|
11 Dec 09 - 07:54 AM (#2786030) Subject: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, this one oughta be fun to watch... Palin says that global warming exists but has nuthin' to do with human behavior... Gore says that like gravity it is not debatable that human behavior is causing global warming... Palin shoots back that global warming is like gravity: a natural occurance... Al??? B~ |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:22 AM (#2786038) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: artbrooks Hummm - the Nobel Prize vs the Ignoble Princess. A true battle of the wits when one side is completely unarmed. Al needs a more worthy challenger; I'd suggest Joe the Plumber. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:34 AM (#2786045) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, art, ya' gotta admit that Sarah is ahead on points right now... |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:46 AM (#2786049) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Greg F. Can someone plesee change the title of this thread to "Palin vs. Reality" |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:51 AM (#2786054) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: olddude I would not expect anything different from her. I have a friend who is all excited about her and told me she will win in 2012 because she represents the real Americans ... Gosh .. that is a scary thought ... If that is really the case, we are in a lot more trouble then I think we are. Somehow, I believe he is pretty much wrong on his assumption. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 09:01 AM (#2786059) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Oh, come on, ya'll... She's just planted a left hook up under the jaw of Al Gore and he's on the ropes hangin' on fir dear life... Don't discount Ms. Sarah... Heck, if she's even close in the polls the month before the election she'll pose nude for Playboy and the rest will be history... B~ |
|
11 Dec 09 - 09:17 AM (#2786066) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos esterday, the Washington Post published a "falsehood-laden" op-ed by Sarah Palin attacking the science underpinning climate change. In her piece, Palin cast doubt on the science of global warming, stating that she "recognize[s]" global warming as merely "cyclical environmental trends" that are unrelated to the burning of fossil fuels. Responding to Palin's misinformation about climate change science, Al Gore said yesterday: The deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes. What do they think is happening? [...] It's a principle in physics. It's like gravity, it exists. In turn, Palin responded on her Facebook, writing incredulously: However, he's wrong in calling me a 'denier.' As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don't think we can primarily blame man's activities for the earth's cyclical weather changes. Both claims — that she's never denied climate change and that she's always doubted anthropogenic causes — are untrue. As early as last month, she was indeed denying the existence of climate change. Unable to understand the science, she asked Rush Limbaugh: "Are we warming or are we cooling?" And merely 15 months ago, Palin told voters during the 2008 campaign that human activity is contributing to climate change: PALIN: I belive that man's activities can certainly be contributing to the issue of global warming and climate change. While warming temperatures — caused by the burning of fossil fuels — are prompting the bark beetle to devour a chunk of forest the size of Connecticut in Alaska, Palin is more interested in throwing political bombs. Like her phony "death panels" designed to kill health reform, Palin is making a mockery of science in order to stop clean energy reform. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 09:43 AM (#2786079) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jim Dixon First all the Republicans were saying there is no global warming. Next, they said there is global warming, but it is natural, not caused by humans. Next they will be saying there is global warming, and it is caused by humans, but it might actually be a good thing. (There is at least one guy who is already saying this. Unfortunately I can't remember his name.) |
|
11 Dec 09 - 09:47 AM (#2786082) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: olddude Amos, sure is, but what would big oil do if we all got 50+ miles per gallon on our cars and we all started to rethink all of it. When you are in bed with big oil as she is... the denial approach is all that remains. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM (#2786153) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Come on, Amos... Do you really thing that Ms. Sarah wrote that op-ed??? I doubt it seriously... The grammer and spellin' was too perfect even for the accomplished journalist/author that she is... |
|
11 Dec 09 - 11:52 AM (#2786173) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: olddude She can Russia, so maybe one of those great Russian authors penned it! Come on Bobster, and Amos how about a "Sarah Palin Blues song? |
|
11 Dec 09 - 11:53 AM (#2786175) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Sarah Palin and Al Gore were both journalism majors (at one time) in college. Sarah Palin has a four degree in journalism. Al Gore changed his attentions to poly sci, but his bachelors degree is said to be in "government". He also was classified as a "journalist" during his three months in Viet Nam. Both these people are trained writers and word-slingers. It's the content of those words that is quite different. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM (#2786179) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Stilly River Sage Sarah Palin is that unusual character one runs into on occasion. Stupid yet glib. It's a dangerous combination because they string words together just well enough to sound like they might have a brain driving the mouth. Alas, it is simply methane gas and hot air propelling those muscles. SRS |
|
11 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM (#2786391) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Louie Roy You have described Al Gore very well remember he is the one who invented the internet |
|
11 Dec 09 - 04:35 PM (#2786398) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton This may help Ms Sarah's case false GW data |
|
11 Dec 09 - 04:41 PM (#2786405) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Global warming claims 'based on false data' By Robert Matthews Published: 12:00AM GMT 14 Jan 2001 FRESH doubt has been cast on evidence for global warming following the discovery that a key method of measuring temperature change has exaggerated the warming rate by almost 40 per cent. Studies of temperature records dating back more than a century have seemed to indicate a rise in global temperature of around 0.5°C, with much of it occurring since the late 1970s. This has led many scientists to believe that global warming is under way, with the finger of blame usually pointed at man-made pollution such as carbon dioxide. Related Articles Alps may crumble as permafrost melts Scientists' discoveries give lie to doom-monger predictions BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming Climate change to cause rise in kidney stones Global warming to push London temperatures up to 105F Global warming and a tale of two planetsNow an international team of scientists, including researchers from the Met Office in Bracknell, Berkshire, has found serious discrepancies in these temperature measurements, suggesting that the amount of global warming is much less than previously believed. The concern focuses on the temperature of the atmosphere over the sea, which covers almost three quarters of the Earth's surface. While scientists use standard weather station instruments to detect warming on land, they have been forced to rely on the crews of ships to make measurements over the vast ocean regions. Crews have taken the temperature by dipping buckets into the sea or using water flowing into the engine intakes. Scientists have assumed that there is a simple link between the temperature of seawater and that of the air above it. However, after analysing years of data from scientific buoys in the Pacific that measure sea and air temperatures simultaneously, the team has found no evidence of a simple link. Instead, the seawater measurements have exaggerated the amount of global warming over the seas, with the real temperature having risen less than half as fast during the 1970s than the standard measurements suggest. Reporting their findings in the influential journal Geophysical Research Letters, the scientists say that the exact cause of the discrepancy is not known. One possibility is that the atmosphere responded faster than the sea to cooling events such as volcanic eruptions. The findings have major implications for the climate change debate because the sea temperature measurements are a key part of global warming calculations. According to the team, replacing the standard seawater data with the appropriate air data produces a big cut in the overall global warming rate during the last 20 years, from around 0.18°C per decade to 0.13°C. This suggests that the widely-quoted global warming figure used to persuade governments to take action over greenhouse gases exaggerates the true warming rate by almost 40 per cent. The team is now calling for climate experts to switch from seawater data to sea-air temperature measurements. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 05:44 PM (#2786444) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bill D "By Robert Matthews Published: 12:00AM GMT 14 Jan 2001 FRESH doubt has been cast on evidence for global warming " FRESH doubt?? 2001? |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM (#2786450) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Well, lemme see, now. With the Arctic Sea ice melting, polar bears will no longer be able to go after their main diet, seals, by waiting at a seal's blow hole and grabbing it. With no ice to walk on, the bears will have to take to the land to seek for provender. Maybe some nice, cuddly polar bear will come along, grab sweet Sarah, and eat her all down. Don Firth |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:00 PM (#2786451) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Sorry Bill....I'm having trouble with m'clickies. That wasn't the page I intended to link to. I'll try again |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM (#2786454) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton HERE |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM (#2786461) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Oh my. Here we go again. Next, we'll be told the gays are causing global warming. Trolls are in the house. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM (#2786466) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton gnu.. give it a break, I believe human activity over the last few decades has contributed to "global warming". I was simply trying to provide a bit of additional information...the situation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. I take exception to your continual sniping..if you dont like a thread, read and contribute to another. Contrary to your expressed opinion, I am not a "troll", but stand by everything I write on here......that doesn't mean my opinions are always correct:0)...Ake |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:33 PM (#2786472) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bill D Are 'we' aware that many of those leaked/hacked emails - whatever one may think of the folks who may have sent them, are up to 13 years old? "In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote:..." and later in the same article: "Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way." The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics." Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that." One can find almost any opinion if one looks long enough, but the huge majority of scientists involved in studies agree on the basic facts of climate change and our part in it. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM (#2786480) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Surely it does not matter that some of the e mails date back to 1999? Is it not the veracity of these e.mails, not their age that is being called into question. Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated". |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:14 PM (#2786492) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Ake... "continual sniping"... ??? Sniping? I thought I was rather clear. Perhaps not. You are a troll plain and simple. Either that or you are truly intolerant and ignorant. Or both. Hundreds of your posts verify it. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:18 PM (#2786494) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk I think Sarah Palin is closer to the truth on this one than Al Gore is. In other words, I think she is correct that human-based activities are not a primary factor in climate change, and that cyclical events in Nature are the primary factor, while human-based activities are a much secondary factor. To support Al Gore's particular views on climate change is simply to parrot a popular cause that has become a holy gospel to the Left and the "liberal" intelligentsia, to the extent that they will personally attack and ridicule anyone who doesn't repeat that gospel as a mantra, and they'll do it with the same hungry zeal shown by people in Salem who hunted around for witches back when people were burning witches. This does not impress me with either the honesty or the impartiality of many people who imagine themselves to be good, clear-thinking "liberals". It seems more like the self-righteous raving of a group of religious fanatics against "the unbelievers" than the comments of people who actually wish to talk in a useful way about something. I might add that in a general sense I am "liberal". I'm also a Leftist in a general sense. And I like Al Gore in a general sense and I regard Sarah Palin's political stance on most things as way off the beam. So it is not knee-jerk loyalty to some pre-arranged set of political assumptions that lies behind my opinion of her opinion of climate change. It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM (#2786498) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth "It's my own independent perspective on the matter, period." Gosh, Little Hawk, doesn't it get a bit lonely up there on that mountain top? Don Firth |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:34 PM (#2786501) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Her period 'er yers, LH??? Nevrmind that question... Hey, I think Ms. Sarah has really found her issue here... I mean, she has ol' Al on the ropes and it's only the 2nd round... Does that mean I believe that she wrote that op-ed??? Of course not, but who cares... She's a fox... B~ |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:37 PM (#2786504) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Fox... yeah... the whole KIT and KABOODLE... what a babe! But, then she talks and ruins it. What an airhead. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM (#2786507) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk We all enjoy that heady "voice in the wilderness" feeling from time to time, Don...specially when resisting a massively marketed and hugely popular fad. ;-) I bet you have enjoyed it on occasion too. Just not on this one. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:44 PM (#2786511) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos The situation of climate change--anthropogenic climate change--is, indeed, beyond all reasonable doubt. Some folks., of course, are less reasonable than others. A |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:46 PM (#2786514) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Sarah Palin more and more exhibits unbelievable scientific ignorance, whether it be genetics, earth history or economics. Airhead or blockhead, she would be a disaster in national political office. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:52 PM (#2786520) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Oh, I agree, Q... We don't need her as, ahhhhh, president... That much is for sure... Maybe Miss January... But let's get one thing clear... Like it or not she has at least put together some backroom team of folks helping her with her positions... No, not those positions... Political positions, gol danged it... I read the op-ed and thought that while it provided no real scientific evidence, it did hit all the right wing talking points... That's better than she did last yer as VP candidate where she said purdy much anything that came into her head... Which, I'll admit, wasn't much... But now Gore??? Man, he's gonna have to pull himself up off the mat and try to make a fight out of it 'er it's gonna be a long night for him... B~ |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM (#2786524) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Little Hawk, you always seem to operate on the assumption that no one is as clear headed and well-informed as you are. Did it ever occur to you that you may be the one who is uninformed? No, of course not! Don Firth |
