it that some people, like you and deep, are so easily swayed to fall into line with would-be tyrants?[/i]

          Where did you get the impression that I “fall into line” with the environmentalism culture?

          [i]”I don’t “fall into line” with anybody, including you.”

          Maybe. But by all appearances you have.[/i]

          You are now selectively omitting data that do not support your assumptions, because there are plenty of appearances to the contrary.

          PS I’m familiar with the political significance and derivation of the phrase “useful idiots”. But I haven’t once argued for reduced liberty, and I wanted you to elaborate enough to show that your assumptions about which “side of history” I espouse are contrary to the content of my posts.

          [i]Uh-huh. You may have a few people frightened and intimidated. The truth will come out. It is already coming out.[/i]

          I never set out to frighten & intimidate anybody. Your assumptions are inconsistent with your observations.

        • #2540167

          Wanting it both ways

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          This is a response to abso.

          You seem to want to have it both ways, to be in the camp of the envirofascists and to be in the camp of those who cherish freedom and liberty. I believe these options are diametrically opposed to one another.

          Your mileage may vary.

        • #2539792

          Why are some, like you, so easily swayed by ignorance?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          By your own words, you neither know and understand the underlying sciences here involved, nor do you care to.

          Instead, you prefer to simply jump on the bandwagon of those who preach that which you wish to believe.

          As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs.

        • #2539790

          sn53: Are you capable of [i]not[/i] engaging in name-calling?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          Your persistent use of “facist” marks you as possessing both a small intellect and an even smaller bent toward the use of such.

          Your behavior is that of a child throwing a tantrum in an attempt to have his way at all cost.

        • #2539725

          The science is merely interesting

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          deep wrote, “Why are some, like you, so easily swayed by ignorance?”

          Each of us is ignorant in different ways. The science appeals to you. It is unimportant to me. The politics is the dangerous part. It appeals to me. It is unimportant to you.

          “By your own words, you neither know and understand the underlying sciences here involved, nor do you care to.”

          I do not recall saying that I do not understand the science. But you are right that I do not care to know more than I do about it. I know enough to know that the conclusions are wrong anytime they lead to fewer freedoms and greater governmental control over our lives. If you want to convince me that this is about something other than a naked power grab then make it about giving people more power and control over their lives and decisions. Only then will I begin to believe that this is something less than aggression against me.

          “Instead, you prefer to simply jump on the bandwagon of those who preach that which you wish to believe.”

          I choose my bandwagons carefully. Liberty. Freedom. Justice. Merit.

          Global warming is about none of those.

          “As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs.”

          Uh-huh.

        • #2539447

          In that context, I disagree with you, deepsand.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          [i]”As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs.”[/i]

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2210087

          It’s true that I am interested in the truth about the topics on which I vote, but my interest in science does not [b]supersede[/b] my political belief in my right to conduct my life, liberty, and happiness as I wish without exception other than within the due process requirement of Amendment 4. I do not prefer [b]policy[/b] that places any scientific research above that, nor any other rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.

          I see from posts above that I have given the opposite impression to sn53 as well as to you, but I think maxwell edison knows which side of the relevant questions I espouse.

          I think you are putting too much stock — I won’t say faith, because I don’t know enough yet to make that accusation — in the published research itself, and too little stock in the Constitution, based on the fact that you persist in discussing only the science, and that you imply that automobile pollution is equivalent to an infringement by polluters on the rights of others. I disagree.

        • #2539370

          I admit that I was wrong

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          Abso wrote, “I see from posts above that I have given the opposite impression to sn53…”

          I have read through many of your posts and admit that I was wrong. Like all of the rest of us you are complicated.

          I apologize for getting it wrong.

        • #2531657

          Actually, Absolutely, we’ve no disagreement.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to You can fool all of the people some of the time

          You said “[i]It’s true that I am interested in the truth about the topics on which I vote, but my interest in science does not supersede my political belief in my right to conduct my life, liberty, and happiness as I wish without exception other than within the due process requirement of Amendment 4. I do not prefer policy that places any scientific research above that, nor any other rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.[/i]”

          On this we are well agreed.

