BS: Palin v. Gore...

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 03:51 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 06:09 PM

"If NO steps are taken".......We get a few extra years in Disneyland!!!.....:0)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:41 PM

"What we want" determines what we will vote for. Alternatives must be attractive or they are dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:59 PM

It's going to be real interesting to see how the planet gets to a point where it's inhabitants come to a mutual agreement that unless we make serious and major changes then we are all screwed... Seems the will is not there yet... But we are getting there...

Look at what happened to human behavior when gas was at $4.00 a gallon and climbing... Lots... That is a good thing... It's going to take these kinds of things ahppening to wake folks up to the fact that things cannot get better if we have this idea that the "good old day" can be returned to like flicking a switch... The good old days are over and the future is going to be a real challenge for Earthlings on a magnitude that we cannot begin to appreciate or fathom...

Yes, population control is part of the equation but only one part... Eating animals is a biggie... Water is a biggie...

Personally, I'd love to be a little younger so I could see just how mankind will come to grips but I think it will put off the hard choices as long as it possibly can... Meanwhile, we'll get a few carbon deals and promises but we really won't see the hard choices in any of our life times...

But no matter... They will come... There is no alternative... Just not soon...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:06 PM

Alternatives must be attractive or they are dead. "

Perhaps. But attractive is as attractive does. Suppose that it comes to the obvious point where certain actions or inactions are the difference between survival or being deucedly uncomfortable? Which would we choose?

'Uncomfortable' might include expensive, inconvenient, chilly or non permanent. But at its worst it would buy us time.

Survival- well, if you can survive until the next crisis whether that is tomorrow or next year that is what you will probably opt for.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM

And these are the countries that pose the greatest threat to human survival.


Rank   Country   Birth rate
(births per 1000 persons)   
1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 49.6
2 Guinea-Bissau 49.6
3 Liberia 49.6
4 Niger 49.0
5 Afghanistan 48.2
6 Mali 48.1
7 Angola 47.3
8 Burundi 47.1
9 Uganda 46.6
10 Sierra Leone 46.2

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 10:11 PM

They are also countries that are desperately poor and desperately lacking in security for the average citizen. That's not a result of having a high birth rate...the high birth rate itself is a result of the poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, and insecurity of the general population.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 07:04 AM

They had all of those things before western medicine was introduced into their countries, and they didn't have the population problems. One more element of western medicine needs to go there; we call it "the pill."

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM

Well, Rig, I think you need to look at how indigenous populations lived before the white colonizers arrived and before the traditional cultures of those indigenous populations were taken over and mostly destroyed by the industrially-based and consumer-driven philosophies that our civilization is built upon.

Traditional cultures gave those people a good education (in their own cultural terms....that is, they knew exactly what they needed to know to function consistently and effectively as what and who they were)......a stable set of social rules that everyone understood.....a society of people who had a strong sense of pride and identity.

That was all destroyed when the White colonizers came in and took over the indigenous areas by military force. The old ways fell by the wayside and the population was basically conscripted (or enslaved) as workers for European and North American industry and agriculture.

Areas of natural land that were once lived upon in a natural way by hunter-gatherers were devastated. The first thing that generally happened was that most of the trees got cut down. Then most of the animals got wiped out or severely reduced. The natural land got divided up into farming blocks that drove out all indigenous species from an area so that ONE crop could be grown there. The indigenous people who used to work with the powers of Nature to survive were now regimented to work against the powers of Nature by slaving away on farms or in industry. The industries and farms polluted the waterways. The industrial cities that were built polluted everything around them.

Is it surprising that poverty-stricken people shorn of their traditional cultures and traditional way of life, robbed of their identity and pride, and packed into ugly, overcrowed slums and many facing "unemployment" (something they had never faced in traditional life)...is it surprising that those people would lose their social cohesion and fall into alcoholism, drug abuse, breakdown of family life, and an irresponsibly high birth rate?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM

Bobert,

"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 "


I was merely extending the GW "Hothead" logic to it's extreme- if it is worth stopping GW AT ANY COST ( as is claimed by those demanding action) then THEY are the ones like Hitler, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:15 PM

Bruce you are the only hothead on this thread.
You should go and find those of which you write.

You need to find the folks sayin this and talk to them.
>>if it is worth stopping GW AT ANY COST<<

Otherwise in talking about exterminating 6 billion people you look like a fascist fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 02:54 PM

Jack the S.

