Posted on Saturday, 6/27/2009 - 10:49 p.m. PDT — by dobermanmac
I feel so bad for the world: current climate models are grossly underestimating the rate of climate change. For instance, the rate of ocean rise is 1.6 times faster, and arctic sea ice was predicted to last past 2050 when instead it will probably melt by next decade. Much worse, ecosystem collapse due to record high temperatures has been under appreciated, and (like Chu said) melting permafrost will release tremendous amounts of methane (a gas 70 time more powerful than CO2 over 20 years). By mid-century, at the current rate, civilization will be largely vanishing as famine, drought, and war become commonplace.
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
Joined: Sep 2008
Current Posts: 96
He was quoted as saying something to the effect of "to those skeptics, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not entitled to your own facts...".
There are no "facts" to global warming. There is a LOT of data, many computer projections, innumerable studies, many suppositions on both sides, all with a very LARGE dose of politics thrown in. As a scientist, his pronouncements are therefore immediately suspect.
The problem is that there is NO PROOF that man is causing global warming - or that global warming even exists. In the 1970's, everyone was concerned about the next ice age - global cooling. Anybody can develop a computer modeling program - but until it is vetted against known problems, using all known data and proven to provide a result with a known answer (which is needed to fully prove a theory), then the results ae nothing more than "agreement" between a number of people.
If you can PROVE (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that global warming (or climate shift) is being caused by man, then I'll listen. But merely having a bunch of people claiming that it is - with no PROOF - does NOT make it so. I don't care how many degrees you have after your name.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Joined: Mar 2003
Current Posts: 2
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is happening. Their three key conclusions are:
* It is "unequivocal" that global warming is occurring.
* The probability this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%.
* The probability this is caused by human emissions is over 90%.
Oh, I keep forgetting that the IPCC is just a branch of the UN, and such is not a credible source (ha!). I guess Mr P doesn't believe anything unless it is "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt." In that case, he probably still doesn't believe tobacco causes cancer, or the US put a man on the moon, or that the Earth is round. Furthermore, he probably doesn't buy insurance (because he doesn't believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will be necessary).
Joined: Sep 2008
Current Posts: 96
Your extension from my comments is, at the least, ludicrous.... at the most - well.....
1. Extending my questions about the theory of global warming to cigarettes causing cancer defies any rational thought process. Look at the number of factors involved in cancer/cigarettes vs global warming.
2. Your subsequent comments are absurd (man on the moon, the round earth, and buying insurance). That is typical of one who's thought processes are limited by his beliefs..... and is therefore ruled by the emotionalism rather than the FACTS. Get it? The FACTS.
3. Probabilities are one thing - facts are another. Are you willing to take on a significant personal risk to yourself (ie, dangerous) if the chance of success were 90%? Which means the chance of failure is 10%.
Just because a group is sponsored by the UN doesn't mean it's credible. Do you believe EVERYTHING every governmental or quasi-governmental organization tells you? Or just those things that are espoused by the limousine liberals? Extending that thought process (as you did) implies that - because you support your opinion, everyone supports (or should support) your opinion. If an energy utility (ie, ENRON) was operating in violation of the law, every utility is operating outside the law.
Science by definition is inexact. Answer these questions for me....
1. If CO2 causes global warming, then how much CO2 will cause the temperature to rise 1 degree F? If you can't quantify it, then how can you call that scientific?
2. What about the concern of a coming ice age from the 1970's? What about a growing concern about the earth cooling now?
3. As you're appearing to be such a great proponent of the global warming theory, I would be most interested in seeing your CV.
Do you know why is CO2 considered a greenhouse gas? Because Congress said so. Does that make it true? No. Should we therefore ban all generators of CO2 (which includes humans and all other animals)? Of course, plants depend on CO2 for photosynthesis - so banning animals would de facto ban plants.
I'm of the opinion that there are just too many unknowns (ie, missing facts) out there to make any kind of a call like this.
Man does not yet have the tools to be able to accurately predict anything on a global scale such as this? If so, then he would be able to predict things on a much smaller scale on a much smaller time frame - hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.... ANY other type of misfortune. The problem with global warming is that NOBODY CAN PROVE IT...... and the time required to develop that proof is WAY beyond anybody's life span.