          It was my intended point to make clear to sn53 that neither you nor myself knowingly and with intent choose a particular policy which is contraindicated by the facts.

        • #2514451

          I made no such admission.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Thank you for admitting that you do not understand the policy consideration

          I understand both issues.

          You, however, understand but one, and refuse to consider the other.

          You’re all cart and no horse.

        • #2514399

          deepsand, you’re all blow and try to show

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I made no such admission.

          There are REAL scientists with impeccable credentials and life-long education, ones who’ve studied the atmosphere and/or climate patterns and/or the history of those things full-time for decades who don’t agree on each other’s conclusions. And you claim to be an expert with all the answers? HA! That’s a laugh!

          This is a POLITICAL issue. And not until the “science” is settled to the point that it’s no longer the study of science, but the application of its discovery, it DOES NOT belong in policy making. Using absolutely’s DNA example as a comparison, it did not become a tool of law enforcement until AFTER the discovery phase was over, and the “science” became facts.

          You DO NOT understand both because, number one, you are trying to use one to advance the other before its time has come, and number two, I think you’re just full of hot air.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5213-6257-0.html?id=531916&redirectTo=%2f1320-22-20.html

          [i]Exp. spans 48 yrs., beg. w/ PENNSTAC (Penn State’s version of ENIAC). USNA (Annapolis), Class of ’68. 1964, IBM 1620 w/ Fortran II-D. Penn State, Class of “Infinity”. Unit Record Machines, 1401, 1410, 70xx. 360 introduced, w/ 1st real OSes (HASP, OS/360.) Intro. of RJE, JCL. Assembler, FORTRAN 4, Algol, LISP in the forefront. PCs beg. w/ TRS-80, TRS-DOS to present. [/i]

          If you actually did everything your profile claims you did, you haven’t had time to fully study and understand what you claim. deepsand, you’re all blow and try to show, but you’re not fooling anybody. What a foolish person you are.

        • #2540362

          Silly rabbit.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to deepsand, you’re all blow and try to show

          What you believe re. my background, what I’ve studied, what I know & understand, etal., is of no import, as it changes not the facts.

          When you’ve come to understand the scientific disciplines here involved, then and only then will you be able to engage in an informed and logical discourse on the subject of climate change. Until then, you can do naught but speculate.

        • #2538889

          Nope, you have it wrong

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Silly rabbit.

          When you’ve come to understand the political catalyst here involved, then and only then will you be able to engage in an informed and logical discourse on the subject of alleged climate change. Until then, you can do naught but speculate.

        • #2531626

          Re. “political catalyst”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Silly rabbit.

          Obviously, any reason for the current “debate” is irrelevant to the actual physical facts. On this point I will assume that we agree.

          Beyond such, you maintain that the “true” facts are being hidden, or at least knowingly and intentionally distorted, by reason of political motivation. This presumes that you can prove what the “true” facts are. Are you able to provide such proof?

        • #2525122

          The “facts” on which you people rely. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Silly rabbit.

          …..are not “facts” at all, but rather computer model projections of what’s predicted to happen in the future. What some people predict will happen are not facts at all. Or are you suggesting they are? I’ve presented valid and qualified sources of opinion that show those “computer models” are either flawed and/or incomplete, not having taken all possible variables into consideration — not even close — and/or ones that started with a predetermined conclusion, and subsequently entered the “data” required to form that conclusion.

          The only true “fact” on the table is that the average global temperature has risen, over the past 100 years, about 1 degree Fahrenheit, give or take a 1 degree margin of error. The REASONS for that 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, give or take a 1 degree margin of error, are all either a matter of opinion or are all debatable, but none of them are firmly established “facts”.

          You people are taking one “fact” (rise in temperature), and adding it to another “fact” (increased man-caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere), and drawing a conclusion that may or may not be true and/or without considering all the variables.

          A = Rise in temperature.

          B = Increased man-caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

          C = ?

          D = ?

          E = ?

          F = ?

          G………..

          Your conclusion: A+B+C+D+E+F+G…… = Mankind is destroying the planet.

          Sorry, dude. You have dismally failed the burden of proof test.

        • #2530342

          Re. “facts”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Silly rabbit.