|
11 Dec 09 - 07:58 PM (#2786526) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Miss January? She could be my whole year... gosh she is a babe... alas, it will never be, as I actually want to be able to have an intelligent conversation with my true love. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM (#2786529) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Don, you do that too... ;-) And so do most argumentative people, specially when it comes to politics. We all have a tremendous respect (if not admiration) for our own clear-headedness and objectivity when it comes to matters deemed worthy of debate. What I really think is that we are all just partially informed. Matter of fact, we may know less than 5% of what there is to know about it. That wouldn't surprise me at all. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:09 PM (#2786532) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth "Oh, yes, master," he says, with hands clasped and bowing humbly. "Please pardon one so ignorant as I!" (tugging forelock). Don Firth |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:16 PM (#2786536) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow Where do you stand on the alleged link between smoking and cancer, Little Hawk? |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:31 PM (#2786542) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bill D "Apparently many of the statistics had been "manipulated". Does the phrase "out of context" ring any bells? **THE** statistics? I just 30 min. ago saw in interview with a climate scientist who explained that the most quoted set of emails... the ones that seem to expose wholesale deceptive manipulation of data, were in fact talking ONLY about studies of trees in Siberia! They were discussing (if I understood it correctly)how to re-state data in order to use it for different purposes...not to 'deceive' the general public! Now... IF that is true, and IF releasing all the emails would clarify the matter, I would hope we could learn something about not assuming too much about damning 'disclosures' which appear right before some major event... like Copenhagen. I am searching and watching to try to find out more details. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:38 PM (#2786546) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk I think smoking causes so many illnesses, McGrath, (cancer included) that if you wrote them all down it would fill a scroll from here to China. It's an idiotic practice. It hurts your health, makes you age faster, and makes everything you own stink. I've been an anti-smoker all my life. No animal is stupid enough to deliberately inhale smoke (except for this one chimpanzee in a zoo somewhere....I've seen him smoking on Youtube). Only human beings would do something so unnatural to themselves. There's nothing good I can think of to say about it. However, I also have some ideas on cancer that might strike you as...unconventional. Don't get me started. ;-) I don't have time for it. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM (#2786548) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: artbrooks FactCheck.org took a look at this earlier today, and basically concluded that the disagreements in those hacked emails don't have any effect on the overall scientific consensus on global warming. |
|
11 Dec 09 - 08:50 PM (#2786554) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Don, false humility will not win you points at a good Ashram! ;-) |
|
11 Dec 09 - 09:31 PM (#2786580) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Smoking stinks, too... |
|
12 Dec 09 - 03:29 AM (#2786697) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton You guys really should ditch your political affiliations (on all subjects) and start living your own lives. Everyone here is reasonably intelligent, why dont you allow youselves to be guided by your intellect, not a bunch of slimy, self serving politicians. gnu talks of "trolls" on the threads, but the political manipulators are the real trolls.......they determine what you say and what you think. When a real human like LH comes along and rocks the boat, you try to savage him.....is independent thought physically painful to you? |
|
12 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM (#2786782) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Anything that challenges a ruling orthodoxy is mentally painful to most people and arouses their hostility, contempt, outrage, etc. Suggest that drinking cow's milk is quite bad for your health or that some vaccines are considerably more dangerous to your health than some of the illnesses they are supposedly going to protect you against...and many people will pretty much go berserk, because you are challenging some of their most basic and long-held assumptions...and that's part of their identity. It's kind of like publicly saying "I do not worship Allah nor do I believe that Mohammed is the greatest prophet!" while inside a mosque in Riyahd or Mecca... ;-) It's more dangerous to do that there, of course. Even Chongo is not that reckless. |
|
12 Dec 09 - 12:17 PM (#2786945) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu ake... I believe a troll is anyone who tries to wind up someone they perceive as tight arsed, oh so right on "liberals" because if they lose their cool the troll finds it really funny! I believe that is a fairly accurate partial description of this type of bully. |
|
12 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM (#2787061) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Well gnu I dont try to wind people up, they manage that perfectly well all by themselves. I told you before, I really believe all I write on this forum, I dont lie or try to curry favour with anyone if you find my opinions disgusting or perverted or whatever, I'm sorry because I rather like you.....but I will continue to say what I think, as anything else would be a waste of my time and the time of all the other members. There are a few really good people here gnu and I'm glad I found this site...I've probably learned more from them in my few years on Mudcat, than twenty in the real world. Let the discussions continue I say!! Let nothing be left out, this could be one of the last outposts of freedom! :0) |
|
12 Dec 09 - 04:24 PM (#2787072) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The pharoah Akenaton confined his worship to the sun god and ignored the rest of the gods, thus was somewhat of a trouble maker. Beware those who take his name! |
|
12 Dec 09 - 04:36 PM (#2787076) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton So sayeth the mighty Q........:0) |
|
12 Dec 09 - 04:42 PM (#2787078) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu ake... crap. Sod off troll. |
|
12 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM (#2787088) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Well, enough of these pleasantries, I do hope Ms Sarah manages to see off Hillary the Hawk and become the first female president of the US, we all want to see change....real change....systemic change and it obviously aint gonna come from Mr Obama who is turning out to be a creature of the system, just as I predicted. Tear the labels off Ms Sarah, and she might just prove woman enough to unite all the factions...just like Joan of Arc....mind you the bastards burnt Joan at the stake!! Now that would give the trolls a right good laugh....eh gnu? |
|
12 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM (#2787115) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Jaysus!! Now, if that isn't an obvious piece of trolling! PEE-YOOO!!! Don Firth (holding nose) |
|
12 Dec 09 - 05:57 PM (#2787127) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, the thing is that Ms. Sarah has found the soft spot in the liberal agenda and is going to pound away at it... Hey, smart politics... But it ain't like humans aren't responsible for global warming it's just that it is impossible to prove beyond the political shadow of doubt and thus you have the big energy companies allready punching the soft spot and tellin' folks that if the Climate Bill (which hasn't even been written yet) is passed that efvryone's taxes are going to go up... Smart politics.. Hey, the voters don't know squat about stuff so what's to lose??? Meanwhile Ms. Sarah is gonna pound away on poor ol' Al Gore until he does the impossible and that is ***prove*** that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming... B~ |
|
13 Dec 09 - 12:35 AM (#2787249) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk I think we may well be contributing to Global Warming some, Bobert, but I don't think we caused it. I don't think we're the primary factor that caused it, because I think it's cyclical. That's where Al Gore and I differ. Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not. I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens? No difference. And I know it. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 12:42 AM (#2787253) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Alice It's not Al Gore's theory. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM (#2787255) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Ezactly. "Al Gore" is just a handy tag to lay the bundle of burden on. Kind of like when people of Alaska say they don't like what's going on in Juneau- they actually are talking about the lawmakers they themselves sent to the capital city. Al Gore is a spokesperson for this "inconvenient truth" and an excellent one but it isn't his theory. If he were removed from the scene tomorrow our dilemma would not be lessened in any way. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 12:52 AM (#2787256) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Alice US Global Change Research Program codified by Congresss, 1989 |
|
13 Dec 09 - 06:24 AM (#2787303) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Little Hawk: I don't think you know Al Gore or his theory well. He would be the firt one to acknowledge the cyclical component in the temperature chart. The problem is not the cyclical aspect of warming, it is the anomalous part that breaks out of the whole prior range. A |
|
13 Dec 09 - 02:30 PM (#2787515) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Much confusion over the scientific finding, partly because of simplistic language directed at a public whom is considered incapable of understanding anything more complicated than 2 + 2 = 4. There are two aspects to the argument; climatic change as a result of natural earth processes, and change brought about by human activities. Climatic change has occurred throughout geologic history, as the earth's axis changes in inclination and (possibly) solar intensity variance. These changes are often referred to as cyclical, although there is more irregularity than regularity to the intervals. In part of Tertiary time, the inclination was such that the Canadian Arctic Islands had a temperature approximating that of the Carolinas, with plant and animal life (including alligators) that offer evidence of of the strong effect. Large peat and soft coal deposits are widespread in the Arctic. Much closer to our times, a cooler shift brought the ice ages, with warmer interglacial intervals. The last ice to affect North America impinged on northern Minnesota, some 11,000 years ago. Many lesser shifts since then have affected man and his agriculture. That we have shifted into a warming period is evident from the melting of the icecaps and the glaciers, the first ship to to navigate the Northwest Passage unaided (this year), partial destruction of coral beds and the shifts in marine faunas, variance in plant distribution, and other changes. The effects of human activity are the points being argued today. The Industrial Revolution marks the beginning of industries that burn much fuel, wood from forests or fossil fuels such as coal and, later, petroleum. That such activities are affecting the environment is evident from analyses of ice cores taken in the Arctic and Antarctic. From the time of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouses' increase in amount, becoming exponential over the last 100 years or so as more and more fossil fuels are burned and forests are stripped. Alarmingly, toxic chemical residues made their appearance in the analyses. How large are these man-made effects on climate? Regardless of the temperature effect, our atmosphere is being polluted, this alone should call for action. Moreover, if (doubtfully) man's activities are not contributing to temperature increase, the 'natural' changes are enough to cause concern. Low-lying population and agricultural centers such as the Bangladesh and other deltas could be inundated, some island populations could be looking for a new home (Maldives), loss of mountain glaciers (Himalayas, etc.) impinges agriculture and human activity that needs the meltwater, decreases in rainfall cause drought, etc. Should not these natural shifts also be planned for and contingencies formed? |
|
13 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2787523) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth I've been an astronomy and earth sciences buff since I was a kid and my Dad bought me a couple of science books. I've been interested all my life in such things as the birth and evolution of stars, how the earth came to be, plate tectonics, what makes a volcano work, that sort of thing. But a pretty good catch-up course is "The Making of the Earth," a series on the History Channel (available on DVD, I think). Astronomers, meteorologists, oceanographers, and earth scientists in general have pretty well plotted the earth's normal cycles—and the normal cycles of the sun that affect the earth. As Amos points out, what has them concerned is the recent anomalies—deviations—from those cycles, particularly the measurable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that began with the advent of the industrial revolution and has been accelerating since. And with the inevitable effects thereof. Al Gore is merely reporting these findings. And— Well, you know— Kill the Messenger!! Don Firth |
|
13 Dec 09 - 02:41 PM (#2787525) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk By "his" theory...I mean the theory he espouses not that he invented it. I'm not suggesting he owns the theory or that he was the first to come up with it, merely that he publicly espouses it. And, as I say, since I also want to clean up the air and the environment, the same as he does....and since I'm only one person on a planet of 6 billion and my opinion won't change jack shit...what difference does it make if I don't believe exactly what Al Gore believes about it? Why let it trouble you? Keep this in mind, and you won't get nearly so het up about my heretical opinions on the subject. ;-) |
|
13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM (#2787545) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Little Hawk, Amos is correct in stating that Al Gore recognizes both geologic and human causes of global warming. I have read a bit of his book, which one of my daughters bought, and he does not minimize the natural effects. He does concentrate on changes resulting from man's activities. Opponents pick on this portion of his book to the exclusion of all else. Not all energy companies are opposed to changes to cut greenhouse emissions. Chevron presents their views succinctly in this article; they do recognize that man is affecting the planet's climate. Shell and others have research programs studying the problem, many with well-qualified scientists in their laboratories. Even Exxon-Mobil, perhaps the most 'business-oriented'and a critic of many greenhouse submissions, has contributed to the battery cells needed by electric cars and has other research underway in their labs; remember, there is money to be made for investors in 'green' science and change is in the air. BP has a unit making solar panels, etc. Palin is completely out-of-touch. The link is too long for me, the luddite, but here is part of it- "Climate Change" http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climate change/... I found it by googling "Al Gore, climate change. Maybe a reader of this thread can link it. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 03:24 PM (#2787546) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Akenaton, LH, whether or not our emissions cause global warming, it is possible to deny that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water? What difference does it make as to cause if we can make Earth a better, less foul place...and if Gaea cools off a little that would be real nice, too. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 03:29 PM (#2787551) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The Chevron article may be found by clicking onto "Global Issues" within the Chevron website: Chevron |
