 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Palin v. Gore...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:40 PM Q...."What we want" and what is good for the planet ....and ultimately humanity, are two totally different things. It's not even "What we want", its what we have been conditioned to want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM "Tinkering with different energy sources and recycling bottles is not a realistic option." So the fossil fuel companies would have you believe. However, development of renewable energy resources would be neither that difficult nor expensive, and would have little or no noticeable effect on human life and standard of living--save to make the air a lot more breathable, and energy less expensive in the long run. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM Well, Eb... Ake is onto something here and that is that with our current populations and our reisitence to major pardym changes if we were to suddenly make the kinds of changes that are needed to effectively curb CO2 then, yeah, alot of cities, which are major CO2 producers would become ghost towns... I'm not too sure about the starvation aspect but people would have to quickly change their carnavourous habits/diets and alot more people would have to start growing some of (or all) their own food... I would hope that we haven't reached the tipping point and that we collectively get it very soon so that we, as earthlings, can plan how this is going to work... One model that is being touted as a possibility is the "work, live, play" model where people no longer have to commute to jobs... I persoanlly lie this model because it can reduce the heck outta CO2 while also improving the quality of life for everyone... But the model are going to have to replace just about everything we do and how we do it... I am at a loss as to how we can get the population educated enough to accept a much different paradym without having to kill off the corportists who have the planet by the proverbial balls... That is going to be tough, especially in a "Brave New" world with so many dumbed down epsilons who are especially incable of actual critical thinking??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM Hofmeister, president of Shell, on global warming- "It's a waste of time to debate it. Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." The energy future, he said, will include fuel derived from...unconventional sources, biofuels, wind and solar energy, hyrdogen fuel cells, and conservation. He said the U. s. with 8% of the world's population is using 25% of the energy, "It's not a sustainable formula." Similar remarks have come from British Petroleum and others. The oil companies "will adjust." They exist to provide services that the public wants and to make money for stockholders. If the future is fuel cells, or whatever, they will shift. But unless there are public and government policies directed toward change, they will continue to do what is necessary to make money for their stockholders (ultimately you and me) by providing services we want. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM My point Ebbie, is that if human activity is the cause of increased rates of global warming, there are going to be no easy answers. Tinkering with different energy sources and recycling bottles is not a realistic option. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM "If NO steps are taken".......We get a few extra years in Disneyland!!!.....:0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:01 PM "If the steps are large enough to have an effect on global warming, they will also have a profound effect on human life. Millions will starve, great cities will become obsolete,the organisation of people into an employable entity will be a thing of the past.....anarchy will reign." ake And if NO steps are taken? Your argument makes no sense to me. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:53 PM "So unless your wealth is generated somewhere along the fossil-fuel-economy, what is the objection to taking step in case climate change is caused by mankind?" Because, unless the steps taken are of sufficient magnitude to make a real impact on the production of CO2, they will be a complete waste of time and money. If the steps are large enough to have an effect on global warming, they will also have a profound effect on human life. Millions will starve, great cities will become obsolete,the organisation of people into an employable entity will be a thing of the past.....anarchy will reign. Ya takes yer choice.......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:30 PM The GW "hotheads" have stated it will be up to 200 years before GW has major effects- but the tipping point is RIGHT NOW- so we better put them in charge and do what they say.- so THEY will be dead before the hoax is exposed. bb bb, the only "GW hothead" I have seen promulgate that theory was in Dan E. Bloom's article that I posted a link to. His theory of 500 years makes no sense to me whatever, given the rapidity of the effects of climate change already. If I were to guess, unless the rate of change slows dramatically - and soon - I'd say that before 20 years are up, there will be drastic and irreversible changes. pdq: "...from Ebbie's post: "... Are we all buying stock in windmills so that Palin, riding a rabid elephant, will have a new, crowd-pleasing hallucination to joust with? Well, it sells papers and fans the flames on hate radio..." You might more accurately note, pdq, if accuracy matters to you, that that paragraph is *not* from "Ebbbie's post" but from 'Ebbie's LINK'. There is a difference. You might also note that it was written by an Alaskan- and Alaskans are perhapas more justified than most people in being dismayed, not to say, disgusted by Sarah Palin. GUEST,Peadar (formerly) of Portsmouth - Perfectly put. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM I'd say that if Ms. Sarah wanted the 24/7 attacks to go away they she would stop lobbin' bombs herself... She could just have her little talk show and all would be well but no... She has to become a lobbiest attack dog and go after a man who's finger nail clippings have more IQ in them than her tiny little roller derby brain... As for bb's idea that 99% of the people should go??? Well, the percentage wasn't the same with Hitler but he had similar ideas about people... As for bb's opinion that one cannot be pro-human and pro-earth??? Bull... The problem isn't with the conflict of the number of people v. sustainability as much as it is that innovative thinkers are being put down by the moneied corportaists because, ahhhhh, these corporatists model is based solely on folks buying and then consuming their products... The way humans are living in most of the world is an archaic model based on unlimited resources and personal freedoms that are in conflict with collective interests... (But, Boberdz... Does that mean that a guy shouldn't be able to own and heat and cool a 25 bedroom, 25 bathroom house for himself, his wife and two kids???) Yes, that is exactly what it means... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,Peadar (formerly) of Portsmouth Date: 17 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM As far as I can tell, neither side has irrefutable evidence to state that climate change is/is not caused by human action. But whether it is or isn't man-made seems kind of beside the point: The scientific evidence strongly suggests that climate change is real. The VAST majority of the scientific community (and pundits like SP and AG) seem to agree on that basic point…so whether it's caused by natural cycles or humanity, can we agree that climate change is real? Yes? Good. Then I have a question. Since we don't/can't know the true cause of climate change, what exactly is the argument against taking preventative measures in case it is caused by humans? We take all sorts of preventive action based on imperfect evidence – from everyday things like taking vitamins and herbal supplements to improve our health, to invading countries that pose potential regional threats based on human intel. So unless your wealth is generated somewhere along the fossil-fuel-economy, what is the objection to taking step in case climate change is caused by mankind? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:51 PM I agree that Israel should be facing the same scrutiny as any other rogue nuclear power. I don't think that Iran having a bomb would make the situation any more stable. If it would be a counterbalance then the balancing would be on a sword's sharp edge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:31 PM The Republicans have yet to find a believable candidate. If Iran succeeds in making a bomb, it would counterbalance Israel with their bomb. Both are dangerous to peace, both should be controlled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM >>The US public is getting very tired of the 24/7 mean-spirited attacks on Sarah Palin.<< No it isn't. Most people don't give a damn what she says or what anyone says about her. Coverage of Palin happens for the same reason as that for any other reality TV personality out there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM The US public is getting very tired of the 24/7 mean-spirited attacks on Sarah Palin. We know she is not qualified to be president, but neither is Joe Biden or Al Gore. This strategy will backfire on the perpetrators, so make the nasty jokes. Recruit David Letterbomb to do more tasteless "comedy". Meanwhile, the Little Hitler of Iran is getting closer to finishing his nuclear bombs, and he is testing the long-range missiles that can deliver them to Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:55 PM Little Hawk, I think that Bruce is clearly though probably not intentionally disproving your point. Obviously parroting back arguments with the names changed like a 5 year old in a playground would does not constitute new facts to be considered. It tarnishes the credibility of the speaker. Likewise Palin's implication that she had global political experience from looking out her window to the arctic circle waiting for Putin's ugly head to appears tarnishes everything she has to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM IT's not Obama's beliefs, Amos; it is his inability to deal with factual issues, and his insistence on substituting rhetoric for actual solutions, that turns people off him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:17 PM IT's not her beliefs, PDQ; it is her inability to deal with factual issues, and her insistence on substituting rhetoric for actual conditions, that turns people off her. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM Don, a summary if Antarctic research is found in the report "Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment," edit. John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, Robert Bindschadler of NASA and others; some 550 pages but carefully organized. The interpretations for the next century (2100) are explained. The full report is online (pdf). Your second link will lead to it, but the site, for anyone really interested, is: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM ...from Ebbie's post: "... Are we all buying stock in windmills so that Palin, riding a rabid elephant, will have a new, crowd-pleasing hallucination to joust with? Well, it sells papers and fans the flames on hate radio..." That statement has no merit whatever. It is hateful, fact-free character assasination. Some people must be really afraid of Sarah Palin because she is the #1 target of the paid attack dogs right now. BTW, I do not believe she is presidential material and see no way the she will be successful in getting elected to any office higher than the US Senate. I believe she is being targeted because her beliefs seem to threaten certain special interest groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM Face it.....you're gonna DIE without ever knowing if you were RIGHT!!! God, it's frustratin', ain't it? ;-) If we could only live long enough...we'd eventually have the answers to all these vexing questions that trouble us now. But there'd be some new ones coming down the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:33 PM last was me... "And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees." The GW "hotheads" have stated it will be up to 200 years before GW has major effects- but the tipping point is RIGHT NOW- so we better put them in charge and do what they say.- so THEY will be dead before the hoax is exposed. How will it affect them to be proven wrong a hundred years after they are dead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM "And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees." The GW "hotheads" have stated it will be up to 200 years before GW has major effects- but the tipping point is RIGHT NOW- so we better put them in charge and do what they say.- so THEY will be dead before the hoax is exposed. How will it affect them to be proven wrong a hundred years after they are dead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM I get my facts the same place everybody else does, Ebbie, and in the same fashion. ;-) But I am aware of it! ;-) I mean...I'm fully aware of the fallibility and inadequacy of my available means of acquiring facts. Most people, I find, aren't. They are fueled by utter certainty regarding their opinion, and they don't seem to realize how little they know. It makes them a pain to talk to... ;-) They probably find me a pain to talk to for the same reason....! You see, I am, like Mark Twain, simply commenting wryly on the common weaknesses of human beings, myself included. I know what pompous, babbling, opinionated little yammerers we all are. I think it's important to remember this marvelous quote that Amos put on another thread awhile back. It is so apt: Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. -Robert A. Wilson (interview with "innerview") I don't actually KNOW if the popular Global Warming theory is correct or not. Neither does anyone else here. I can only make the best "educated" guess I am capable of about it, based on what others have said here and there about it, look up some stuff on the Net or wherever, and then I might develop an opinion...but I still don't know. My knowledge is fragmentary and very limited. So is everyone else's here. I neither believe in the GW theory nor do I disbelieve in it. I just feel a certain measure of skepticism regarding, because I've seen so many of these kind of alarmist theories come and go in the past. They all resound in our media with a frenzy while they're in fasion...a year or a decade goes by...and they are completely forgotten and soon replaced with another alarmist theory. Each alarmist theory generates a whole new industry and makes money for a bunch of interested parties. It's like that with medical stuff too...like the latest H1N1 hoopla, which I am very skeptical about. But here's the clincher: I don't KNOW for 100% certain sure about any of these things, because I have no way of knowing all the facts. And neither does anyone else here. They can only do what Mr Wilson above advises, and avoid clinging to the dogma of utterly rigid belief. That way at least they will continue thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM I don't buy that, bb (no pun intended). Say that the alarmists win the attention of the world and everybody spends their wealth on ameliorating the effects of the worst case scenarios with all the inconvenience and hardships that is entailed in that action. And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees. No. There's a whole lot more to it than that. Think about it some more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM Ebbie, Power, and transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Great for everyone who benefits. Not so great for the rich, like the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM Here is a My Turn essay in our local paper this morning written by a local man: Palin Views Don't Match Reality "... the conservative push to portray global warming as a hoax perpetrated by liberals and the majority of the world's scientists. "What motive liberals and scientists would have for doing so is unexplained and inexplicable. Are we all buying stock in windmills so that Palin, riding a rabid elephant, will have a new, crowd-pleasing hallucination to joust with?" Lisle brings up an important point: What is the motivation for the alarm sounders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:35 AM "If you also believe you ARE right...and most people naturally do...then you will quote your few carefully selected facts with such absolute assurance that you may succeed in convincing not only yourself, but many others as well, that your ENTIRE message is right and complete" And where do you get your facts, Little Hawk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:58 AM "2008 figures: India- 2.7 children born /woman U. S.