          1) You state that you have “presented valid and qualified sources of opinion.” You’ve also stated that you neither do or care to fully understand the science here involved. Therefore, as I’ve previously noted, you are not qualified to judge the “opinions” of your cited sources.

          2) You continue to focus solely on the correlation between observed temperatures and man’s contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels, concluding that both are insignificant. This, to the exclusion of the unavoidable physical relationships between the influx of Solar radiation, the Earth’s albedo, the atmospheric levels of IR reflectors, such as CO, CO2, CH4 and H2O, the conversion of sub-IR Solar radiation to IR, etal., that have been many times here presented.

          In short, you continue to ignore the underlying physical laws which inexorably link increased atmospheric levels of IR reflectors with an increase in Earth’s thermal energy.

    • #2538956

      He’s not the first one to include sun activity

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      that’s a common factor the GW alarmists routinely ignore as it makes all their claims look fake – which they are.

      On another thread I posted a lot of stuff about this and scientific websites. Sure humans have positive and negative affects on the climate, but then, so do beavers and bears. There’s no way to properly evaluate the total effect humans have as the natural effects are much bigger, and nature also does a lot to balance out things by herself.

      • #2531625

        As elsewhere and oft times noted, sun activity is …

        by deepsand ·

        In reply to He’s not the first one to include sun activity

        an [i]independent[/i] variable, and has no effect on the actions re. [i]other independent[/i] variables, such as the IR reflectivity of atmosphere components.

        To repeat, for [i]any[/i] given level of Solar irradiation, the amount of IR reflected back to Earth is directly proportional to the levels of CO2, H2O, etal., as is the net change in the thermal energy stored within.

    • #2530317

      WOW! U Guys are still at it!

      by fluxit ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      What is the record for number of postings?

      • #2529658

        I don’t know about record postings…

        by jck ·

        In reply to WOW! U Guys are still at it!

        but evidently by everyone’s chains getting it, his rope isn’t the only thing Maxwell still likes yanking on. 😀 LOL

        “Oh behave!” – Austin Powers

        • #2529424

          Records – Forums: Preemptive Surrender Disorder

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to I don’t know about record postings…

          Preemptive Surrender Disorder has about 690 posts. With Senator Reid’s (D-Nev) leap back into treason perhaps it will pick back up and break 700.

          It seems the vast majority of forums do not break 100 posts, a few get to 300 and even fewer get to 600. For more posts we would need more people participating.

        • #2541831

          The last word on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate:

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Records – Forums: Preemptive Surrender Disorder

          …is the longest thread I know of, still presently visible, with 1278 posts. There once was one called “The Evolution Lie” which was removed, largely because of fears that it was becoming a successful implementation of AI. All participants were confident that it would be a malicious implementation, and unanimously agreed to destruction of its 3000+ posts.

        • #2541427

          “unanimously agreed to destruction of its 3000+ posts”?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to The last word on the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate:

          [i]Unanimously[/i]?

          Were the members who participated in EL even asked?

          To both, the answer is [b]no[/b].

        • #2542123

          Pardon me.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to “unanimously agreed to destruction of its 3000+ posts”?

          I forgot to use ‘facetious’ tags. I consider the question of the longest thread a trivial matter, not worthy of such attention to detail, but of humorous consideration, if any.

        • #2542014

          No harm, no foul.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Pardon me.

          I’ve given up trying to use TR’s emoticons, as they no longer work for me, and I’ve no time to devote to figuring out the reason.

        • #2541430

          Not even close to the record.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Records – Forums: Preemptive Surrender Disorder

          There have been several that exceeded 1000 posts; the record is over 3000, held by “The Evolution Lie,” aka EL.

          You’ll not find either EL or any of the other monsters here, as TR’s PTB have purged them.

        • #2541392

          Were they not archived?

          by sn53 ·

          In reply to Not even close to the record.

          deep wrote, “There have been several that exceeded 1000 posts; the record is over 3000…”

          Cool. I spent a little bit of time going through some of the long strings of posts in several of the forums. There are some real gems of insight and wisdom scattered throughout. It is a shame to lose them.