Just think about the above before returning an ill-informed rant to me. I'm not saying it CAN'T happen. I'm just saying that I don't see any PROOF. If you want to extend your suppositions as you did in your post above, I'm ok with that - it just further illustrates your unwillingness to consider other points of view while denigrating those who disagree with you.
..... very childish.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
If you really start "digging into" the scientific community you will find that there are just as many "learned" scientists that say global warming as it is being portrayed by the Gore camp is a lot of BUNK!!! Now does that mean that global warming isn't occurring as a natural phenomenon, of course it is!! The issue at hand is whether it is being created by man's industrialized civilization. There are just as many "experts" out there that will tell you it is not. So now here is the burning issue, do we as probably the most significant aspect of the natural order on this planet RUIN our existence economically because of potential "junk science" paranoia?? I am not anti environment or anti other species of life on the planet, but I don't think it's very smart to make our existence unnecessarily stressful over the POSSIBILITY that we are the main cause of the cyclical warming of this planet.
The other problem I have with screwing up our economy over possible junk science paranoia is that NOBODY else is following suit. Look at countries like Mexico, China , Russia, they are doing NOTHING about addressing polution or damage to our environment. So what do we do, the right thing and end up in the "poor house" while the rest of the world just keeps marching along with their heads fully impacted up their rectums!!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
How can you casually refer to global warming as junk science.? Do you realize the disastrous consequences if you are wrong? What's your proof and qualifications?
If you are honest about it, the best you can possible say as a layman is: "I don't know for sure" Certainly, you can not declare it junk science because a man with questionable credentials, or scientific honesty working for the energy industry decides to trivializes it for his own purposes. There is a consensus of credible planetary scientist .... that man is contributing to the global warming crisis.
Your notion that we have some Devine right to eat the world is misguided. We do not have a symbiotic relationship with the earth. At best, in scientific jargon, humankind would be considered parasites consuming our host's resources. Similar to bacteria eventually consuming a apple. Just on a larger scale that's all. We take from the earth - but we don't return the favor. And of course, mother earth will eventually do something drastic to reestablish her equilibrium with or without us.
I believe global warming is good science made by reasonable men based on current and historical data. And although I can only say I'm 80% sure ...... that's good enough for me to get proactive, and not wait until it's too late ..... for the evidence that proves me correct.
As Mac says, why do you have fire insurance - your home most likely will not burn down? Or maybe you think it is just a prudent thing to do? I agree.
I suggest your homeowners insurance ..... in a real sense ...... also readily applies to that that other home you call earth.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
of controversy. And I will tell you that the information I have discovered from the scientific community show that there are two sides to the story and frankly I'm more impressed with the experts that pretty much dispel all the claims that the proponents are providing. Kindly check out the link that a previous poster provided that clearly states that the EPA themselves are expressing doubts about the climate change issue, which of course was suppressed by the bleeding heart, ultra left wing, liberal Obama administration.
Let me clarify myself by making it clear that I am not an excuser of pollution or an enemy of the natural order of the planet, but as a member of the world community, I must stand up and be counted when the "Chicken Littles" of the world want to unnecessarily and adversly impact civilized life over issues that are clearly "questionable"!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Thanks Mac, for the informative comment. I agree with you: we are living on borrowed time. And for some unexplained reason the skeptics want absolute proof before they will take action. The best technology and best scientific minds say - it's very probable. Let's not wait for absolute proof. Then it's too late, and the consequences will be enormous.
When the weatherman says it's going to rain on Friday, where is his "absolute proof." It's based on a model ...... and I bet our skeptical friend takes an umbrella to work on that day.
The global warming crisis will cause such dangerous climatic changes that affect world food and clean water stocks - war between nations will be inevitable.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
EPA Neutralized by Politics
Turns out the 'need' for Congress to pass the Capt'n Trade tax-the-crap-out-of-the-middle class was NOT so obvious had the suppressed analysis from EPA been provided.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&ta...
