Damn, it just gets like talking to sheep here.
They gaze back at you and go "Baaa." but you know they haven't understood a blind thing.
Why should I, or anyone with common sense flame Nevrenough02 ? He's saying exactly what we are, and based on real scientific research.
"We are just making the tiny heat peak a lot worse than it should be."
And that, dear friends, is the whole point.
What is so hard to understand about this ?
Why are you so oblivious ?
If we are responsible for enhancing climate change, which the VAST MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS and specialists are convinced we are, then why not make the effort to adapt and overcome or at the very least PREPARE for the problems ahead ?
What is so hard to understand about this ?
Is the Greenland ice bank melting at an unprecedented rate ? Yes or no. Will this change sea levels and affect deep and mid-level ocean currents ? Yes or no.
Will this have a great effect on overall salinity of the oceans ? Yes or no. Will this effect the ability of the ocean to sustain plankton and act as a "Carbon sink" ? Yes or no.
Does the fact that we are deforesting at an ever increasing rate have any effect on local climate, and generally on the overall planets climate ? Yes or no.
There are a thousand, a million more questions, and virtually most are discernable today. We still know more about Mars than we know about the depths of our own planets oceans and tides, we know almost every inch of the Moon, but we still can't entirely explain the complex interactivity of our own planets environmental sphere.
But one thing we know, we can see, shit, anyone with just a hint of memory (more than 10 seconds IS neccessary..) can see, is that our planet is changing, that it is not natural in it's perversity, and anyone who listens to the scientists and specialists will understand that there IS a problem, and if we act, we may begin to modify it back to a stable and natural climate pattern. Or, at the very least, we'll understand it better and be able to prepare ourselves for change. Evolution, doncha know !
It's NOT about sacrificing your energy-hungry lifestyle, but it IS about understanding the problem, and working out whether you think, based on all the available evidence, that it IS possible to do something about it.
I think it is, I am convinced. I have SEEN the diminuition of smog in our cities, I have seen the effects on the environment after emission controls on industrial waste, it's there, clear as day and bright as the Sun. We effect our environment. That is NOT "omnipresence" and a Human ego power trip, but simple truth.
Imagine the effects of strip mining ore in a jungle region. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go do some research of your own. It's all there, and it proves the points about Global Climate Change.
I'm tired of leading you to water, and having you go "Gee, I'm thirsty. Is there anything to drink ?" and wandering off in the opposite direction.
Dan doesn't want to see, because he's caught up in his delirium about the destruction of his SUV lifestyle, but, as usual, he's missing the point.
The rest of you NeroXFBOBigdogmaBassinator clones are all obsessed with your hatred of Al Gore, and you haven't even seen the film or listened to the man, just had your opinions formed for you and injected up your asses by some people who, if you would open your eyes for just a second, may NOT have YOUR best interests at heart.
I truly don't like calling people "ignorant", but I can't find any other word that represents you. Stubborn is one. Suicidal is another.
Al Gore no longer needs to make claims about creating the Internet, because the former Vice President deserves much of the credit for creating an entire new industry--the global warming business.
And like the energy barons of an earlier age, Mr. Gore has the chance to achieve enormous wealth after being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.
No fewer than three of his new colleagues sit on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. If Mr. Gore can develop market-based solutions to environmental challenges, we will cheer the well-deserved riches flowing his way.
On the other hand, if he monetizes his Nobel Peace Prize by securing permanent government subsidies for nonmarket science projects, he'll have earned a different judgment.
There's no shortage of new capital pouring into alternative energy projects these days. According to the National Venture Capital Association, "clean tech" start-ups attracted more than $800 million in venture capital last quarter, a new record. What's not clear is whether these are fundamentally energy ventures or political ventures.
The Manhattan Institute's Peter Huber, a former engineering professor at MIT, exaggerates only slightly when he says that "Basically, 'alternative' means stuff that nobody actually uses." If that turns out to be true, then alternative energy companies could struggle for market share without government assistance.
Those doubts exist even for the companies backed by Kleiner Perkins. After making more than a dozen "green tech" investments, Kleiner is still waiting for its first exit. According to a Kleiner spokeswoman, many companies in its portfolio are "in stealth mode."
The firm will "neither name nor comment on them." So it's impossible to determine precisely how much the Kleiner-backed firms will benefit from either current federal subsidies, or new provisions that are part of the House and Senate versions of the stalled energy bill. But we do have some hints.