|
13 Dec 09 - 03:35 PM (#2787558) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Ebarnacle, I have said over and over that we would be better off with cleaner air, land and water... You and I have no argument there. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 04:06 PM (#2787579) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Global Warming hawkers calling Global Warming skeptics names has become a serious problem. Is one says that CO2 is a necessasry part of the air, people say you are in favor of polluting the air. Is one says that human beings are not responsible for the (slight) rise in CO2 over the last 150 years, you are compared to Hitler. The GW hawkers are losing their audience. Honest scientists left this type of discussion a long time ago. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM (#2787580) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton The problem is, that if man made pollution is destroying life on earth and I'm sure it is, what exactly are we going to do about it.....recycle our newspapers? Already capitalism is moving East, finding undeveloped countries, cheap raw materials and slave labour. Soon the whole world will be a reeking workshop, because capitalism cannot stop expanding, if it does, it dies....and its leaders will ensure that while there is a cent of profit to be squeezed from planet Earth and its inhabitants, the system will go on! Anyone seriously wishing to start reversing the damage already done, will have to accept a drastic lowering of living standards, on a scale almost unthinkable at present......central heating, production and use of electricity, mass production of consumables, importation of food and raw materials, foreign travel for social purposes and a host of other energy wasteful activities would have to be curtailed or banned.......putting these measures into practice might just be possible......after the riots had been put down and the leaders shot.....but how are we going to stop the huge populations of China and India from trying to attain the standard of living that we have enjoyed for the last sixty or seventy years? Are we prepared to be serious about global warming? Or do we just like talking about it? If it is a reality are we already too late to have any effect? What about "human rights" a matter which concerns many here, how do peoples rights fit into any mission to save the planet? Or do we just give up, admit that capitalism and technology have fucked us and the planet.....steal what we need to survive another few decades and let the future look after itself....Ake |
|
13 Dec 09 - 04:50 PM (#2787609) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle pdq Percentage of CO2 in the air is the issue, not whether there should be CO2. Whether or not we are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses in the air, the increase corresponds to both our emissions and our removal of the biosphere's ability to handle the increased emissions. If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation, very likely due to the preponderance of greenhouse gasses in their atmospheres not allowing as much thermal reradiation as the "thinner atmosphere" planets allow. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM (#2787617) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) China is the biggest producer, and user, of solar panels. Their big problem is coal-fired industry and energy. They have made a promise and a target to reduce emissions- will they fulfill on their promises? China, in some ways, is reminiscent of early days in the expansion of Western industry. Like the U. S. in the early 20th century, they have an industrial, fast-moving citified east, and a large rural area to the west. Their modernization only started with the the end of Mao populism some 30-40 years ago; their pace is amazing. I wouldn't give up on China, they have a hard-headed but practical leadership. India seems to lack direction; they have a developing industry, but only a small part of the population seems to be involved. I haven't seen any real movement towards protection of their water supplies which are already depleting because of melting in the Himalayas and improper or uncontrolled use. A few talkers but no action. Like akenaten, I can't find any committment on their part. Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 05:38 PM (#2787636) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton "Unlike akenaten, however, I see that capitalism has benefited our lives; its direction, however, must be governed, and too many people subscribe to the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy" That statement Q, is plumb full of contradictions! |
|
13 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM (#2787664) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Oh? Of course communists believe in something that is impossible. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 06:37 PM (#2787666) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Come on, one cant be naive for ever....Being Capitalist-phobic doesn't always mean one is a communist. I was a party member for a number of years, but long since realised that if there is an answer it will be a personal one and not to be found in any political ideology. What's all that to do with global warming? |
|
13 Dec 09 - 08:03 PM (#2787704) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, Q, some very logical arguments... The problem is that alot of folks, including LH, don't hear in these arguments "proof positive"... Some, like LH, think we should not be burning so many things because the burning pollutes the air and the environoment... That's okay wth me and maybe that is the argument that needs to be pushed ahead of the global warming argument... I mean, until the scientists can prove that this burning is causing global warming, especially since you still have so many flat-earther so-called scientists that are employed by the polluters then maybe we need to change our arguments to ones that are less vulnerable... BTW, for the right wing the global warming argument is alot like their demands that Saddam didn't have WMD's... It's unfair but it palys well to folks who really are clueless... B~ |
|
13 Dec 09 - 08:33 PM (#2787721) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow Al Gore and I agree, however, on the wisdom of reducing our harmful industrial emissions and helping to clean up the air and the rest of the environment, regardless of whether we caused Global Warming or not. I just don't buy his specific theory about it, that's all, but I do agree on cleaning up our act. Given that I want to do the same thing that he wants to do (in a general sense)...what's the problem with my disagreeing about his theory? What difference will it make to what happens? True enough Little Hawk - the puzzle is how all this speculation about the causes of Global Warming can be used by the likes of Palin as grounds for trying to block moves to stop humans continuing to make things worse. It's like arguing about the causes of a fire rather than doing what we can to stop it burning us all up. Orvrather, it's like actively sabotaging the efforts of the firefighters, and setting new fires. There are people who do precisely that, and they are not very nice people. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 08:35 PM (#2787723) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) I agree that "burning things" pollutes the environment and the pollution is very heavy. Much can be done to limit pollution by proper technology, however, without seriously lowering the standard of living. I don't know that pushing this argument rather than global warming would do any good- the Republicans are interested only in defeating Obama's efforts and making him appear ineffectual so that they can win seats in the next congressional balloting and, in 2012, regain the White House. I am afraid that they will succeed. My politics tend to be conservative, but the core membership of the Republican Party seems to be 'plain dumb'. |
|
13 Dec 09 - 11:36 PM (#2787778) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle "We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?" --Lee Iacocca |
|
14 Dec 09 - 07:58 AM (#2787943) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce I agree that we should reduce pollution. But why do you think we can STOP GW by those efforts??? IMO we are wasting the time that we should be using to ADJUST TO GW, since it will occur regardless of what man does- the MOST we can do is speed it up a little ( at higher levels of CO2 than we are presently at- compare yearly CO2 to a single volcanic eruption). "If you look at the temperatures of Venus, Jupiter and Mars, they are all higher than can be accounted for by direct solar radiation," Melting Martian icecaps, and major climactic change to Jupiter- And how much CO2 have we put into the atmosphere of Mars or Jupiter? The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED! So how will reducing the CO2 help, when the increased solar flux alone will increase the water vapor ( a more effective greenjouse gas than CO2) by a greater amount than the CO2 in the atmosphere??? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 08:12 AM (#2787952) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, Q, I've read that the fundamentalism preachers are all over the "pollution" arguments but not so many on the "global warming" arguements... Political expediency, I would think, would trump... B~ |
|
14 Dec 09 - 10:47 AM (#2788058) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Water vapor is self regulating as compared to co2. More water vapor means more clouds. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. also substantial increases of energy of the sun would make green house effects moot wouldn't it? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM (#2788067) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos This is kinda silly, really. Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses. Palin is forwarding knee-jerk politically-driven reactions and overheated rhetorical soundbites. Comparing them is an exercise in absurdity. A |
|
14 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM (#2788096) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor I thought that Palin was forwarding a distillation of the arguments that billions of dollars in energy company money can buy. The thing about climate change is that though most would suffer enormously, some stand to make out much better with the status quo. In fact, right now, denying is where the money is. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 12:01 PM (#2788102) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Amos, "Gore is forwarding research results and fact-based analyses." THAT is what is in doubt- Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing? And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM (#2788131) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie "Follow the MONEY- HOW MUCH money and power has Gore ( and the GW "hotheads") gotten that they would not have if GW was shown to be a natural thing? "And what have ANY of them done to help prepare for LIVING WITH GW, as opposed to claiming that they could stop it, if it wasn't for all those people who don't have "true religion" and believe blindly that Saint Gore can make everything right, if we just give him money and power? " Could not the reverse be asked as easily? How much money are the naysayers getting from the powers that stand to lose bundles if the nation/world starts cutting back? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 12:49 PM (#2788137) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos They don't claim any such thing, Bruce, and you are being disingenuous. They claim we can reverse the greatest exacerbating factor. Your assertion that "it is a natural thing" is ignoring the orders of magnitude. The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue. Add the carbon problem, which is demonstrably a human contribution, and it breaks out of the ordinary variations by an order of magnitude. That said, it is possible that mankind will be able to redistribute itself all over the globe, flee from new deserts and encroach on melted permafrosts and rebuild without causing major catastrophic conflicts. What's a few polar bears between friends, right? But it is not likely. A |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM (#2788151) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce "The natural heating of the planet due to cyclical factors, minus the exaggeration caused by anthropogenic additives, is not a major issue." And the fact thet we do not have mammoths and giant sloths still running around? I fear your statement is not valid. Oh, seen any dinosaurs, lately?? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM (#2788157) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor It is my understanding that Mammoths and other mega fauna are not running around due to hunting by man. I don't see where "GW" enters into it. The rise of mammals and ultimately humans, came about after the fall of the dinosaurs. Are you saying we should make way for the next species? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM (#2788158) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Perhaps it would be more fun to compare Palin's and Gore's wardrobes and hairstyles, Amos? ;-) I don't think her comments on Global Warming being a result of natural cycles indicate much (if any) knowlege on her part, I think she just got lucky because she would naturally oppose anything Al Gore says, and Al Gore's not infallible (at least I doubt that he is...whaddya think?) so he might be mistaken about something now and then...in which case, if Sarah opposes him on THAT particular thing...which she naturally will and with no hesitation at all...then she gets to be right by default on that particular thing whether she knows much about it or not. After all, even a non-functional watch is right twice a day. Think about it. You could pick anyone at all...just contradict everything they ever say...and sooner or later you'd be right about something and they'd be wrong...even if you were a complete moron. It might take a long time........but imagine the thrill of triumph when you finally end up catching them in an error. ;-) I knew a guy who couldn't win a chess game against me (or anyone else we knew) but he kept on trying. He was a pretty lousy chess player, but he was determined to persevere till he beat me. Well, it must have been our fiftieth game, and my own overconfidence or just plain lack of attention betrayed me and I got so busy thinking about a trap I was laying for him that I completely forgot that his bishop was aiming at my queen (after I moved this other piece to set the trap). He saw it, but he could hardly believe it, so he spent about five minutes sweating bullets, thinking that I wanted him to take my queen for some reason that would prove fatal to him. I wondered what the hell he was thinking about so hard...then I saw it. OUCH! Would he do the obvious? Well, he finally did, and there went my queen. At this point I had to start playing REALLY HARD! Yessir. I put up a fine defence, and it took a long time, but he finally managed to wear me down and got the checkmate........... And he went absolutely berserk. He leaped up, and started yelling things like: "WHO IS THE CHAMP? I AM THE CHAMP! YOU STINK! YOU ARE USELESS! I'M NEVER F**KIN' PLAYING YOU AGAIN! YOU STINK, MAN! YOU ARE THE WORST F**KIN' CHESS PLAYER I EVER PLAYED AND I AM NEVER PLAYIN' YOU AGAIN!" He danced all around the room in a frenzy yelling stuff like that for the next couple of minutes. Yes, this is the joy that comes over someone who has never won a game before, and if he's just a tad...um shall we say...immature...then he may react somewhat as my friend did. It was pretty amusing, and probably one of the greatest moments Jim ever had. As it turned out, he refused to play me for about 3 weeks after that so he could preserve his "winner's" lustre for awhile and tell everyone how badly I "stink" at chess. ;-D Then things got back to normal. I betcha Al Gore gets caught now and then just the way I did. If so, Sarah Palin can dance around the room and yell "WHO IS THE CHAMP?" or something to that effect. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM (#2788166) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor There are three major drawbacks to adjusting to GW or just letting it taking its course. Uncertainty, The overall climate of the Earth is well suited to man as it is. Any dramatic change is likely to be for the worse. Expense. On a global scale it would be cheaper to decrease the effects than deal with them. Conservation now is way cheaper than dealing with drought, storms and displacement. Conflict, As disparity and desperation increase war becomes inevitable. Even the US military, not known for its left leanings predicts conflict if the GW trend continues. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM (#2788174) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Little Hawk, Are you "playing chess" with Amos right now? :-) You haven't "taken his queen" any more than Palin has taken Gore's. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:36 PM (#2788179) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk No, Jack, I'm just having fun reminiscing about old times in the early 70s. My guess is that Amos would be an excellent chess player. I eventually gave up on chess, because I find it uses up too much energy if you play it seriously. That's okay when you're young and you've got a ton of energy, but I just began to find it exhausting after I hit about 50. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM (#2788192) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor You seem to have contradicted people on this thread then ignored well stated arguments to yours while repeating your original point. It seems like SOME sort of game. I thought you were playing with Amos. If you were just having fun reminiscing with no other purpose, then please forgive me. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 02:49 PM (#2788238) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Gore's two books on climate change are useful for the data he presents, and the citations. One can use these to find original references, and evaluate the information for oneself. Both are available in cheap paperback. Titles are "An Inconvenient Truth," and "Our Choice." Simplified versions for children are published under the same titles, so check closely if you are ordering from a site rather than getting them at your bookshop. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 03:05 PM (#2788250) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth "The sun is known ( except to Al Gore) as a variable star- NO ARGUEMENT ALLOWED!" REALLY!??? The sun is a G2V-spectral class main-sequence star, approximately 20% more massive than the average main-sequence star. Other than quite healthy and husky, it is exactly like the vast majority of stars in the universe. Like all stars, different latitudes rotate at different rates (like Jupiter, which was on it's way to being a star, but fell way short in accumulating enough mass), which, over a few years, mis-aligns its magnetic field. Every eleven years, the magnetic field re-aligns itself, and this is the cause of sun-spots and solar flares. It also goes through longer term cycles, such as a minimum periodic sunspot activity in the 17th century, decreasing luminosity over a few of the 11-year cycles, which lowered the earth's temperature by a few degrees, causing what has been referred to as "the Little Ice Age" in Europe. There is no indication that such an increase or diminution of luminosity is occurring at the present time, save for the normal, expected 11-year sunspot cycle, which is due to reach its peak in 2012, then wan again. And no indication of a longer term increase in luminosity occurring at the present time. In fact: 1. It is currently in the midst of an unusual sunspot minimum, lasting far longer and with a higher percentage of spotless days than normal; since May 2008, predictions of an imminent rise in activity have been regularly made and as regularly debunked by the astronomical community. 2. It is measurably dimming; its output has dropped 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths in comparison with the levels at the last solar minimum. 3. Over the last two decades, the solar wind's speed had dropped 3%, its temperature 13%, and it's density 20% Although it has not lasted long enough to indicate a trend, if anything, the sun is cooling, which would tend to point to a repetition of the 17th century's "little ice age." Yet, the mean temperature of the earth has gone UP within the past century, accelerating within the past few decades. This "The sun is growing warmer" is a favorite dodge of opponents of warnings about human-caused global warming, but it is a) not true, and b) bad science. Astronomers do not generally regard the sun to be a "variable" star in the sense that opponents of human-caused global warming intend. There are many variable stars in the universe, referred to as "Cepheid variables," and their periodicity is usually short-term, waxing and waning within a few days or weeks, and their spectral characteristics in combination with their clocklike regularity has proven useful to astronomers in determining stellar distances. If regarded as a "variable" star at all, the sun would fall under the category of an "eruptive" variable, a star that experiences regular eruptions on their surfaces, like flares or mass ejections, as a result of the star's adjusting its periodic rotational misalignments of its magnetic field. This includes our sun, which I have dealt with above. All main sequence stars like our sun do this. And astronomers do not generally put them into the class of "variables." Don Firth |
|
14 Dec 09 - 03:21 PM (#2788262) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Little Hawk was drawing a very long shaggy metaphor for the relationship between Sarah's semi-mindless assertions and Gore's analytical ones. While the metaphor is somewhat apt, it took an awful long time getting htere. In the final analysis, LH spent a LONG time explaining that he agreed with what I said earlier!! :D He just had to change the words around so it wouldn't look like he agreed with something I said! A |
|
14 Dec 09 - 03:27 PM (#2788270) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Two pages of counterpoint to "Deniergate" from New Scietist. A |
|
14 Dec 09 - 03:44 PM (#2788287) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Don, sometimes I am amused by the peculiar juxtaposition of unrelated material posted by beardedbruce, but perhaps it is best to ignore him. Your concise post on the nature of our sun, however, does cover one of bb's queer injections into this thread. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:23 PM (#2788310) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq In answer to the statements found in the New Scientist article linked above: "In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that 'a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers' was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable 'to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science'. In particular, Egan found himself 'gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy' in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic drive', where New Scientist allowed the publication of 'meaningless double-talk' designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of 'squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides'. The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying that it is 'an ideas magazine—that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories'." {note: real science does not sell enough magazine copies to make publishers rich} |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:38 PM (#2788320) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Yeah, Q, I'm always amazed at how someone will post something absolutely bogus in an attempt to support their untenable position, someone else comes along with more than enough authoritative and accurate information to absolutely bury them—and then, like one of those inflatable punching-bag dolls, they (or someone else) will bounce right back and post the same crap again! Astounding! Makes for long and tedious threads. Don Firth |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:40 PM (#2788323) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos PDQ: The article I linked to was actually a compendium of facts, none of which you seem to want to address. There is nothing hypothetical about it, which makes your snarky rebuttal kind of pointless in the context. Furthermore it says nothing about the laws of thermodynamics, so I wonder what your point really is? A |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM (#2788331) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed periodical; as its editor states (pdq post) it is an "ideas magazine" (and sort of a science news brief magazine)that often has stories that are not firmly based on scientific fact but are meant to catch the interest of people who are not professional scientists. Pdq's posted description is accurate. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:56 PM (#2788332) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Okay... I'll take it... 100!!! B~ |
|
14 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM (#2788334) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Guess I won't... |
|
14 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM (#2788348) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert The probolem here isn't who would win a live Gore v. Plain debate on claimate change and global warming... He would kill her in the eyes of everyone that isn't part of her fringe extreme... But if this is allowed to be fought out in the media with Palin's team of Big Energy lobbiests then she can go toe-to-oe with ol' Al... This isn't necessary realted to, ahhhhhhh, actual facts but the perceptions that folks have of global warming... The Big Energy lobby has plastered the media with ads that have created ***doubt***... Might of fact, Big Energy even advertises on Keith Olberman??? But then again, so does the health insurance lobby... Face it, these are the same folks who wrote the ***mystery*** energy policy with Dick Cheney back in '02... We know who they are even thought the Bush administration invoked executive priveledge and exective order to protect the American people from knowing who these folks are... But nevermind that... They have set up shop in Palin's camp and are makin' her the spokesperson of doubt... Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... Folks can beleive that stuff... Just my observations... B~ |
|
14 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM (#2788372) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Please list some of these Big Energy advertisers who oppose change. BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions (OK, not those who have big tar sand leases). But Bobert, I agree that the approach emphasizing clean air, reduction of toxic waste and safe environment might be best at present. Even here in Alberta, where people are drunk with money from the oil sands (what downturn?), some are uneasy about the biggest open pit mine in the world, destruction of forest and doubtful reclamation, overuse and contamination of water in its extraction, injection of solvents into the subsurface, quadrupling the area being dug, etc. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 07:23 PM (#2788429) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Q, I wonder if pointing at what the coal companies have done in the southern mountains (Kentucky and environs), leveling whole mountains because it's easier to get all the coal that way, but resulting in devastating small communities, poisoning the ground water and clogging streams, and generally leaving a disgusting mess in their wake. Two songs at least that I know of—Jean Ritchie's Blackwaters and John Prine's Paradise (cover ~ the YouTube audio on all of John Prine's renditions were so bad you couldn't make out the words)—give pretty graphic descriptions of the widespread devastation that the coal companies left behind. There are undoubtedly more songs. Pretty good example of the kind of "concern" for the land and the people that the big energy companies characteristic exhibit. (PTUI!!!) Don Firth |
|
14 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM (#2788436) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) I was referring to the petroleum companies who drill the subsurface, but yes, you are right about the coal companies active in the Appalachians. A sad story. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 07:40 PM (#2788438) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow BP, Shell, Chevron and other have research programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions Well, they would wouldn't they? Remember Sarah Palin reprieving that turkey while a bloke in the background was carrying on with the slaughter? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 08:05 PM (#2788450) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) McGrath, what is that remark in aid of? |
|
14 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM (#2788459) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists Key claim of global warming sceptics debunked By Steve Connor, Science Editor Monday, 14 December 2009SHARE PRINTEMAILTEXT SIZE NORMALLARGEEXTRA LARGE PHOTO BY UNIMEDIA INTERNATIONAL/REX FEATURES Leading experts say solar cycles cannot account for current global warming Leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize-winner, have rounded on studies used by climate sceptics to show that global warming is a natural phenomenon connected with sunspots, rather than the result of the man-made emissions of carbon dioxide. The researchers – all experts in climate or solar science – have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed. Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity – sunspots – and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an "alternative" climate conference in Copenhagen last week. UK Independent |
|
14 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM (#2788465) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Hey, if ya' believe the full pages ads in the Washington Post, BP is some kinda benevolent corporation that rivals Jesus, Ghandi and God hisself in being so pro-human... lol... |
|
14 Dec 09 - 08:45 PM (#2788467) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The "UK Independent" is a 'news' medium; nothing peer-reviewed and not reliable. Quoting or linking these media serves no purpose. |
|
14 Dec 09 - 10:23 PM (#2788500) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Bruce, While you are correct that water vapor is a constant value as part of the totality, you are incorrect about vapor's position as a global warming factor. It is commonly accepted as the #3 factor. Part of the problem is that the oceans are becoming fresher. Another part of the problem is that we, by development, are interfering with the water cycle, in that we are paving over land and not allowing the water to seep into ground to replenish aquifers. By the same token, we are paving wetlands and interfering with purification. All of this means that we are wasting a replenishable resource. We are working on establishing Atmospheric Water Generation [AWG] as the technology of choice. Unlike other technologies, AWG only needs the ambient temperature to be greater than 40 degrees F in order to extract usable amounts of water. The technology can be used for disaster relief as the largest "portable" machines can produce 60,000 gallons per day at 90 F and 90% relative humidity. A secondary advantage of AWG [primary in terms of this discussion] is that, as you remove water from the atmosphere, more evaporates from the oceans, seas and large lakes. This allows a rise in salinity as the fresh water is applied to various human uses, such as providing water where there is insufficient clean water for consumption and agriculture. It also has the potential to ease uncomfortable high humidity during the warm months. One of our goals is to produce sufficient high quality equipment to relieve droughts, refill aquifers and, eventually, push deserts back. In the case of Florida, for example, the aquifer has been so depleted that the limestone beneath a large part of the state has become dehydrated and lost strength. This allows sink holes to form. The best way to resolve this problem is to replace the missing clean water with clean water. The rate of natural replenishment is too low and, in many coastal areas or areas unserved by sewers, there is a good chance of toxic infiltration because of a lack of relative pressure from the aquifer. It is impossible to do only one thing. By improving quality of life we can also relieve Global Warming and relieve a source of political conflict. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 07:06 AM (#2788697) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce The sun just rose in the West! "Now to my progressive friends here... Get real and get political... If ya' want an planet-friendly energy policy then get off the Global Warming Express to Nowhere and get talkin' clean air and toxic waste and renewable rersources... " I agree with this statement by Bobert. I have NO problem with many of the GW "solution" as being good and worthwhile- BUT I do not think they will PREVENT GW as Gore et al claim. We need to adapt to change, not try to keep a dynamic system static. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 08:15 AM (#2788733) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, from a purely politican point of view, BB and I are on the same page... Og course we have arrived there from different directions, so to speak... That doesn't mean that, unlike LH, that I don't believe that human's are the cause of glabal warming because I do... I does, however, mean that the "proof positive" is lacking... The problem, as I see it, is that the same measures are called for be it "global warming" or "water, soil and air pollution"... Now I'll be the first to admit that the science may have the "proof positive" but if it does then the story has not been told convincingly enough because too many folks just ain't on board... And then again, maybe the reason folks aren't on baord is that for the last 8 years we've had flat-earth scientists hired by the Bush administartion to tell us that it's all baloney... Or maybe it the cumulative results of the subtle ad campaigns by Big Oil... Doesn't really mater that much... Like I said, the measures that are called for are very similar be it GW or pollution we are trying to curb... B~ |