      • #2541807

        Don’t you know, this is an “IT” site!

        by absolutely ·

        In reply to WOW! U Guys are still at it!

        Of course we’re still at “IT”. What did you expect?

        :p

        • #2528394

          Just remember who said it first

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Don’t you know, this is an “IT” site!

        • #2525577

          “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … is a result of …”

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Just remember who said it first

          “animal activity ,” which, by virtue of serving to trap heat, causes more global warming, which cause more animal acitivity, which causes more co2, which causes, … .

          Get the picture yet?

        • #2525430

          Then why

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to “carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … is a result of …”

          didn’t it run away the first time?

        • #2518903

          Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Then why

          Absolutely & I discussed the matter of feedback loops [i]somewhere[/i] recently, and the fact that, depending on the inputs & the presence/absence of reactive elements in the loop, that some will oscillate and some will plateau.

          I’ve searched this discussion for those posts, but they’re not here. I’ll try to find them for you.

        • #2518806

          Cool, but if it’s never happennned before,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          how is it that they can be as certain as they claim?

          And how do they explain why CO2 levels continued to rise steadily during the late 1920s and 30s even though human carbon emissions dropped by almost a third during the great depression?

          These people (not the scientists necessarily, but the ones who claim to correctly interpret for them. Have been caught in lie after lie, and every time, they say, “Oh, well, it was because of a misunderstanding of this or that and now we understand it perfectly and have adjusted our models to take it into account.”

          I don’t buy it.

        • #2518755

          Well, there are a lot of things that never happened before, but will.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          As I’ve stated many times before, one must look to the [i]cumulative[/i] effect of [i]all[/i] inputs; it is the [i]marginal[/i] input that determines the new total input. While it may be the case that the inputs from noncontrollable sources may not be problematic, it is still the case that the marginal input from a controllable source may make the total level problematic.

          The issue is not how much straw we heap on the camel’s back, but will ours be the straw that breaks it.

          As for the 20s & 30s, can you point me to data demonstrating both that man’s input to atmospheric CO2 was on the decline while the toatl level was on the increase? The oldest [i]continuous[i] source of data re. atmospheric atmospheric CO2 is that gathered at Mauna Loa, HI, from 1958 to the present.

          That data shows, in addition to a 15.2% increase in CO2 since 1959, and seasonal peaks & valleys, correlations with changes in the levels of human industrial activites, such as those following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the modern day growth in the industrializtion of China.

          As for “certainty,” I know of no scientists claiming such with regard to the data; rather, they are stating a very high probabilty that the data are statistically significant.

          Finally, as has previously been noted, that a model fails to track data with the desired accuracy does not serve to alter the validity of the data; rather, it simply means that the modeler has not yet found the proper values for all of the elements of the model. And, such failure does nothing to change the unavoidable physical processes being modeled.

        • #2518713

          As you said

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          [i]As for “certainty,” I know of no scientists claiming such with regard to the data[/i]

          Me either, but there is a dogged effort by the more left leaning among us to convince us that scientists ARE claiming that catastrophe is imminent unless the wealthy countries give 5 to 25% of their GDP to “the cause”. It’s clearly a political power grab, and THAT’S what has me, and many others upset. Unless you (figurative) can prove to 100% certainty that A. there is IS a problem, and B. that I (figurative) am responsible, you have no right to demand that I pay a dime to you for anything!

          Most of us have no problem with lowering pollution, economizing energy use (not just transferring the damage somewhere else like they are with these hybrid cars), and cleaning up our planet, we simply don’t believe, and have decades of lies from these people as justification for our non-belief. Basically, we don’t trust you, or your motives, and since we are in the cat-bird seat, so to speak, it is up to you to prove that you are right.

          Have to run now (Movie with my favorite honey 🙂 ). I’ll get back to you on the data regarding the depression. I saw a graph showing CO2 concentrations almost identically coinciding with world population, not necessarily with industrial activity, which declined sharply world-wide during the depression. I’ll hunt for it again and get back with you.

        • #2518479

          One graph

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

        • #2518442

          Our previous exchange on feedback, saturation, etc.