- 2.1 children born/woman = replacement rate United Kingdom- 1.96 children born/woman Sweden- 1.9 children born/woman Japan- 1.3 children born/woman China- 1.7 children born/woman (reflects the one child policy) Thailand- 1.65 children born/woman (down strongly from 1960s as a result of government measures)." It looks like Thailand is on the right track. There might be something to be learned from Thailand. I wonder what the US rate would be if they got rid of "birth right citizenship." Then all the babies born to illegal aliens would be attributed to some other country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:55 AM People die eventually, if you simply don't replace them too quickly, you'll get where you want to be eventually. Shooting them creates a larger carbon footprint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:02 AM "pro-human and pro-Earth " No such thing- to be pro-Earth, one must consider the human population loading that would NOT change the environment. Estimates vary, from 500,000 up. IF the goal is a static environment ( which is NOT natural) than we need to get rid of at least 99 out of every 100 people. I am sure we can depend on our resident Ubermench to decide who has to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:35 AM sorry, last was mine: Fox is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for MSNBC "News". I look at as many sources I can find- even Al-Jazeera and BBC. So don't put your bias's on me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:34 AM Fox is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for MSNBC "News". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:14 AM Speaking of facts... I really don't have time right now to figure out if Palin is getting paid by The Big Polluters Lobby or if they are helpin' her with her musings/writings but I suspect that she is getting help on both counts... Al??? He could use some help... The problem is that if you are pro-human and pro-Earth there aren't alot of well funded lobby groups to get behind you and help in the slog... But if yopu are willin' to be a spokesman for the corportists it really doesn't much matter if can't name any of the newspapers you read... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:48 AM Bruce, Compare Gore's interest in lying to that of the oil companies. Gore would be personally much better of without GW as an agenda. He certainly would be richer. He probably would have been President. "So you buy into the Obama claim that anyone reporting anything critical of him is not a real "news" station?" Where the hell did this BS come from? If you are going pretend I said things that I didn't, you don't need me. You can have the conversation all by yourself. Just as "Newsmen" O'Reilly, Hanity and Beck do. No Fox "News" is not a News Channel and I was saying that long before I had even heard of Obama. I enjoy Olberman because he says funny things that I agree with. I do not get my news from him. On controversial topics I often compare news sources. Fox "News" is an enterganda channel. MSNBC is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for Fox "News". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:29 AM So you buy into the Obama claim that anyone reporting anything critical of him is not a real "news" station? Then I guess you only look at MSNBC. ALL the others are at least willing to look at the facts. Gore HAS a vested interest- Do you deny that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:20 AM Pretty neat Bruce, you've managed to combine straw man and ad hominem in the same argument. I noticed that Fox "News" was selling the theory that Gore had a vested interest. I never thought that anyone would buy into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:59 AM "But only a fool would treat arguments from vested interests as facts." Unless of course the argument is in FAVOR of the person's viewpoint. When I see the same questioning of Gore that I do of the oil companies, then I might consider that person is trying to look at facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:47 AM No Little Hawk, one does not need ALL the known relevant facts to have a valid position. One might reevaluate when new facts come to ones attention. But only a fool would treat arguments from vested interests as facts. If your Dachshund picks the meat out of the kibble given him by the nasty neighbor next door, the one who complains about dog poo in his rose bushes, without first sniffing it very very carefully, then poochie might end up puking on your carpet on his way to the vet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:00 AM The main thing that concerns most people is not seeing any steenkin' facts that cast doubt on their own opinon, whatever it is. You're not really in a position to decide about anything till you've got ALL the relevant facts. And few people do. What most people do is this: they hunt up whatever facts seem to support their viewpoint. Those opposing them hunt up other facts which seem to support the opposing viewpoint. Those with yet a third viewpoint hunt up still more facts that seem to support that viewpoint. Only somone who has ALL the known and relevant facts, and in their order of importance...not just those facts that appear to help his argument...is in a position to figure out what's actually going on...assuming he wants to. Most people are surprisingly unreceptive to facts that don't seem to help their cause. I'm taking no particular side in the foregoing comments from the last 15 or 20 posters when I say that....I'm just taking note of what people