|
15 Dec 09 - 08:26 AM (#2788743) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Frankly, I think if they wanted to do something constructive, they'd engage in a program to contain human popultion growth. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 09:21 AM (#2788779) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Peter Laut, a former adviser to the Danish Energy Agency who first identified the flaws, said there were practically no observations to support the idea that variations in sunspots played more than a minor role in global warming. Mr Laut's analysis of the flaws is accepted by ... Paul Crutzen, an atmospheric chemist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on understanding the hole in the ozone layer. "There is definitely a problem [with these studies]. Laut has really pinned it down but the [sunspot] argument keeps reappearing and its quite irritating," Professor Crutzen said. Professor Stefan Rahsmstorf, of Potsdam University, agreed: "I've looked into this quite closely and I'm on Laut's side in terms of his analysis of the data." "Their controversial papers must be retracted or at least that there will be an official statement by them acknowledging their mistake," said Andre Berger, honorary president of the European Geosciences Union. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM (#2788880) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Here are some ideas that seem to be proposed by serious people... 10 Ways To Slow Global Warming |
|
15 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM (#2788897) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce " For general purposes, the energy output of the sun can be considered constant. This of course is not entirely true. Scientists have shown that the output of the sun is temporally variable (Figure 4). Some researchers have also suggested that the increase in the average global temperature over the last century may have been solar in origin. This statement, however, is difficult to prove because accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978. " http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation I was NOT talking about sunspots ( 11 year cycle), but the longer cycles that many here seem to be ignorant of. ----------------------------------------------------------------- accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So how can ANYONE tell me that they know there is NO long-term variation, when other indicators ( Earth's past climate amoung them) have shown there to be? Don Firth, As I have a BS degree in physics and astronomy, and have 30 years experience working in the field of satellite data collection (EO-1 Data Manager as well as other positions) and interpretation, perhaps you might tell me YOUR credentials in the field of solar flux determination? |
|
15 Dec 09 - 12:34 PM (#2788904) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce In case you want a picture, let me find one for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg If you want the original source, feel free to look- I am tired of wasting time telling idiots what the scientific community has known for some time. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM (#2788913) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Though if you WANT to use sunspots, ... "Sunspot activity has been measured using the Wolf number for about 300 years. This index (also known as the Zürich number) uses both the number of sunspots and the number of groups of sunspots to compensate for variations in measurement. A 2003 study by Ilya Usoskin of the University of Oulu, Finland found that sunspots had been more frequent since the 1940s than in the previous 1150 years. Sunspot numbers over the past 11,400 years have been reconstructed using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional - the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago. The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode." So, if there is any further discussion of the solar output being "fixed", please supply at least a theroy as to why the data indicates otherwise. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM (#2788915) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce "Solar cycles Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behaviour of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been suggested; only the 11 and 22 year cycles are clear in the observations. 2,300 year Hallstatt solar variation cycles. 11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle and named after Heinrich Schwabe. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots ( faculae). 22 years: Hale cycle, named after George Ellery Hale. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals. 87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).Braun, et al, (2005) 210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. de Vries cycle). Braun, et al, (2005). 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle Other patterns have been detected: In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991). During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation show cycles of 2,500 years. The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the ocean, which acts to damp high frequencies. Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate was 1.5 times as sensitive to 22 year cyclical forcing relative to 11 year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertial induced a lag of approximately 2.2 years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data." Predictions based on patterns A simple model based on emulating harmonics by multiplying the basic 11-year cycle by powers of 2 produced results similar to Holocene behaviour. Extrapolation suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near Little Ice Age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum. There is weak evidence for a quasi-periodic variation in the sunspot cycle amplitudes with a period of about 90 years. These characteristics indicate that the next solar cycle should have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 while the following cycle should have a maximum of about 70±30 in 2023. Because carbon-14 cycles are quasi periodic, Damon and Sonett (1989) predict future climate: Cycle length Cycle name Last positive carbon-14 anomaly Next "warming" 232 --?-- AD 1922 (cool) AD 2038 208 Suess AD 1898 (cool) AD 2002 88 Gleisberg AD 1986 (cool) AD 2030 |
|
15 Dec 09 - 12:58 PM (#2788925) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth BB, when it comes to astronomy, I might be what is called a "talented amateur." I have been interested in the subject since I was eight years old, have read widely on the subject, and have taken a number of courses at the University of Washington. I have also logged in some observatory time. Granted, I don't have the degrees that you say you have, but I have known of, say, anatomy professors who couldn't find their own butts with both hands and an anatomy chart. Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees. In my post above, I also talked about the sun's long term cycles, not just the 11-year sunspot cycle. And I am also fully aware of the work done on temperatures and atmospheric content by studying such things as tree rings and core samples taken from glaciers and ice sheets. So there is considerable information that can be at least inferred about solar radiation that goes back a long way before 1978. Don Firth |
|
15 Dec 09 - 01:03 PM (#2788930) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce Yes, and the inference is that solar output drives climactic change. "Inaccurate information is still inaccurate, even if the promulgator of that information has a whole string of degrees" Yet the GW "hotheads" insist that since they have supporters with "a whole string of degrees" they cannot be argued with. Make up your mind- you can't insist we respect "AUTHORITY" when YOU do not do so. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM (#2788934) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth BB, I know what I know, and I can't be held responsible for what other people think or say, so quit trying to shove everyone you disagree with into one convenient pigeon-hole. Over and out. I'm not done with this thread, but I have things to do for the next few hours. Don Firth |
|
15 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM (#2788938) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce "BB, I know what I know, " Yet you declare that ** I ** do NOT "know what I know." Be careful- you might have to be elevated to one of the Ubermench. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM (#2788943) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq ...fade out Debbie Boone singing "You Light Up My Life"...cue the Robert Shaw Chorale... "Sunspots We Have Heard on High" |
|
15 Dec 09 - 01:35 PM (#2788949) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow McGrath, what is that remark in aid of? Seemed self-evident to me, but clealruy not to Q. My point was about tokenism, as symbolized by stuff like politicians "reprieving" the odd turkey. "Clean energy research" by major polluters looks very like mere window dressing, while normal business, wrecking the planet, goes on as per normal. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM (#2788969) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) If you wish to call petroleum suppliers "major polluters," remember their investors, hundreds of thousands of them, the people who gain employment from the uncounted companies who depend on their products, and all of us who use plastics, fuel and materials whose production depends on petroleum - it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM (#2789182) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: McGrath of Harlow it is US who created them and find them necessary to our well-being. And that's the problem that needs sorting out, or there won't be any well being for you for the US or anyone else. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM (#2789189) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Consumerism in all its guises, is the worlds foremost cause of pollution. How many of us would be willing to rewind our lifestyles and living standards back to pre 1900 levels? That would be the minimum required to make any impact on co2 levels. It woulds also mean the end of Capitalism as we know it Instead of buying our living standards, we would be obliged to become self sufficeint in food production, return to living as three and four generation family groups,sharing in housing, heating and the production of food. All the talk about alternative energy sources is only a load of "hot air", if these new sources are to be wasted producing items whos only purpose is to encourage people to exchange their lives for money and the money for a consumerist dream...Ake |
|
15 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM (#2789207) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: olddude I like that Canadian Scientist David Suzuki I think his name is. The effects of man's activity will hasten the event even if the event is a natural occurrence or not. That is if it normally would take 1000 years than maybe it will only take 200 due to the carbon emissions. Now how anyone else can think in the big scheme of it all that reducing carbon emissions, is a bad thing, then I don't get it because even if it does not cause global warming, it causes enough other problems in the environment and in our health that it is worth doing. So trying to reduce the fossil fuel emissions is a good thing I think and I applaud Gore for doing something other than sitting on his butt like so many others have been doing for decades. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 06:58 PM (#2789232) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bill D I am sort of weary of those who seem to insinuate that quibbling over fine points of some arcane bit of physics and astronomy affects the overall preponderance of the data about warming! Here are 50 of the supposed objections and some comments on them There are MANY things to sort out, but winning the battle over sunspots won't cover it all. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 07:00 PM (#2789236) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton But that's the fucking point! Do you seriouly think anyone here would be willing to make any more than a token gesture? What is required is a worldwide change in how we view the way we live. At the moment the non-developed world wants a lifestyle "just like the Americans" thats what they dream about! they already have self sufficienct to a minimal standard. They want to be like us....and we know we must be like them to survive, if man made global warming is a reality. But we will go on denying and apologising for ourselves to the bitter end. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 07:51 PM (#2789262) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,TIA There is clear and incontrovertible evidence of a link between climate and variations in solar activity - with climate lagging solar activity by about 10 years. This linkage is documented for millions of years. That is why it is so significant that the link seems to be broken since about 1975. This alone should be sufficient proof of something new happening to trigger implementation of the precautionary principle. |
|
15 Dec 09 - 08:19 PM (#2789283) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Bruce, follow the link and look at item 6. http://www.alternet.org/story/144557/12_hilarious_corporate_attempts_to_look_green?page=2 |
|
15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM (#2789309) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Foukai, Frohlich, Spruit, Wigley, 2006. "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate," Nature 443 (issue 1038): Existing literature suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time. "...brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century." See list of peer-evaluated articles consulted in this review. http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf |
|
15 Dec 09 - 09:02 PM (#2789310) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Well, one thing which cannot be argued is this: 1. To the best of my knowledge there is no pending Climate Bill in Congress... ...and... 2. Big Oil (or someone) is allready spending big bucks telling folks that the "climate bill" will cost us jobs and raise our taxes??? Hmmmmmmm??? Someone who is making alot of $$$ doesn't want Congress to even think about climate legislation... B~ |
|
15 Dec 09 - 09:03 PM (#2789311) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Opps... Make that 2 things... |
|