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207065&messageID=2214926

          It took me some time to find this, too. Maybe I’ll save threads of interest in my Workspace for easy searching, even after unsubscribing from them.

        • #2518219

          Tony: Your [i]favorite[/i] honey? Are you trying to make the rest of us ..

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          1) Feel badly;
          2) Look badly; or,
          3) Are you just plain bragging?

          As for “[i]there is a dogged effort by the more left leaning among us to convince us …[/i]” and “[i]It’s clearly a political power grab[/i],” it is necessary that you make the distinction between the message & the messenger.

          That you may disagree with one’s political bent does not perforce either invalidate that which he says or necessitate a political motive for the saying.

          “[i]Basically, we don’t trust you, or your motives[/i]”

          I would have thought that by now you would understand that [i]my[/i] motives are [b]apolitical[/b].

          “[i]and since we are in the cat-bird seat …[/i]”

          Now, please don’t shoot the messenger, but I’ve some breaking news for you – you’re no longer in the driver’s seat. During the time that this and the related TR discussions have been taking place, opinions from all quarters have rapidly changed, far more rapidly than I had either expected or even believed possible.

          Even though I find the data re. GW to be compelling, I am also concerned that the rush for counter-measures may lead to choices that are ill advised, poorly planned or badly executed, with the Law of Unintended Consequences demanding its due.

        • #2522121

          Absolutely: Re. saving Discussions to one’s Workspace.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          How would that solve the problem re. searching the text of the [i]Bodies[/i] of posts? TR’s Link function merely bookmarks the URL of the Article, Discussion, etc., so that only the [i]Titles[/i] of posts are amenable to being found via a .

          Have you found a way to save the [i]Print version[/i] of a Discussion to your Workspace? Now that would be very useful.

        • #2522117

          Tony: Re. the CDIAC graph

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          1) The underlying data are [b]estimates[/b].

          2) Said estimates are for a [b]sub-set[/b] of all sources of “manmade” CO2, both direct and indirect.

          3) CO2 is itself a [i]sub-set[/b] of all greenhouse gases; others include CH4, N2O & H2O. For a more complete list, see
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases .

          Therefore, the value of said graph lies not in the (limited) data for individual years, but rather in the trend of such.

          What makes the so-called Keeling curve, based on the Mauna Loa data, so valuable is that it represents a continuous physical sampling of gases in the troposphere.

        • #2522083

          deep: no, I’d still have to print thread, save as .txt, ctrl+F

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          But, at least I’d have the thread saved, possibly categorized, and not have to try to use TR’s sub-par search algorithm. It apparently only searches titles, not content, as I do recall vaguely an exchange you had with maxwell about his relative writing quality, yet using the words “maxwell edison among better writers” yielded nothing applicable to that current argument.

        • #2522082

          Not bragging

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          just explaining why the message was so short.

          I try to look at the message and not the messenger. But some messengers resist not being looked at. I would give AL Gore more credence, for example, if he were riding a bicycle across the country giving his message than I do since he is flying in a jet and being picked up by limos.

          And again, perhaps I am “too human”, but when someone says “All reputable scientists say…”, I know they are lying, so I am cautious when examining their claims. (“The Little Boy who Cried Wolf”, and all that.)

          I am but a juror, and the credibility of the witnesses IS an important issue.

        • #2522057

          No shooting this time

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          [i]Even though I find the data re. GW to be compelling, I am also concerned that the rush for counter-measures may lead to choices that are ill advised, poorly planned or badly executed, with the Law of Unintended Consequences demanding its due.[/i]

          Even though I find it less compelling than you do, my concerns are that the countermeasures will hurt far more people than it helps.

          [added: clarification: Who is going to be hurt worst by the carbon credits? Certainly not the targetted corporations … they will simply pass along the costs to the consumers. Now, which of those consumers will be hurt worst? $hit flows downhill!]

        • #2522039

          The vagaries of the TR search illustrated.

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          Here are the search results for the word “amish.”

          http://search.techrepublic.com.com/index.php?q=amish&c=1

          For each of the 5 hits, the keyword “amish” is located as follows:

          1) In both “Title” & “Tags” of “Discussion.”
          2) In “Title” of “Download.”
          3) Same as item 1.
          4) In “Body” of [u]Root Post[/u] of “Discussion.”
          5) In “Alias” of “Respondent” [u]amishvyas@…[/u] to [u]Root[/u] of Discussion.