RealAmerica
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
"its the ECONOMY STUPID!!!!! You don't invoke this CRAPn'TRADE ripoff when the economy is in the DUMPER!!!! This B.S. concept is going to bleed the American tax payer dry!!! And for WHAT,a bunch of junk science PARANOIA!!!! I can't believe how naive these "tree hugger" types are.....you don't shoot the messenger!!!! MAN is the MOST IMPORTANT species on this planet and until these guilt ridden liberals wake up and smell the coffee and realize that WE are the most important living things on this planet because we have "will" and a snail darter doesn't, that's just a fact. Now does that mean I think we are better than snail darters, no of course not, but what can a snail darter do for you and me vs. what we can do for them....get it!!!! So we need to take care of us FIRST!!!
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Timmy McCoo is right about one thing. Cap'n'trade isn't what we need. We need a basic carbon fuels tax, roughly a dollar a gallon. Just like Enron, Mirant, and Duke Energy manipulated California's energy "deregulation" to rip us off of billions of dollars, well-connected corporate pirates will game the cap'n'trade system.
Of course McCoo is confused about many things. He has no idea about what other species think or how their minds work. He doesn't realize that human survival depends on a healthy functioning environment. Machines and robots can't supply food, air, water, and waste disposal, not without huge energy costs. And that energy is not available.
Before spouting off, McCoo should have spent 10 or 20 years seriously studying science. But he decided not to, either because of lack of intelligence or, more likely, lack of will.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
quite capable of taking care of our environment without shifting into the "chicken little" syndrome and letting a bunch of intellectual "nit wits" run the already distressed economy into the groung further!!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"quite capable of taking care of our environment"
Does the hole in the Ozone exist for you ..... or did some idiot tree hugger invent the whole stupid thing?
Any thoughful comments about dioxins and PCBs in our environment? Those despicable spare the air days we must endure? Agent Orange? Heavy metals in the Hudson river NY? Can't eat fish from the Sacramento more than once a week? Throw-away prescription drugs in our dringing water? Shall I go on?
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
So, if you buy an electric car to putt around in and feel that you are not contributing to pollution or global warming before one makes that purchase have they considered where the electricity to power that vehicle comes from, Oh, a coal fired or natural gas fired plant, I loved a quote that was made by Obama a few Weeks ago, he said that in ten years we will double the amount of energy that we get from alternative sources such as wind and solar, since we get about 2% now does that mean we will be all the way up to 4% by 2019, also could somebody please tell me if there is some barrier that keeps pollution from somebody elses Country from creeping into our Country like say China and India as two glaring examples.
This Cap and Trade bill if passed by the Senate and signed by the Moron in the White House will do not one thing to control pollution, it will only raise one's cost of energy, all energy.
Why does the admininstration never mention the word Nuclear, his good friends in France, Germany and Japan appear to be doing a very good job using this ultra clean source of electricity.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
extremists who believe that nuclear energy is too dangerous!!! And apparently our technological expertise in this area is not to be trusted and so we have to pay through the nose for oil from the middle east and elsewhere instead of providing for ourselves with our own resources. Not real smart if you ask me, but that's because I'm a right wing nut case, ha! ha!
Joined: May 2007
Current Posts: 448
The French in particular used OUR technology to build their Nuclear plants, they make so much electricity they sell it to other European Nations, We have become a Nation of fools.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
Question - what are the French doing with the spent fuel rods that remain lethally radioactive for 8,000 years (320 generations)?
RealAmerica
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
One problem with Nuclear power plants is they are incredibly expensive to build. Once they are up and running they tend to make money. It's about all that up front money that discourages many Utilities from making the investment. The Gov is more nuclear friendly than in years past.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
If everyone had fuel efficient cars, we would be better off than we are now. But no, Detroit along with their political lobby and a friendly Government has been fighting this proposal for years, and winning.
In the recent past, one third of the vehicles on the road were SUVs or Pick-up trucks. When you see little Ms. Housewife driving down to purchase a bag of groceries at Safeway in her Chevy Tahoe, do you ask yourself what wrong with this picture? Especially since the your Country has to prostitute itself to the Chinese for cash - and Arab oil companies for our national energy needs? Is that the truth or am I just making this stuff up?
To be alive and human means to have a carbon footprint. I'm not advocating turning the clock back a hundred years. Just advocating we use energy wisely. The way we flagrantly burn through it is silly considering the consequences. Intelligent people are smart enough to recognize the problem, but choose to ignore it instead.