15 Dec 09 - 09:46 PM (#2789342) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Bobert, take a look at my 8:19 post today. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 07:49 AM (#2789539) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:29 AM (#2789572) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk I've done my bit on that. No kids. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:40 AM (#2789579) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Well, that's a start. The problem with trying to control population by war is, smokeless powder consumes oxygen and expells nitrates into the air. Then there's all those messy bodies to deal with, tanks and huge ships running around burning fossil fuels... On top of all that, it's not efficient, and we know there's a better way. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM (#2789592) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk It's far from efficient. There is usually a big rise in the birth rate after a major war. If you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living and improving their education. It is the poorer and less educated people who generally have the highest birth rate in any given society. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 10:08 AM (#2789632) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel If you want to visit Cleopatra's masion home you now need scuba gear. The most ancient cities on Earth are below the waves. Take a look at the latest discovery! http://www.heralddeparis.com/previously-undiscovered-ancient-city-found-on-caribbean-sea-floor/65855 Mass extinctions occur during sea level rise as well as sea level drops. Climate change forces out life that can ill adapt. Too much heat as well as excessive cold is what we call climate change. Currently the co2 levels are stromnomically high. We are breathing less Oxygen and the sea is warmer. Our response will be less enthusiastic compared to the ingenuity of how to steal 8 trillion dollars with deregulation, Credit Default swaps and derivities (all of which stole enough money to finance an effective global response to climate change. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 10:25 AM (#2789641) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Martin Harwood While population growth is certainly an important issue, I think it's an all too convenient way to shift the onus onto the developing nations. The disparity in per capita energy consumption figures are staggering. We've got to stop being so bloody greedy! |
|
16 Dec 09 - 10:39 AM (#2789647) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger The problem with that analogy is when people migrate to a developed nation they become a super-consumer just like the folks who are there now. Reducing population growth at the source is the best way to deal with the problem. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 10:58 AM (#2789657) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Martin Harwood All the more reason to reduce consumption in the developed world. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 11:03 AM (#2789663) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq "...if you want to reduce the birth rate, it is best done by raising people's standard of living..." But raising the standard of living for large group of people causes them to be be big polluters since... high standard of living= large consumption of goods= large consumption of energy... and we are back to the same problem. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 11:09 AM (#2789670) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie "They're talking about everything but the one thing that would help--controlling human population growth." ake I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means. Education and raising the standards of living for all is the only answer. It is slow but inexorable. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM (#2789741) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel Italy stands alone as the only country in which the population is markedly dropping. And the Vatican scratches their collective heads. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM (#2789743) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Wrong, as usual. Russia is also dropping in population. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 01:53 PM (#2789760) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel pdq, true but not as much. Secondly and most importantly in light of the holidays, you are consistantly downright mean and defamatory towards me and others here which is both glaringly wrong and certainly not helpful to you in the long run. You know there are exceedingly generous living breathing people who have put you on the lump of coal list simply due to a lack of good will and civility. Cheer up, gear up and get along. Seasons Greetings Don. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM (#2789777) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Does our real standard of living have to drop for us to radically decrease carbon emissions? It is my understanding that California is 30-40% more efficient than the rest of country in terms of home electricity use. If the rest of the country caught up that would mean significant gains. Then there is the weatherization plan that Obama recently unveiled. Replacing 12 MPG suburbans with 30 MPG hybrid minivans. Teleconferencing rather than business trips. etc. Heating and cooling of McMansions. There is a lots of waste in our society that does NOT really add to our standard of living. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 02:16 PM (#2789781) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth There is an elephant in the room which no one seems to be addressing. And that is that fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. New deposits (which is to say, deposits that have been there for millions of years, but have just recently been discovered) are getting much more difficult to find. When it's gone, it's gone! What do we do then? In the meantime—I recall a conversation I had back in the early 1960s. The conversation was with Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction writer, who was living in Seattle at the time. This was while he was going for advanced degrees at the University of Washington and working in the aero-space division of the Boeing Airplane Company, and before he moved to California and—among other things—started writing science fiction. Jerry was talking about the egregious wasting of fossil fuels. He held up a ball-point pen and said, "When you consider the number of things that are made out of petroleum—the barrel of this pen, for example—AND such things as medicines, fertilizers" (and he recited a long list of things that people use all the time, but have no idea are actually petroleum products, and some of which are essential to some peoples' lives) "it is a crime against future generations to simply burn it to produce energy!" He then went on to list a number of renewable sources of energy that are not being utilized, such as solar, wind, tidal, and he outlined a couple that sounded pretty far out, but which, he assured me, would not just work, but would work more inexpensively than fossil fuels. "And," he went on, "would not stink up the atmosphere!" Jerry was (is) politically pretty conservative (he served as one of Ronald Reagan's science advisors and was an advocate of Star Wars, even designing a number of weapons systems for it), but he was right on the money when it came to being concerned about what humans were doing to the planet—and where it could eventually lead. What do we do when the fossil fuels run out? Worry about it then!?? Don Firth |
|
16 Dec 09 - 02:56 PM (#2789801) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth And Jack the Sailor has hit on a key point. The city I live in has an excellent recycling system, with waste pre-sorted by people themselves. Cans go in this container, bottles in this, paper products here, matter that can be used for mulch goes here, etc. How does the sanitation department encourage this? If it isn't properly sorted, they won't pick it up! You have to haul it to the dump yourself. Only most dumps are turning into recycling plants where, if it isn't sorted, they won't take it. The building I live in is a coop apartment. A couple of decades ago, we took out a big mortgage and had this 100 year old building weatherized, complete with thermal windows, got rid of the coal-fed boiler that inefficiently fed an antiquated radiator system and installed electrical baseboard heat (Seattle City Light is all hydropower, no coal-fired plants), and got a tax break and historical status as a result. Several of the people who live in this building work for Microsoft. They don't hop in their cars and drive across the Evergreen Point bridge to get to work, they telecommute. My wife works at the Seattle Public Library and she takes public transportation to work (our car, a 1999 Toyota Corolla spends most of its time in the garage; ten years old and about 25,000 miles on the clock). Energy Star compliant electrical appliances (including my computer). Energy efficient light bulbs everywhere! Saturday is "Farmers' Market" day in Seattle. In addition to the famous Pike Place Market, almost every district has a location where local farmers bring their produce, so it's not too difficult to get fresh, locally grown food, trucked in from various areas such as the Kent Valley south of Seattle, not trucked halfway across the continent. It's generally less expensive than what you can get in the supermarkets and it doesn't have all the nutrition processed out of it. I see a lot of Priuses and "Smart Cars" around. Don Firth |
|
16 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM (#2789851) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Don... Smart Car... fine if you don't live here. When the roads are snowy, or, worse, slushy, a Smart Car could kill you. Fine for fair weather but dangerous as hell in snowy weather. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 04:10 PM (#2789854) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The problem with petroleum used for transportation is that it is easy and cheap. Don Firth's post- the need for plastics in one hell of a lot of our goods (my keyboard as I type this as well as all those ballpoints we dump in drawers that have been sent out with duns for donations, the bottle my milk comes in, many items around the house and now a major component in the wings for the new Boeing people carrier)- is one factor that may cut petroleum use as a fuel. Reserves economically feasible will last at least 50 years; hopefully measures will be taken to find substitutes before then. China with their one child policy did cut population growth, but now they have the beginnings of a problem of a lot of oldsters with no young to support them, necessitating extensive and expensive care facilities, etc. China is building extensive nuclear energy facilities to supplant inefficient power plants dependent on coal (and oil), and is now the biggest user of solar panels to supplement home heating and other small needs. Admittedly a big source of 'greenhouse' gases, toxins and black carbon, perhaps China, for all its size, will become the leader in reducing materials that harm the environment. Petroleum for energy generation and plastics will continue to be important to their economy for many years, hence their new gas pipelines and lease bids in Iraq and elsewhere (Like the U. S., new or increased pipelines from Canada and the Arctic, and continued exploration and bidding for sources. I cannot see people willingly reducing standards of living, nor will they elect leaders that will enforce reductions. Education leading to use of more efficient substitutes for high-pollution sources is needed now. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 04:20 PM (#2789859) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Smart cars a poor choice here as well (Alberta). Distances are long, and more power is needed in the Foothills and mountains, and dangerous in snow and ice. Also impossible to take the kids anywhere with all their hockey gear or skiing equipment. Mid-size cars and SUVs are the choice here; the Prius is good within the city, but for the above reasons mid-size and SUVs are Toyota's sellers here, not the Prius. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 04:47 PM (#2789876) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Okay, but that's hardly an argument against hybrids and vehicles like the Smart Car. There is plenty of real estate within the United States, and the whole world for that matter, where one never sees a snow flake. Yet many folks there drive SUVs, Hummers, and other gas-guzzling road crushers. I'm not advocating "one size fits all," I'm advocating "look around you and use your head." Don Firth |
|
16 Dec 09 - 05:25 PM (#2789891) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger 'I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means." Why would they? |
|
16 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM (#2789910) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Object to mandatory birth control or institute mandatory birth control? |
|
16 Dec 09 - 06:25 PM (#2789931) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Back to Palin and Gore, it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience that the North Pole might melt in 5 years. He cited a scientific source, but the scientist he cited didn't want any part of that claim. I think Gore must have felt that he was addressing an audience who understood that his extreme claims (the poles aren't melting; lot's of ice; South Pole sets a new record every year; North Pole has less ice than average, but more than last year or the year before). Gore has the chops to win his debates, but he sure runs his mouth without thinking sometimes. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 06:35 PM (#2789940) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Glad that Palin ain't like that John... *grin*... B~ |
|
16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM (#2789955) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM (#2789973) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert No wonder that coal miners are paid so well... Some of those mines are close to 2 kilometers deep... |
|
16 Dec 09 - 07:42 PM (#2789976) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq The mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, which prompted two disaster songs, was over ten thousand feet deep, about 2 miles. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM (#2789995) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq - PM Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. #### That lie is like the fish that grows a couple of feet every time the story gets told. What Gore said on the Conan O'Whatisface show was that in some areas of the earth, two kilometers down, it's "very hot." [thermal vents near volcanoes, Yellowstone Park, etc.] The discussion was about alternative energy sources, and in this case, they were talking about geothermal energy. Don Firth |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM (#2790001) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq From the actual transcript of the show mentioned, Al Gore said: "It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees aces there are these incredibly hot rocks, , and the crust of the earth is hot ..." Priceless. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:39 PM (#2790007) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth 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 |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:48 PM (#2790008) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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). |
|
16 Dec 09 - 08:51 PM (#2790009) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth 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 |
|
16 Dec 09 - 09:11 PM (#2790015) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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 |
|
16 Dec 09 - 09:33 PM (#2790028) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 10:03 PM (#2790041) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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). |
|
16 Dec 09 - 11:01 PM (#2790069) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John 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. |
|
16 Dec 09 - 11:46 PM (#2790086) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Here you go, John. CLICKY #1. CLICKY #2 Don Firth |
|