generally seem to do whenever they argue a position. They select only the facts they like for close attention rather like a Dachshund picks the meat chunks out of the kibble... ;-) They show very little interest in the facts that don't prove helpful to their argument. Thus are carefully selected facts trotted out to support every opinion and proposition under the sun. Hitler used various facts to justify his crazy policies, sprinkling them among many falsehoods, exaggerations, and utter misconceptions. It always helps to throw in a few real facts. It makes you sound quite convincing. Every demagogue in history has done it. Facts CAN be used to back a faulty proposition...you just have to make sure you quote only the specific facts that work for that proposition and ignore or discount the ones that don't. This is a key tactic in all effective propaganda. It has surely been used by every government that ever existed, I would think. As a matter of fact, it's a standard debating tactic. The important thing is to "sound" right. Quoting a few facts will work wonders in that direction. If you also believe you ARE right...and most people naturally do...then you will quote your few carefully selected facts with such absolute assurance that you may succeed in convincing not only yourself, but many others as well, that your ENTIRE message is right and complete. All politicians need to study this technique carefully. Self-deception is a very powerful tool in achieving the deception (or conversion) of others. No demagogue succeeds as well as the man who actually believes his own lies, exaggerations, and ommissions even as he utters them! And I have seen this in action...yessirree. It's quite common. People who do it are generally quite unconscious of what they are doing, because they're so caught up in the process of winning their point. Thus are facts used to obfuscate. Much better than just making up stuff. Get the facts! But make sure you get only the facts that help YOU. That's what Google is for. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:56 AM Thanks Don. It looks like you read the same sources I do. Does that make us an ilk? Gosh, I hope so. Your ilkmate, -John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:57 PM Facts? Facts? We don't need no steenkin' facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:46 PM Here you go, John. CLICKY #1. CLICKY #2 Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:01 PM Well, Q I guess I must be part of some ilk. We all have our burdens, after all. Are you saying that the Arctic is going to thaw in 5 years? Got a good source for that? Are you saying that the Arctic doesn't have more ice this year than last? Or the year before that? Or are you just saying that people who have notions that don't match with those of your ilk aren't to be given free rein... I guess I agree with that 'cause that's sort of what moves me, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:03 PM 2008 figures: India- 2.7 children born /woman U. S.- 2.1 children born/woman = replacement rate United Kingdom- 1.96 children born/woman Sweden- 1.9 children born/woman Japan- 1.3 children born/woman China- 1.7 children born/woman (reflects the one child policy) Thailand- 1.65 children born/woman (down strongly from 1960s as a result of government measures). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:33 PM "Object to mandatory birth control or institute mandatory birth control?" No, I dont' think you can legislate birth control, but you could re-write the tax codes so a couple can get a deduction for 2 children, half a deduction for a third one, and nothing there after. A responsible government could encourage smaller families. If you had strong leadership, I think you could do a lot with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:11 PM Antarctic trends are not clearly defined because data on ice volume is inaccurate, and few scientists care to make firm statements based on incomplete measurements. For a list of current studies, see National Snow and Ice Data Center, THERMAP: Ice Temperature Measurements of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Antarctic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:51 PM Re: Gore's misstatement on TV, and just as an interesting—but relevant—aside to put things into perspective. Einstein thought that the idea that the universe is expanding was hogwash until he had a long, face-to-face discussion with Edwin Hubble. Einstein's figures established the theoretical possibility of black holes, but he was sure that they could not possibly actually exist. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:48 PM If Gore was talking about the North magnetic pole, which I think he was, the group who went there this year to take direct measurements had one hell of a time because of melted and rough ice. "Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over the past thirty years" "Monthly November ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows a decline of 4.5% per decade." National Snow and Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice I wish more people would check government agency or peer-reviewed data rather than vomiting garbage from Palin, CNN or tabloid news, or quoting out of context (guest John and his ilk). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:39 PM Off by a few orders of magnitude, but right on the rest of it. That's the problem with ad lib discussions. One goofs on television and there are people who will leap on it like flies on a doggie dropping. I'm sure, however, that Gore knows better. That does not invalidate what he says about global warming. Don Firth |