BB - "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."



JtS- "Otherwise in talking about exterminating 6 billion people you look like a fascist fool. "





YOU are being an idiot, who does not understand simple sentences.

DID I EVER state that MY goal was a static environment?

NO!!!!!!


The GW "hotheads are the ones pushing that point, and THEY are both Fools and Fascist- Look at what they do to all who question anything they say.





So, you are WHAT, besides a foolish fascist idiot?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 03:08 PM

Adding to Little Hawks comments, countries like D. R. Congo comprise many different groups, thrown together under a government that is weak and unresponsive to needs. Boundaries are artificial, throwing diverse groups together, determined by the colonial powers that have gone home.
Competition and war between groups seeking power (or just to have self-rule in their own corner of the 'country') becomes inevitable.

Inevitably, the 'more children the better' rule prevails- more hands to help feed the family, more children to sell, and more bodies to replace those that die young.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 04:37 PM

Well, if that's the way they want to live, it's up to them. As long as they stay where they are they won't upset the rest of the world. It's when they start migrating that causes all the problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,John
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM

Bobert,

I was interested in your "25 bedroom" comment because my recollection was that actually Al Gore's house was a little bit smaller than that. It only has 20 rooms and 8 bathrooms, a pool, a pool house and a guest house and a $2500/month electric bill.

I know we tend not to be Palin fans on this thread, but is Gore really winning this debate?

Late breaking news: His website says he is retracting his "ice-free in 5 years" comments about the North Pole.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't get any debate points here either. Somebody better get their act together or the environmental message is going to take a beating.

We are convinced already, but I've got to tell you, I think the global warming consensus is turning into a serious scientific debate with a serious chance that the evidence may not support Gore.

If that is the way things go, I sure don't want our efforts to preserve our planet to sink along with one particular scientific claim.

About a million posts ago, you said that your environmentalism was a lot deeper than global warming alone. I am with you there. I don't want to hitch my hopes for a cleaner, more sustainable home for humans and other life to a failing hypothesis, if science shows "global warming" to be a false alarm.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM

Spoken like a good Christian, Rig!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:20 PM

The problem, JOhn, is that wasn't exactly Al Gore's house, was it???

Butg nevermind technicalities... No, Gore isn't exactly winning becuase most of the folks who are listening (not paying attention, mind you) aren't folks with a high degree of education or vision... You know, the general population of the US in these dumbed down days of Tom Jefferson's little experiement...

As for global warming being a false alarm??? So what??? I really don't care one way or another if it is or isn't... Air, water and soil pollution aren't a false alarm and alot of the things that are are being talked about in terms of global warming are the same things that produce that pollution...

But it gets better here... Cleaning up our planet and investing in smart ways for future populations to live with much smaller carbon footprints is a very exciting field... It is going to produce lots of jobs... I mean lots, as mankind retools for the future... Are we there yet??? Nah... But close... Pollution??? Global warming??? Mox Nix...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM

BB (and the rest of the world)-

I suspect that you (BB) would group me with the HotHeads, so let me attempt to speak for them (or at least one of them).

A static environment is not the goal. We realize that this is impossible. Earth processes will never allow this. Climate has changed in the past, and uniformitarianism assures that it will change in the future.

The issue is not "change" versus "no change". It is "change on a geologic timescale" versus "change on a human time scale". "Natural" climate change is typically slow, proceeding at a pace that allows flora and fauna to adapt or migrate. Yes, there have been sudden global climate changes in the past. And, every one that we know of is associated with a mass extinction event in which the contemporary dominant genera disappear (and Homo is certainly among the modern dominants).

Today, climate is changing, and at a pace never before seen in the geologic record. There is good evidence that human activities contribute to this pace. How shall the world's flora and fauna react? It is proceeding too fast for evolution to help us adapt. The world is too full of anthropogenic barriers to allow sudden mass migrations. So, the response of Earth's biota cannot be uniformitarian.

Shall we throw up our hands and admit that we are quite possibly fuct?

Or, shall we acknowledge the possibility that we are contributing to the pace of climate change, and try to slow it?

Or, you may suggest something else.