Of the portfolio companies acknowledged publicly by Kleiner, at least two, Altra and Mascoma, are involved in the production of ethanol, which is already heavily subsidized and would get more subsidies in the House bill and higher mandates in the Senate version.
A third firm in the portfolio, Amyris Biotechnologies, is developing a biofuel that will provide "more energy than ethanol," according to its Web site, and should be just as eligible for government set-asides.
Two portfolio companies in the solar energy field, Miasole and Ausra, should benefit if a House provision requiring investor-owned utilities to generate 15% of their power from wind, solar or geothermal sources becomes law. The same is true for Altarock Energy, a Kleiner-backed geothermal company.
Lux Research analyst Ying Wu reports that "company valuations will take a pretty big hit" in Miasole's market segment if Washington turns off the subsidy spigot.
To put it another way, Kleiner's "risk-taking" here isn't all economic. When everything is going according to plan, do venture capitalists normally turn to a politician/filmmaker to help them cash out of engineering firms?
Nope, but then again alternative energy has never fit the usual venture model. Jack Biddle, co-founder of Novak Biddle Venture Partners, says there's a reason few start-up companies try to build commercial jetliners. "Large, complex systems with slow deployment cycles do not play to venture's strengths.
The whole idea with venture-backed companies is speed, speed, speed." Mr. Biddle says the size and complexity of energy systems "make 787s look like tinker toys. You need lots of capital, lots of time, lots of people."
Mr. Gore seems to grasp the scale of the challenge, and the need for government help, telling Fortune magazine, "What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Project and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally."
That's the kind of "green" vision that will require a lot of greenbacks.
We'll be as happy as the Sierra Club if one or more of these new technologies turns out to solve the secrets of cheap, efficient energy.
But we recall the same technological promises being made in the 1970s, the last time the feds poured subsidies into alternative fuels.
Which leads us to suspect that maybe Mr. Gore has been hired by Kleiner Perkins for more than his technological knowhow, investment acumen, or global vision.
His new partners may have hired him for the more prosaic task of getting 60 Senate votes to keep those taxpayer greenbacks coming.
It sounds like you found a level-headed professor who is teaching you how to do the dirty work and work the scientific method. That sounds great! But why does he do it? Doesn't he know the debate is over? We don't need science anymore - we have Al Gore!
Is your professor's salary paid by Exxon-Mobil? Are you actually attending Big Oil University? The only people who disagree with The Religion are funded by The Machine. Le Kiwi will be happy to explain.
In the meantime, enjoy your experience, and thanks for chiming in with some real-world experience.
He has actually been doing this for 15+ years. He started teaching to get more people involved in the issue. He goes to large debates with his info a lot but the news companies have major share holders in both the news company itself and the oil companie's stocks. These share holders make a huge difference in what is aired and what is not. They also decide to air the oil companies ads since they profit when the oil companies do. The fact is, we have never seen a change in the pattern of the earths climate until now. Nobody knows how it could change the pattern or if it will change at all. He feels there should be changes made now. If we stopped using fuel right now, the gasses would still be in the air for another 40 years or so. Some (N20 the most damaging greenhouse gas) stay up for as long as 200 years. He wants to cut back now since there is a long delay in the results comming from a cutback. I could go on for hours about this but I just wanted to give some real time, accurate info on the subject.
* - Nobody knows how it could change the pattern
* - or if it will change at all.
* - He feels there should be changes made now.
* - If we stopped using fuel right now, the gases would still be in the air for another 40 years or so.
* - He wants to cut back now
* - there is a long delay in the results coming from a cutback
Some real Political Science, thanks! Lots of non-scientific "opinion" and nothing more. The only thing missing is the "Bush is Hitler" stuff.
Nothing to see here folks, move along...
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
It's a good thing everybody has your clarity of vision and ease of expression, Dan, because otherwise you'd come over as an arrogant windbag.
Heh, I can talk.....
Seriously, if it's cold, hard scientific logic that warms you up, Dan, how about you go and browse around in here for a while. They use lots of big, scientific words, and have some neat graphs, too. They are also the leading climate scientists on the planet, and maybe, just maybe, they know what they are talking about.
Look, they have all sorts of serious questions, like these;
"Does the climate sensitivity depend on the cause of the change?
Can a response to a forcing wait and then bounce up after a period of inertness?
Does the existence of an 11-year time-scale prove the existence of solar forcing?
Why does the amplitude of the secular response drop when a long-term trend is added?"