Baby boomers in general have never been able to say no to their lust for all things material. Bigger cars, bigger houses, vacation homes and bottled water. I mean [bleep] ... there is a price to be paid by our grandchildren and their children. I not advocating unreasonable hardship just reasonable action to confront a huge problem.
Your right, we get polluted by Chinese air. That's why the Chinese have to come on board too.
I agree nuclear power is a viable source of energy. I wish we had more power plants with modern technologies. Yes, there is an inherent risk, but coal fired power plants also come with a lot of baggage. We have to be smart about it. You can not ignore the production of carbon dioxide caused by human activities, and pretend there is not a very serious price to be paid.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
this country the issues that Chew discusses would be "non issues". For example our foreign dependance on oil could have been solved long ago if the tree huggers hadn't convinced the powers that be that we are too lame to extract our own oil out of our own VAST resources in THIS country!! When we speak of the potential to harm the environment re: this issue keep in mind that we built an oil pipe line from Alaska to our west coast over 35 yrs ago and have had NO PROBLEMS environmentally with it, in fact the local wildlife are thriving around it because they use it as an electric blanket of sorts to KEEP WARM!! My point is this, if we could engineer and implement that technology that long ago successfully, we certainly have the expertise now to do our own oil drilling in this country, ANWAR, and offshore without adversely impacting the environment. Now I know that the hopelessly, polyana powered, liberal, "la, la, landers" will say that oil is not the answer that we have to seek alternatives to oil which I agree with, but that is taking too long and may ultimately not even be that feasible. The fact remains that the primary potentially affordable fuel source that does work (with liabilities of course) is OIL.
When its all said and done, I think that all this "stink" about global warming basically surrounds the environmental extremist element in this country's campaign to eliminate oil as a viable energy source. So what the result will be is the equivalent of "cutting our noses off, to spite our faces"!!!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
I'm not sure why you label people concern with global warming as environmental extremism. I agree with you that the tree sitters in Berkeley were environmental extremist. But certainly, informed intelligent people debating environmental carbon dioxide pollution are not.
Just about everything mankind does to his environment has a negative impact. But now there are 6 billion of us impacting the environment - with more to come.
In America and other countries, we manufactured CFCs and consequently destroyed a good part of the ozone above the Antarctic. We practiced bad agriculture in the 1930s and created the dust bowl. Power plants in the south were putting out so much sulfur dioxide it was falling back to earth as acid rain in the New England region killing the trees. We can't fish for salmon this year because the species is going extinct. Does the Love Canal in New York state sound familiar? There are about 1300 superfund sites identified in the U.S. As you can see, we have not been very good stewards of our environment. It's time for change.
We released CFCs into the environment and nearly destroyed the Ozone layer above the South Pole. To think we can release millions of tons of a poisonous gas called Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere (like the atmosphere is some kind of a dump site) without it causing a serious problem for us is pretty naïve. We truly need to invest in cleaner sources of energy.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
But this Cap and Traitor proposal is way, way over the top and most reasonably minded Americans KNOW it. We are already dealing with pollution issues in this country and have for YEARS, the issue at hand is whether our carbon footprint is causing the earth's overall climate to warm. The expert testimony I have discovered does a pretty good job of debunking a lot of the allegations the Gore camp is espousing. So what it really boils down to is which scientist or group of scientists has the most valid and credible information. Some would have you believe that the scientific community is in total agreement that global warming caused by man's carbon footprint is a fact.......nothing could be further from the truth! There are REAMS of data out there from respected scientists that say that the Gore throttled data is seriously FLAWED!!!
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
Tmacoo, I sincerely hope we both live another 25 years - so I can smugly say, "I told you so"
I'm outta here; see ya around the board. :)
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
of the Crap n Taitor bill!!! Unfortunately we will all be a little poorer though!!
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Hey McCoo, by "reasonably minded Americans," do you mean Americans with mediocre IQs who did poorly in their high-school science classes? Or do you mean fat old guys in "Depends" who sit in front of Fox News all day drinking beer? Or both?
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"MAN is the MOST IMPORTANT species on this planet"
What an incredible naive thing to say. No sir, we are not the most important species on earth; we just think we are. We can say definitively that we are the most powerful species on earth - but that's about it, my friend. You see, earth doesn't give a damn who's in charge down here. We live by the same rules as everybody else - otherwise we're lost.