A lot of people are simply in denial because trying to slow the pace will certainly have a dramatic effect on their lifestyle. They rationalize this by saying that the science is uncertain or even flawed. But they are not exercising the Precautionary Principle that they use in all other aspects of their lives: If there is baby formula with a 1% chance of causing adverse effects, we would all stop using it immediately. So why, in this instance, are we insisting on 100% certainty that we are harming our babies before we stop? **

Thus endeth the speech of the HotHead. Thanks for listening.






** The answer of course is $$$$$$$$$$. What does that say about our priorities?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:32 PM

Ditto...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 05:54 PM

A parable:

A certain smoker has noticed that s/he has been coughing a bit lately and rationalizes that it's the weather- hey, everybody's been coughing. It's the season, for pete's sake. S/he also has noticed that s/he gets winded a bit more and sooner than usual. But hey, s/he's getting older - no one expects to be able to run the distance they could when they were 20.

Besides, if s/he were to quit smoking, who says it would help anything? If there are creepy crawlies in her/his lungs already, in all likelihood it would be too late to make a difference That would mean that s/he had denied her or himself a pleasure s/he thoroughly enjoys, for no good reason.

And besides, most people who quit smoking gain weight. And if there is one thing s/he has never wanted, it is to be fat Who wants a world of fat people? Not her/him.

And besides, s/he knows people who quit smoking and instead of saving money from not buying the ciggies they buy a whole lot more food, and junk food at that.

And besides, etc, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

"Spoken like a good Christian, Rig!"


                My god, do I sound that bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:11 PM

I posted this on the 'Where's the Global Warming thread' which seems to have been superseded by this Palin vs Gore thread (and perhaps that personalization is a metaphor for the problem of gaining a consensus on this debate). It was my attempt to summarise 10 points that most people might agree with. It prompted a good discussion with PDQ about the carbon cycle, but I would still find it interesting to hear which of the points below people do and don't agree with:

'1. Carbon Dioxide absorbs heat from solar radiation. The physics of that has been pretty clear for about 100 years, thanks to Arrhenius and others.

2. Humans are burning a lot of hydrocarbon fuels that have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

3. You would expect the heat absorbed by the extra carbon dioxide has to go somewhere.

4. Our global climate should be affected by the extra heat - there is more energy driving the fronts and cyclones around

5. Carbon dioxide is clearly not the only thing driving changes in global climate - there are solar variations, Milankovitch cycles etc. In particular we don't know nearly enough about the role of methane as a greenhouse gas, and the impact of aerosols in mitigating the greenhouse effect.

6. You can't make any useful conclusions about the changes in global climate from individual episodes of good/bad weather - weather is a chaotic system (especially here in the northern UK), which means tiny changes in the starting conditions have huge changes in the final weather outcome. Indeed chaos maths was first discovered by a meteorologist.

7. Changes in average temperature don't kill you - its the possible increase of extreme events that's damaging. Its a problem if a 1 in 300 year flood actually happens every 25 years.

8. At some point we will have to move to a renewable non-fossil fuel economy so it makes sense to invest in these technologies. Given the sources of much of the world's oil and gas there are probably good political reasons for doing so.

9. The cost of converting large quantities of the world's power supply to renewables/nuclear could be huge (the International Energy Authority are talking about a trillion dollars a year for the next thirty years!), but its not dissimilar to the amounts Governments are spending/talking about spending to reflate the world economy out of the current recession/depression.

10. Although a lot of attention is focused on the impact of transport (from SUV's to air travel), actually the biggest source of greenhouse gases is the heating lighting and air-conditioning of buildings (about 40% in the UK). Reducing the carbon footprint of buildings can usually be achieved by decreasing their energy consumption - in other words it can save you money to reduce your emissions. There are lots of easy gains here - there is typically a 500% difference in energy consumption between the best and worst office buildings for example. So it makes sense to 'turn the lights off when you go home'.

I don't know about every point but I would hope that many of the contributors to this debate would actually agree with much of the above.

As a personal note I have sufficient technical background to understand some of the climate science but am not a practicing researcher in the area. I used to work for an oil company, and indeed still own shares in it. I do produce a number of studies into the economic impact of global warming and some of the amelioration strategies.