What's even neater is that they also have most of the answers, too !
they talk to the trees, that's why we sent them away
the problem with these goofball bolshevik/socialist/leftist/marxist/hippie/islamofascists is a moral and intellectual discombobulation that is so pronounced, that I will refrain from calling it psychosis. It is more like an acute deliberate dementia.
Al Gore was smiling like the proverbial cat that ate the canary following his 45-minute talk Monday with President Bush. Does he know something about U.S. global warming policy we don't?
We hope that's not the case. The two men refused to talk about details of their conversation. But Bush is preparing for a global conference next week in Bali, Indonesia, and we'd like to think he isn't still swallowing Gore's line about taking drastic action to curb greenhouse gases.
"It was a private conversation," Gore said after the meeting. "Of course we talked about global warming . . . the whole time."
As news accounts note, Gore was instrumental as vice president in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Accord. But President Clinton never submitted the treaty to Congress, and Bush has steadfastly opposed costly green mandates in favor of voluntary caps on CO2 emissions.
So was Bush just being polite to his one-time political rival? Again, we hope so. But who can be sure in an atmosphere where the nonstop propaganda on global warming has become almost intolerable.
Just listen to the United Nations, which released a green-themed Human Development Report just one week before the Bali meeting. "Unless the international community agrees to cut carbon emissions by half over the next generation," the report says (according to Reuters), "climate change is likely to cause large-scale human and economic setbacks and irreversible catastrophes."
If that sounds terrifying, it's meant to. But there isn't a shred of science to back it up — only spurious "models" based on an incomplete picture of how nature and the climate work.
If you don't believe us, just ask any of the politically hand-picked U.N. scientists who concocted these models if they can tell you, within one degree, what the temperature in your town will be one week from today — or one month. The answer will be no.
Yet we're expected to believe they can predict a rise in temperature of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — or higher — over the next century, unless we take immediate and dramatic action to halt it. By the way, over the last century, the world's climate warmed just 1.3 degrees.
Undeterred by the crumbling of the much-touted "scientific consensus," the U.N. is charging ahead, claiming the world has just 10 years to "fix" the climate — or face doomsday.
The claims are getting extreme, and bizarrely specific. The headline on one story about the report — "Poor In Need of Help From Global Warming" — sounds like the old joke about the New York Times: "World to End Friday: Women, Children Affected Most."
But it's no joke. And why would the U.N. say all this, if it isn't true?
In a word, money. The U.N. has bungled virtually every job it's been given — from peacekeeping in Africa to monitoring sanctions on Iraq.
As an organization, it's rife with corruption and overpaid bureaucratic time-servers. They need a new mission, which always means American taxpayers will have to reach for their wallets.
Which explains why the "Development Report" can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.
Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.
The U.N.'s shrill warnings have reached a hysteric pitch — the equivalent of shrieking "fire" in a packed theater on the theory there might be one in the future.
But what's really taking place is a massive shakedown in which our sympathies for the poor are being played while our pockets are being picked. The United Nations should be ashamed of itself.
The point is that we cant continue to pollute because it takes 40 years to see what changes they make since the greenhouse gasses are up there for that entire time. If they figure everything out 15 years from and make huge cutbacks, we will be too old to see the outcome. it would total 65 years from now. Since its not doing good either way, he wants to stop the human element in this pattern.
Nobody knows why the earth truely has this pattern of extreme heat and extreme cold but it was here long before humans existed. We are just making the tiny heat peak a lot worse than it should be. It will start to get cold again near the end of my life time or just after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevrenough02
The point is that we cant continue to pollute because it takes 40 years to see what changes they make since the greenhouse gasses are up there for that entire time. If they figure everything out 15 years from and make huge cutbacks, we will be too old to see the outcome. it would total 65 years from now.
But according to your first statement, it will be cooling off by then anyway. Why freak out now? I'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevrenough02
Since its not doing good either way, he wants to stop the human element in this pattern.
There's only 6.6 billion humans, so that shouldn't be too hard. I guess I did misunderstand your original post. This professor sounds just as far removed from reality as most professors.
I've read over and over that fighting global warming will "wreck the economy". I've read it here too. I have one question for those who think like this:
Where are you getting your information?
I'd sincerely like to know because it seems implausible to me. Every time someone tries to change the direction of capitalists they use that threat. I think it is nothing more than a hollow threat so please educate me, please. Anyone?
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Althoooo, isnt Billary now leaning towards the positive side of this war these past few days?