          From my participation in at least one of the Discussions re. the Amish, I can attest to the fact the keyword appeared in multiple posts, yet fail to be located by this search.

          Thus, it appears that TR’s “Search” looks only at the “Title” of a Discussion, Question, Download, Article or Blog, the “Body” of the “Root” entry there, & the “Aliases” fo those who were “Respondents” to the Root. I.e., it looks [u]only[/u] at records at the [u]Root level[/u].

        • #2521779

          Tony: Addendum re. CDIAC data/graph

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          Upon awakening this morning, it occurred to me that I failed to mention a very important aspect of said data, no doubt owing to the fact that, as it was so obvious to me, I without thought assumed it to be obvious to all. However, in recalling your puzzlement re. the fall in CO2 “levels” during the period of the Great Depression, it seems that assumption may have been in error.

          The CDIAC data represent [u][b]not[/b] atmospheric CO2[/u] levels, [u]but[/u] rather terrestrial emissions, i.e. [u]additions to atmospheric[/u] levels. To gauge atmospheric levels from the CDIAC data, one must accumulate the annual emissions.

          Thus, it is not the case that atmospheric levels decreased during the Depression, but that they increased more slowly than was the case in the years immediately preceeding & succeeding said time period.

        • #2521772

          Ah, Tony, the use of the word [u]best[/u], in “best honey,” …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          remains unanswered.

          “Best” is a superlative, used when comparing [u]3 or more[/u] items. Therefore, “beat honey” implies 3 or more honeys.

          Time to ‘fess up; how many honeys do you have?

        • #2540984

          No, they were very clear on the point.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          Emissions went down but atmospheric levels continued to rise. Of course, it’s all estimates, as they didn’t have the instrumentation to measure it at the time…. I’ll find the original article again…

        • #2540980

          Several honeys.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          Including my daughter and granddaughter, several nieces, great-neices and nephews, and a spaterring of neighborhood kids, but the particular one I was referring to was my wife 🙂

        • #2540922

          Tony: Spoken like a real politician!

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          The way you got out of that sticky situation re. “Honeys,” that is.

        • #2540832

          Tony: I think that you’ve missed the point re. emissions vs atmospheric …

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          CO2 levels.

          That atmospheric CO2 levels continued to climb despite a decrease in the level of CO2 emissions simply means that, even at said reduced levels, CO2 was still being added to the atmosphere at a rate faster than Nature could remove it.

          Now, consider the magnitudes of today’s emissions levels as compared to those of 70 years ago. Even with emissions roughly only 10% of today’s, those of 70 years ago already exceeded that of Nature’s ability to cope! Thus, even if emissions were immediately reduced to zero, it would be a very long time before atmospheric levels returned to those of pre-WWII.

        • #2524061

          I’ve been too old

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          for more than one of THAT kind of honey for quite awhile 🙂

          I know that neither energy use nor emissions are going to drop. We have nearly three times as many humans as we had back then and that trend is likely to continue. But the answer is not going to be political [added: When have politicians ever done anything to promote efficiency? And why would we think they’re suddenly going to start now?]. It will either be technological or natural (remember the sharks and fish simulation?).

        • #2524883

          Too old?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to Didn’t reach the saturation point.

          Or, too well satisfied with your present relationship?

          Hopefully it’s the latter.

          As re. CO2, and the continued rise in atmospheric levels while emissions were falling, you do now see that there is no inherent contradiction in such?

    • #2868193

      Re:Global warming

      by botham ·

      In reply to What About Global Warming?

      Global warming is the increase of the greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and many more ) in the air which mainly comes from industries, cars and etc. The increase of this gas causes the temperature to increase too. That?s why you will find that the summers are hotter than they are in the past. The increased temperature melts the ice at the north and the south poles, leading to a rise in the oceans and seas around the world. In time to come, these water will tend to flood low-lying areas.
      http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.com

Viewing 28 reply threads