Looking forward to hear your comments.'
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM

Good post... Just to add one thing is that, yeah, it may cost a trillion dollars a year for the next 30 years to convert the planet to planet freindly energy but that money would have been spent somewhere else and creating jobs... Why not let the expenditure create jobs *and* be pro-Earth... Seems like win' win...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: pdq
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM

GUEST,KP

Perhaps you could re-post that on the GW thread. This one is more about personalities and ain't goin' no where.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM

Looks like Obama has brokered some sort of deal in Copenhagen.
Not enforceable, however, since each country must legislate its own actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: TIA
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 08:09 AM

KP-

Will make a longish post, but here are my comments on your list:

1. Thoroughly agree

2. Indisputable

3. Of course

4. Yes, there will be effects of some kind from the heat. Not sure if more severe weather is the most important effect though. Loss of Arctic ice and consequent potential shut-down of the global conveyor currents is the one that may have the biggest effect.

5. It is hard to identify a single phenomenon as "driving" global climate change since there are feedbacks pushing everywhichway in complicated fashion. However, CO2 is the one we have complete control over and could use it for leverage on methane, water vapor and other things.

6. Agreed. Weather does not equal climate. For every argument that goes "there is no global warming because it snowed in Houston last week", one could counter "there has to be global warming because it was hot in Chicago las week". It's just a silly argument.

7. Changes in average temperature can in fact kill you! If your ecological niche shifts northward or upslope, and barriers prevent your migration with it - you will die.

8. Agree

9. Agree. Furthermore, the non-renewables will by definition run-out. And, it will require energy to build the infrastructure required for a new type of energy. We can provide an orderly (albeit expensive) transition now using the remains of non-renewable energy, or stick our heads in the sand until they run out, and then we will have to build the new infrastructure with our bare hands and sticks.

10. Conservation is a win in three ways: 1st, you save right away. 2nd, things last longer, thus using less resources to build new ones and dispose of the old. 3rd less use also means less maintenance - which also saves energy and resources.

Cheers and Happy Holidays!

TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 10:02 AM

Yes, the real battle is the oone of hearts and minds and once we can get folks really on board toward pro-human/pro-earth thinking then it will be conservation is in and consumption is out... Kinda hard to get there with the Cheney Energy Policy still in force but we will overcome...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM

Listened to a debate on the BBC this morning. Copenhagen delegates from Sweden, Maldives, Australia, South Africa, China and elsewhere were there.

The comments from the Chinese delegate , in essence, were that China would make changes in its own way and in its own time. The Swedish delegate talked about binding legislation, as did a Greenpeace observer from the audience- which to me seem a cloud nine hope.

The Australian prime minister seemed resistant to change, I think sensitive to accusations that it is a big polluter because of its massive coal exports. Tuvalu (delegate in the audience) and Maldives asked for action before they lost the land they stand on.

China has placed itself among the developing nations- in one sense it is, but on the other hand it is a financial and industrial giant- and its more rural areas do not lack food or other necessities, but continue in an old village way of life.

These are my own interpretations; others may have read the comments differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:37 PM

TIA and KP-
Point 10 is certainly valid. Just one aspect- electrical power wastage-
In our downtown core, lights in the business towers are on all night, as well as in businesses along major streets (although most stores are closed), and light pollution is such that one must be well outside the city and suburbs to see anything more than just the moon and a couple of the brightest stars or planets.
Conditions are as bad in all population centers, as shown by the pictures taken from space.
These lights (and failure to reduce heat in these buildings at night) eat a lot of energy. Occasionally complaints are raised locally, but the arguments are that building lighting and heating are controlled by automatic switches and it would be expensive to revise, there is danger from thieves in darkened businesses, and light equals public safety.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 01:55 PM

Leaders of the "filthy five" flee Copenhagen crime scene!

here

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:20 PM

No mention of "filthy five" in that news coverage of NZ delegate Macey's comments.
He also said Obama's brokered deal was a step in the right direction but "modest."

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:25 PM

You must be jokin'.....it was a sell out.

So much for Obama as aleader of global change.

As I said months ago he will change only what he is allowed to change.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

Bush threw out Kyoto and allowed Cheney to run energy policy.

Are you saying that Obama is a continuation of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore...
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM

The shafting of the poorer countries by the "filthy five" is the shape of things to come, when the powerful will unite to crush the weak.

Soon all pretense of democracy and the rule of international law will be abandoned.....the rich and powerful countries will simply move in and take what they need in the way of energy, water,minerals

Then all talk of global warming and climate change will be ignored,
political ideology will become even more "short term".