I'm assuming you are talking about Iraq so let me tell you how I see it. It is a humungous, overuse of resources for...what? I think I've made that clear. But once we made the mistake, we all wanted a good outcome for us, at least everyone I know. The reason many wanted out before now is that the bungling continued and continued and continued - it was like there was no way these clowns would ever come up with a way out. Now there has been improvement (but there is still a long ways to go). However, since things are improving, most of us are willing to go along and see what happens. We went there, we have a responsibility to make things right. If things are moving in that direction then why pull out now? IMO, that's what is going on in the minds of many liberals (to put in terms that you understand). When the trend is positive you don't mess with the formula, when it is negative, you do.
I still have serious scepticism that the surge is the reason. Like I told the big log, there are several reason for the drop in violence. I heard yet another on the ground reporter say today that probably the biggest reason for change is the truce called by al Sadr. Another reason is that now that neighborhoods are ethnically cleansed, there are citizen watch groups forming in many neighborhoods for the purpose of stopping incursions by other sects. What you have now in Baghdad is a series of cordonned off neighborhoods that are self-defended. The potential for violence is diminished substancially.
The same reporter also stated that a large Sunni group (I think it was 6,000 people) have just pledged their support to the U.S. cause. They are as sick of al Qaeda as we are.
No al Qaeda support from the Sunni and no meddling by al Sadr, combined with increased security on our part, means less violence, approximately three-fourths less.
But biglog wants it to be all because of the surge. What a simple-minded ass.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Al Gore... Does he know something about U.S. global warming policy we don't?
There is no U.S. global warming policy, just like there is no energy policy. Big business has the politicians by the balls...I mean wallets.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Why don't you read the article from the anonymous neocon stooges, select the fact which is reasonably clear to the truth (that MAY be hard to do...) and post it, with a link to the rest of the "Incompetent Banal Droning" editorial piece of purile propaganda ?
That will save anyone with an ounce of common-sense having their brain-cells killed by the drooling inanity of the IBD bullshit.
You guys who sit on the right-wing side of things, Bassinator, Dan, Nero, XFBO Et Al, I'm curious to see your opinion of these IBD editorials. Do you think they are fair reporting, or just screeching bullhorn fascist fearrorist trash with no bearing on reality ? And why do you think they are unsigned ? Know any other editors or journalists who won't sign their names to an opinion piece ?
Anyone who has any doubts about the way this myopic IBD neocon propaganda front (for it is they who swill the murky, oily waters where the IBD turd floats..) is so biased and far from the truth has only to look at some unbiased and accurate reports about the UN. Let me know if you want the links, but you'll feel better about yourselves if you go find them all by your self. Fell free to share. We can start a new topic, if you want ? Call it "Why the neocon fearrorists hate the UN and love our ignorance".....
BTW, Ignorance is not healthy, and it is not bliss.
I've read over and over that fighting global warming will "wreck the economy". I've read it here too. I have one question for those who think like this:
Where are you getting your information?
I'd sincerely like to know because it seems implausible to me. Every time someone tries to change the direction of capitalists they use that threat. I think it is nothing more than a hollow threat so please educate me, please. Anyone?
The cows (all farting methane...) will come home long before you'll get a response from the neocon posse (pussy ?) brigade of "martyrs for idiocy" that lurk here, chum.
You'll just have to wait for Bigslog to post an "Idiots Blinding Drones" editorial that blames the Liberals and Clinton for Global Warming and explains why the economy will fail massively if attempts are made to clean up emissions and become more insightful and involved in preserving the planet for future generations.
This is totally contrary to the neocon "rape, burn, plunder, kill" scorched-earth philosophy, and as reality is to a neocon what garlic is to a vampire, I guess we won't have to wait too long for another eloquent "Intensely Blaring Dogma" editorial, lovingly C&P'd by Bigplagariser, to "prove" that the Earth is cooling, and we need more factories belching filth to save the planet.....
Here is some evil, biased lefty propaganda to expose how we all hate the corporations. Note the interesting relations to the way the spin goes for the MMGW Deniers... Damn Interesting » Undark and the Radium Girls
BTW, war is good, and this one is cheap. Look at all the wealth it creates for the neocons !
One day, little man, some may trickle down to you ! Stay hopefull ! In the mean time, trust the Hudson Institute and the Heritage Foundation, they know the "Troof", they know that MMGW is just a NWO trap to trick you into giving up your Constitutional rights...oh, you already have ? Er...well, giving up your SUV's then, and being forced to live in caves and eat rocks. Follow the dim light that Dan and Bigdogma offer you, for they know the way backwards ! All you have to lose is everything.