16 Dec 09 - 11:57 PM (#2790090) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Facts? Facts? We don't need no steenkin' facts. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 12:56 AM (#2790116) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John 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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:00 AM (#2790119) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk 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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 05:47 AM (#2790188) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 05:59 AM (#2790193) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce "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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:20 AM (#2790203) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:29 AM (#2790207) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:48 AM (#2790217) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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". |
|
17 Dec 09 - 07:14 AM (#2790225) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
17 Dec 09 - 07:34 AM (#2790239) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST 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". |
|
17 Dec 09 - 07:35 AM (#2790241) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 08:02 AM (#2790252) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce "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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 08:55 AM (#2790279) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 08:58 AM (#2790285) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger "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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 11:35 AM (#2790383) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie "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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM (#2790459) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie 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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM (#2790471) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM (#2790512) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM (#2790515) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM (#2790522) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST "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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:33 PM (#2790524) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM (#2790531) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM (#2790534) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: 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..." 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM (#2790536) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 02:17 PM (#2790565) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos 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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2790575) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 02:55 PM (#2790585) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM (#2790586) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM (#2790610) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 03:31 PM (#2790626) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 03:51 PM (#2790654) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM (#2790670) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,Peadar (formerly) of Portsmouth 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? |
|
17 Dec 09 - 04:17 PM (#2790677) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
17 Dec 09 - 05:30 PM (#2790744) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 05:53 PM (#2790763) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton "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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:01 PM (#2790770) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie "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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM (#2790777) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton "If NO steps are taken".......We get a few extra years in Disneyland!!!.....:0) |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM (#2790780) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM (#2790787) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:24 PM (#2790789) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM (#2790796) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth "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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 06:40 PM (#2790805) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 07:41 PM (#2790843) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) "What we want" determines what we will vote for. Alternatives must be attractive or they are dead. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 07:59 PM (#2790857) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
17 Dec 09 - 08:06 PM (#2790860) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie 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. |
|
17 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM (#2790904) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger 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 |
|
17 Dec 09 - 10:11 PM (#2790913) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 07:04 AM (#2791085) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger 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." |
|
18 Dec 09 - 11:54 AM (#2791271) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk 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? |
|
18 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM (#2791382) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: beardedbruce 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 02:15 PM (#2791431) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 02:54 PM (#2791467) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce 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? |
|
18 Dec 09 - 03:08 PM (#2791483) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 04:37 PM (#2791560) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:07 PM (#2791583) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John 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. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:09 PM (#2791587) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Spoken like a good Christian, Rig! |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:20 PM (#2791596) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM (#2791605) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,TIA 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? |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:32 PM (#2791609) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Ditto... |
|
18 Dec 09 - 05:54 PM (#2791630) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie 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... |
|
18 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM (#2791635) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger "Spoken like a good Christian, Rig!" My god, do I sound that bad? |
|
18 Dec 09 - 06:11 PM (#2791637) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,KP 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 |
|
18 Dec 09 - 06:19 PM (#2791643) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
18 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM (#2791645) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq GUEST,KP Perhaps you could re-post that on the GW thread. This one is more about personalities and ain't goin' no where. |
|
18 Dec 09 - 06:22 PM (#2791646) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Looks like Obama has brokered some sort of deal in Copenhagen. Not enforceable, however, since each country must legislate its own actions. |
|
19 Dec 09 - 08:09 AM (#2791915) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: TIA 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 |
|
19 Dec 09 - 10:02 AM (#2791968) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert 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~ |
|
19 Dec 09 - 01:15 PM (#2792098) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
19 Dec 09 - 01:37 PM (#2792121) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
19 Dec 09 - 01:55 PM (#2792135) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton Leaders of the "filthy five" flee Copenhagen crime scene! here |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:20 PM (#2792154) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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." |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:25 PM (#2792156) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton 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. |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2792163) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Bush threw out Kyoto and allowed Cheney to run energy policy. Are you saying that Obama is a continuation of that? |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2792164) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton 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". |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2792165) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Only someone from cloud nine (Ban Ki-Moon of the UN and the Swedish PM) could expect nations with very different aims and problems to agree on a definite program, let alone arrive at a "legally binding" treaty. The EU may act as a unit, but all others will contribute as they see fit and as they become affected. |
|
19 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM (#2792178) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: akenaton The green view of Copenhagen. here |
|
19 Dec 09 - 03:33 PM (#2792205) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq "The Copenhagen climate change summit will go down in history, but for reasons very different from what the thousands of people who fight the blistering cold every day, were hoping for." ~ Mohammed Yahia (19 DEC 2009) {from the site linked to by Ake} |
|
19 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM (#2792265) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Q, I thought that the Bush/Cheney energy plan was "wastage"... No??? |
|
19 Dec 09 - 05:12 PM (#2792282) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Tye Bush/Cheney plan was wastage of soldiers and civilians and taxpayers money in a far off place. Energy, if you are referring to petroleum, had nothing to do with it, or if they were thinking of that, that was piling stupidity on stupidity. Unless the U. S. took Iraq over as a colony, there would be no way to exercise control over their petroleum reserves. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM (#2792809) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk You're under the impression that it's not a US colony? |
|
20 Dec 09 - 12:40 PM (#2792865) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) If Chinese, Malaysian, British, Russian, Norwegian as well as U. S. companies getting to develop their oil is any sign, they are not. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 12:45 PM (#2792869) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor If you look back to administration statements before the invasion. There is a good case to be made that they expected to be a colony, and a self-financing one at that. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM (#2792926) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert My exact point, Q... Total wastage everywhere you look... A waste of oil... A waste ot lives... A waste of treasury... A waste of demoestic policies that could have helped the working class... Etc... Now wonder Cheney doesn't want folks to know *exactly* who his co-conspirators were... B~ |
|
20 Dec 09 - 02:13 PM (#2792937) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Careful, Bobert, if Cheney runs in 2012, his co-conspirators will be looking for you. Maybe a couple of them are here at mudcat. 'One never knows, does one?' I will agree that the war in Iraq was a terrible waste, just as the war in Vietnam was. Not only that, but it stirred up and consolidated enemies. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM (#2793101) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Maybe Cheney will come in person, Q... I'd like that very much... Yes, very much... |
|
20 Dec 09 - 07:19 PM (#2793197) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Well, colonies aren't official anymore. They're done unofficially now, and the surest sign that a place is a colony is when it is very obviously occupied by a foreign military force of a greater power which is in position to enforce the wishes of the colonizer...or else! Russia used to do that too in places like Aghanistan. Such places aren't called "colonies" anymore because the politically correct rules have changed. They're called "allies" now, generally speaking, but they are in fact colonies. Iraq is a tripartite colony (Shia section, Sunni section, Kurdish section) under the thumb of Anglo-America. They have a superficial measure of political sovereignty...just like Najibullah did in Afghanistan when the Russians were there, but they are still a tripartite colony under foreign guns. If all Anglo-American forces were withdrawn, you'd see that situation change quite rapidly as war broke out again between the Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Whoever eventually won would establish a new and independent Iraq, and I doubt it would be a dear friend of Anglo-America. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 07:43 PM (#2793204) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Evidently Palin claims in her book that her daughters got threats of violence when they were in Juneau schools. We don't tend to believe it- neither the school administration nor the police department have any record of any such charge. And I happen to know that both of the girls were popular in their classes. I suspect Palin is so down on Juneau that she made it up. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 07:55 PM (#2793214) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Palin makin' stuff up, Eb??? Horrors!!! |
|
20 Dec 09 - 07:56 PM (#2793216) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Still it bears looking into. The threats might have been coming from Al Gore. |
|
20 Dec 09 - 08:08 PM (#2793230) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie I know, Bobertz, it does sound unbelievable. :) Rig, it must be me but sometimes I just don't follow you. :) |
|
20 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM (#2793237) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk They may have been coming from the APP. A lot of chimps are ticked off because she turned down Chongo's offer to run as his VP or future Secretary of State in 2012. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 06:49 AM (#2793449) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger "Rig, it must be me but sometimes I just don't follow you. :)" Still, it's nice that you keep trying. :) |
|
21 Dec 09 - 12:11 PM (#2793617) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth I think Little Hawk's got something there. I can easily see Sarah Palin as second banana to a chimpanzee. (Hmm. That conjures up some weird images.) Don Firth |
|
21 Dec 09 - 12:28 PM (#2793634) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie :), Rig |
|
21 Dec 09 - 12:32 PM (#2793637) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Yes... (grin) But apparently Sarah doesn't see herself in that role. Never forget that Ronald Reagan got out-acted by a chimp. It's a serious possibility that the average chimpanzee would do a considerably better job in office than the average human president has done in the past 5 or 6 decades. We just need to get public consciousness in America to move past the "bamboo celing" and we will find out...when Chongo Chimp gets elected. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 01:01 PM (#2793653) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Yeah, Poor Ronnie! He never did get the good lines in the movies, such as "I'll be back!" Or, "Go ahead, punk! Make my day!" Somehow "No, no, Bonzo! Go on the paper!!" Just doesn't have quite the same ring. . . . Don Firth |
|
21 Dec 09 - 01:05 PM (#2793659) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle We would also need a constitutional amendment to allow him to run. It is my understanding that he was conceived and born in Canada. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 01:22 PM (#2793668) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Of course, chimpanzees are native to Canada. We don't have them much down here. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM (#2793690) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie That is also my understanding, Rig. Off in the upper corner of Canada it is warm, leafy and humid- perfect for chimps. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 01:59 PM (#2793701) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Sarah Palin told 'biggest lie of the year' Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has won the dubious honour of telling the biggest political lie of the year. By Paul Thompson Published: 5:36PM GMT 21 Dec 2009 Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin Photo: AP A panel of experts ruled her claim the Obama administration was planning to introduce "death panels" was chosen as the most misleading statement of 2009. Palin, 45, made the claim on her Facebook page at the height of the debate over President Obama's plans to reform the US health care system. She wrote: "My parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide whether they are worthy of health care." But the website PolitiFact.com found that there were never any plans to introduce so called "death panels" to decide who should live or die. According to the website Palin's statement on her Facebook page generated a huge controversy and was mentioned almost 6,000 times over the next two months. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 02:37 PM (#2793727) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) You have to admit she has talent. A real, eye-catching story. Her death panel story, in various reincarnations, shows up in 'pass it on' emails, especially in the south and states with a large evangelical population. I have received several. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 02:43 PM (#2793732) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth The problem is that that kind of talent, the world can live better without. Don Firth |
|
21 Dec 09 - 05:04 PM (#2793838) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk I just want to clear up one thing. Chongo was NOT conceived and born in Canada. He was conceived and born in west central Africa (exact location uncertain). It is also untrue that Chongo, when elected, plans to establish death panels to do away with people who use the specist term "poopflinger". They will not be exterminated, they will simply be fined and then beaten severely with a rubber hose to teach them a good lesson! That was 2 things, wasn't it? Okay, so I'm not perfect. Sue me. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 05:27 PM (#2793851) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth But isn't poopflinging an essential part of politics? Don Firth |
|
21 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM (#2793870) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Only for simians... A |
|
21 Dec 09 - 05:59 PM (#2793883) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Hmmm. Good point, Don. But you mustn't call it "poopflinging", because that would be specist!!! Remember...it isn't about what actually happens or about what is actually done or intended or accomplished...it's ALL about avoiding the use of words that offend various constituencies. That must not be permitted! Let's just keep our priorities straight now. ;-) Yes, politicians engage in smears, rumours, outright lies, evasions, disinformation, cynical character attacks, unscrupulous use of innuendo, etc....but for God's sake don't call it "poopflinging" unless you wish to get a lot of primates very, very upset. Amos, we all know who YOU are working for. Humph! Enough said! (walking away with deeply offended look that clearly says, "Mister, your credit is all used up around here!") |
|
21 Dec 09 - 06:09 PM (#2793896) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) A nother of these illegal aliens? A member of a visible minority? Is he here to steal our nutpickers nuts? |
|
21 Dec 09 - 06:16 PM (#2793901) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk He's a landed immigrant. Came across from Africa on a banana boat in the late 20's. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 07:30 PM (#2793936) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie How did you make his acquaintance, Litle Hawk? If I rec'lec c'reckly you are a tad younger. |
|
21 Dec 09 - 11:43 PM (#2794052) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Even so, the Constitution states that he must be born an American citizen... Of course, if he becomes born again in the U.S., that raises and interesting question for the Religious Right. Do they support him as born again in America or start a "Birther" controversy a la Palin? |
|
22 Dec 09 - 12:08 AM (#2794056) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk That would probably depend heavily on what policies he decides to publicly support or oppose when he campaigns, Ebarnacle. ;-) Chongo is a bit of an oddity politically since he is quite reactionary in some respects but quite liberal (if not downright radical) in others. For instance, he is totally in favor of gun ownership and wishes to encourage it as much as possible, but he is totally opposed to USA military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to cut the Pentagon's funding in half and dismantle the Federal Reserve and put the dollar back on the gold and silver standard, but he favors loosening up the liquor laws and giving 16 year-olds the vote. He believes women should be equal in every way to men, but insists on his right to still refer to them as "dames" in any case. He's in favor of interspecies marriage. He wants to revitalize the space program and send men and apes to Mars by 2018 and do it not as a USA effort, but as an international effort representing all nations since "this here planet is all one place, one home, and we oughta act that way". He wants to end pointless confrontations between political states and find common ground through trade and cultural exchange. He wants to reclaim forestland worldwide, get off oil dependency, and fund alternative energy projects of every kind. If he handles it cleverly he could reach right across party lines with these courageous policies. On the other hand, if he screws it up he could end up registering less than 1% of the vote... Ebbie, I met Chongo in O'Hare Airport on a trip I made once to the west coast. We got to discussing Edgar Rice Burroughs books, found that we had both read them all in our youth, and it was the beginning of a great friendship. That was back in '88. Chongo is an amazingly long-lived and healthy chimp for his age. He attributes this to a steady diet of "cigars, whiskey, danger, and dames". I personally think he's just got a very, very tough constition. Most people (and apes for that matter) would have died long ago if they carried on the way Chongo does. Chongo realizes that it's unconstitutional right now for him to be president, because he wasn't born in the USA, but he figures that... 1. there will be a constitutional amemdment changing that in the next couple of years because... 2. Obama will do it to shut up the birthers, thus depriving them of their issue, and... 3. The Republicans will cleverly back the amendment so that they can run Arnold Schwarzenneger next time and capture the White House!!!!!!!! The only thing that will be able to save America from a Schwarzennegger/Palin presidency that will rapidly become a full-blown dictatorship beginning in 2013 will be to vote in Chongo's APP in 2012! Keep this in mind, folks. You know what you will have to do next time to avoid total disaster. |
|
22 Dec 09 - 12:47 AM (#2794064) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Hell, Little Hawk, I'll vote for him! I'll even campaign for him. Let me know when the time comes!! Don Firth |
|
22 Dec 09 - 12:48 AM (#2794065) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie And will you move to Chicago, Little Hawk, so you can vote for him? I know, I know that you have to wait five years before you can become a naturalized citizen but hey, no one can stop you working for him. On the other hand, are you sure you would want to live in a country of which he is the President? Garbled sentence but then so are... |
|
22 Dec 09 - 10:35 AM (#2794289) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Well, it would take a lot to get me to move to Chicago...I've seen Chicago from the air! Ouch. ;-) And I love being in Canada. However, I am already doing work for Chongo. I would certainly consider helping him with his campaign in 2012. Would I would want to live in a country of which Chongo is the President? Yeah. I think it would be fun and exciting. The only problem would be all the damn cigar smokers everywhere. And the gunfights and drive-by shootings on main street. However, no place is perfect, is it? |
|
22 Dec 09 - 11:38 AM (#2794335) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie It does sound exciting. |
|
22 Dec 09 - 01:02 PM (#2794386) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth "The only problem would be all the damn cigar smokers everywhere. And the gunfights and drive-by shootings on main street. However, no place is perfect, is it??" Well . . . Chicago, after all. . . . Don Firth |
|
22 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM (#2794394) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Chongo will need the backing of the Chicago machine to get anywhere in politics. This means providing lots of pork at all levels. |
|
22 Dec 09 - 01:56 PM (#2794422) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: EBarnacle Pork is definitely safer than bush meat. On cigars, Chongo and the Governator are certainly equal. Ditto in their respect for dames. Actually, Chongo may come out a bit ahead. |
|
22 Dec 09 - 02:08 PM (#2794433) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Chicago politician from Africa? Its a small world ain't it? Is Kenya in West central Africa? I demand to see a birth certificate! And even if the Republican governor of Hawaii vouches for him, I'll demand to see it again! |
|
22 Dec 09 - 02:40 PM (#2794459) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Chongo has an absolutely profound respect for "dames", Ebarnacle. He has always been a perfect gentleman around women. Matter of fact, he pretty much worships the ground they walk on...still he won't let himself be henpecked or pushed around by the object of his worship either. He is as chivalrous as can be, but he's no wimp or pushover! This is a good combination of characteristics for a male. He exemplifies all of those masculine qualities ascribed to the noble heros in women's romance novels...aside from the fact that he's not 6 feet tall with chiseled acquiline features that look like Rex Morgan or Paul Newman or Viggo Mortensen. His dentition is every bit as good as Scharzenneggers. Maybe better, because he doesn't have that unsightly gap between the 2 front teeth like Ahnold does. Unfortunately there is no original birth certificate. Chongo's folks were not literate, they were bush apes. Nobody had I.D. in his family back then. |
|
22 Dec 09 - 06:17 PM (#2794613) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Fifteeen mnutes with Ms. Sarah and Chongo will be askin', "Little who???" so ya' might as well keep him safe in Canada, LH... He ain't ready fir this... |
|
22 Dec 09 - 08:16 PM (#2794694) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) The next campaign will be 'slice and dice,' to put it politely. |
|
23 Dec 09 - 01:28 AM (#2794802) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk It's way too early to predict anything about the next campaign. |
|
23 Dec 09 - 08:43 AM (#2794940) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Okay, what the heck... ...300!!! BTW, last I looked Ms. Sarah still had poor ol' Al in a headlock and was flailin' away on him... Wherer's a ref when you need one??? B |
|
23 Dec 09 - 10:26 AM (#2794990) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger I'm surprised she could get an arm around a head that big. |
|
23 Dec 09 - 12:12 PM (#2795059) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Chongo has longer arms than Sarah. He could do it, no problem. |
|
23 Dec 09 - 06:07 PM (#2795231) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Great!!! Maybe Sarah can get Chongo to hold Al while she punches away at his midsection... |
|
24 Dec 09 - 02:26 PM (#2795798) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk That wouldn't be fair. Chongo believes in a fair fight. |
|
24 Dec 09 - 02:58 PM (#2795817) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert He won't after Sarah runs him thru her orientation program... |
|
24 Dec 09 - 10:39 PM (#2796074) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk She won't get to do that as long as Renata is around. |
|
10 Jan 10 - 11:01 PM (#2808767) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Alice Little Red Riding Hood Sarah Palin |
|
11 Jan 10 - 12:40 AM (#2808793) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk That is the side of Sarah that Chongo can really relate to. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 07:38 AM (#2808933) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Sounds like just another sex-starved chimp to me. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 07:44 AM (#2808942) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Okay, folks, we have the beginnings of a joke here... Unfortunately I'm gettin' ready to go freeze my boney butt off at my renovation project so I'll leave the rest up to you but here is how it starts: "Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Chongo went hunting....... Ya'll have at it... B~ |
|
11 Jan 10 - 11:35 AM (#2809115) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie "Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Chongo went hunting....... Only one came back. Which one and why? |
|
11 Jan 10 - 12:41 PM (#2809173) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos IT strikes me as a little too convenient for Little Hawk that he can just willy-nilly assert that there is no record of Chongo's birth. Chongo parades around Chicago packing heat and buyiong booze and chasing broads. But ask him to answer up about who he is and where his family is and, oh my, nobody knows!! I'll tell you why Chongo and Little Hawk have dreamed up this little conspiracy of unknowness. It's a cover up so Chongo doesn't have to be publicly embarrassed by the truth. Yes, the truth!! The truth about abandoning his aged mother in a cold water walkup flat in the Chicago slums, with a baby sister barely able to walk and no visible means of support. The truth about breaking his mother's heart, and his sister's heart, and leaving them both to starve so he could go play fly-by-night, drink whiskey and act tough in nightclubs. When he was knocking down enough dough guarding speakeasy delivery trucks to buy new fedoras and trench-coats and drink good bourbon, he ignored his starving mother and baby sister Chinga. Finally out of desperation, Chinga started turning tricks to keep body and soul together and pay the rent. That one's own family should be driven to such desperate straits is shameful, not to say sinful, but Chongo wants it all swept under the carpet. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 12:50 PM (#2809180) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Oh no. Don't tell me. Another hero bites the dust. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 12:52 PM (#2809182) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Chongo is the one who came back. Sarah figured she was there as part of God's plan, so she paid no attention to the route and couldn't find her way out. Cheney shot Palin in the face and got gutshot in exchange and bled to death while Palin explained that he "looked just like a moose!". Chongo, with his quick reflexes, got out of the line of fire during this exchange and climbed high up a tree so he could chatter condemnations on them both. From there he could see the zookeeper waving to him from back at base, so he made his way safely home. A |
|
11 Jan 10 - 01:12 PM (#2809200) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk One thing for sure, Cheney was not walking away alive from that confrontation. Meanwhile, Amos is spreading the usual Democratic lies and innuendo about Chongo. And why? Because they fear the APP's clout at the polls in 2012, that's why. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 01:39 PM (#2809227) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Amos Sure thing, LH--I am just putting out smokescreen for the Dems, being a secret activist for Dems everywhere... sheeshe!! Look, its about time you took over your rose-colored simian glasses. man. Chongo's disreputable past is well known. A |
|
11 Jan 10 - 01:58 PM (#2809249) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Far better known, it seems, than your own, sir. |
|
11 Jan 10 - 01:59 PM (#2809251) Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Palin v. Gore...?????? Gosh, has America deteriorated THAT far??? Well, come to think of it, judging from the last few decades of administrations, and national dialogue.....I think so! |