In almost every case, I agree with the points of Bigdog opinion posts. His articles very closely echo my sentiment. They are not fair reporting - because they are not reporting, they're editorials (opinion).
Biased and far from the truth? It's the writers opinion and you had better bet it's biased!
As far as being unsigned; that's irrelevant. Who cares that some Mr. Writer wrote an opinion piece? It's the opinion, not the person. If the author is important to you - then you've just proven you cannot properly evaluate an opinion piece.
Look for weaknesses in the logic. Look for contradiction. Look for factual errors.
__________________
2001 ST4 Mod Rod
Built by BCM in 2004 and still running like a clock. 120 HP at the rear wheel. 55 mpg. Thanks Bruce (and Jay)!
They're all easy to find and to point out, Dan. The problem is, how many people do that ? How many people sit down and go looking for the sources to back up the editorial opinions POV.
I understand where you are coming from, but I'm equally sure that you agree that opinion pieces vehicule an image or a POV which when it is in a dramatically extremist publication like "The Weekly Standard" or similar passes without issue, because we expect fascist neocon nonsense in EXACTLY the same way that we expect raving marxist nonsense from..er, I don't actually know any weekly Marxist papers..maybe "Socialist Worker" ? anyway, I digress.
The problem is that IBD masquerades as a sensible, conservative journal like the FT, when it's obviously just a surface cover for views which are extreme. I can see it, how many can't ? Hence the importance of seeing who is doing the writing.
Much the same as with ownership influencing media "reporting" through the editorial opinions, which in turn becomes face-value fact taken by a public with high-threshold to reality due to their opinions being formed by forces they can't see and don't understand which masquerade as 'Truth'.
This is propaganda. I'm interested in who it serves. Otherwise it's like trying to assemble a puzzle without any idea of the original form or representation of the puzzle, and it's pretty easy to get lost. Like most people seem to be on this subject.
I'd like Bigdog to defend the opinions he posts, but he seems unable to. How about one of you chaps who agree with what I find anonymous propaganda from the "Ministry of Truth" actually defending the points. I went through one of the IBD rants in the "Evil Islamists who hate us" posts and debunked it in a few minutes just using Google, but it's tedious facing off a mindless spam-bot.
People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
While I'm pulling quotes out of my bag of tricks, I found this. It's not really on topic, but then again, it is. Just my opinion.
Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. -- Hermann Goering, "Nuremberg Diary"
The right wing information primarily comes from right wing think thanks- funded by big business and billionaires - that spoonfeed it to the media - and the R/W blogs - where it is spoonfed to the waiting right wingers.
I'm sure you've noticed that the typical far right american is white, middle aged, bitter about their finances, selfish and very insecure about their intellect and education. That's why they love the bashing of scientists and require their political views to be simplistic and easily remembered.
You can read it right here: they hate the Europeans, Mexico, all Muslims, all of South and Central America... even Canada and the UK.
They have been whipped into a frenzy of hate. It's gotten to the point now where they proudly hate all democrats, and moderate republicans, all immigrants and basically everyone on earth (except for in Israel) that is not a christian, white, right wing american... or a close approximation of one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Area 51
I've read over and over that fighting global warming will "wreck the economy". I've read it here too. I have one question for those who think like this:
Where are you getting your information?
I'd sincerely like to know because it seems implausible to me. Every time someone tries to change the direction of capitalists they use that threat. I think it is nothing more than a hollow threat so please educate me, please. Anyone?
That is so true. That is the premise behind personality tests for employment.
Drug users think almost everyone is using drugs, alchoholics think it is perfectly normal to have 2-3 drinks every evening, dishonest people feel that everyone lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Kiwi
People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links)
Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, runs a website called numberwatch. He has compiled what has to be the most complete collection of links to media stories ascribing the cause of everything under the sun to global warming. He has already posted more than six-hundred links.
The site's stated mission is to expose all the "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers" Professor Brignell's motto is "Working to Combat Math Hysteria."
This exercise is not merely a lark to show the abject absurdity of this global warming nonsense. Brignell wrote a great book titled Sorry Wrong Number, The Abuse of Measurement on this very subject.
Dr. Brignell is accepting additions to the list so if you have any send them along.
By: Wall Street Journal
they talk to the trees, that's why we sent them away
oily -- greasy -- UN scam
Woah
Linear Mode