Dinosaurs were around for 10's of millions of years, and were the most "important" species for their time. Actually, they were pretty successful. We have been here for a 100K. So your boast sounds a little hollow.
You say we have "will." I would say that's not terribly important considering the state of humankind. I have lived most of my life under the threat of nuclear annihilation - you have too. So our human "will" as you define it ..... doesn't mean very much to me.
Humankind is very smart, but it's "wisdom" that will save us - and it is sorely lacking. Ah, you are skeptical?
Then please let me quote you the disastrous chronicle of human history starting with "Hiroshima" and then, ten-thousand other examples of humankinds "will," as you so righteous imply. Do you have the time?
I would say humankind's survival looks very precarious considering our history.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
recourse I have in responding to you is that you are one of the hopelessly liberal environmental extremists that are well intended but misguided at the same time. I share your concerns about our environmental issues, I don't agree with how the liberal "livin in la la landers" are choosing to address the issues. You may feel "the King of Beasts" or the Sparrow is a more important world entity than man but I'll tell you the majority of mankind DOES NOT!!! Sounds like I'm being too self aggrandizing, but that my friend is the reality of how things REALLY are!!!
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 1
And you come off as a right/wrong wing nut case who refers to anything they don't understand - or can use as a political agenda - as "junk science". Can we see your qualifications for these statements, leaving out right/wrong wing talk radio opinions of course. If you do some factual research, you will find that there are NOT as many scientists who question Climate Change - there are SOME (much in the minority)... just as there were SOME (in their time) who went to their death beds not believing the earth was round. You are the one who needs to get a grip on the reality of how things REALLY are!!! One thing we do agree on - 'self aggrandizing' is a good word for you.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
the Obama "kool aid"! This global warming hype is not a new type of scare tactic, this type of overreaction to an issue that can unnecessarily rile people up is an old phenomenon. For example, I'm old enough to remember the "Fluoride scare" of the early 1950's. Civilization determined that introducing Fluoride into our water supply could curb tooth decay. A whole contingent of "Chicken Littles" emerged claiming fluoride was poisonous and was a "communist conspiracy" to pollute American society. Well guess what, my teeth and most everybody I know's teeth were thoroughly cavity ridden by the time they were teenagers,but nowadays because we went ahead with fluoridation, the present generation's teeth are a LOT more healthy. My wife's son is 24yrs old, doesn't brush his teeth nearly enough and has NO cavities!!
Contrary to what you think my qualifications are to comment on this topic, I will tell you this, I read EVERYTHING I can get my hands on re: topics of controversy so I CAN determine what the "real deal" probably is, not what some potentially biased faction wants me to "buy into". And the deciding factor for me now on this issue is the newly leaked report by of all folks...the EPA!!! Which is questioning the validity of the climate change concept. The earth has been warming for hundreds of years, BEFORE we even started using implements that emit carbon into the atmosphere. So here's the deal, the earth IS warming, but not primarily as a result of man's pollution. Now am I implying that we are not creating pollution, absolutely not, of course we are and American society has been addressing those problems for decades now (too bad the rest of world hasn't i.e. China, Mexico, Russia, India, on and on).
It makes NO sense to tax the crap out of a society that's economy is in the worst state its been in since the great depression over junk science paranoia.
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Perhaps you do read 'everything' about topics of controversy, but that does not change the fact that the analysis provided by Steven Chu regarding the projected effects of global climate change is far more scientifically based and credible than opinions offered by you, a partisan political shill who has no scientific expertise, yet who has the audacity to pronounce that it is 'junk science paranoia'. The truth is that the large majority of people who clumsily attempt to discredit the science of global climate change do so because, like you, they are attempting to promote a political agenda based on a deep seated fear of having to actually PAY to do something meaningful to stop it, and are equally fearful of the prospect of the US entering into cooperative agreements with other nations to implement actions to stop its progression.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
something that is by all likelihood unwarranted. We are all paying WAY too much of our hard earned dollars on all the entitlement programs fostered by you bleeding heart liberal, guilt ridden, DUMBOCRATS already!!!! Now does that mean I'm not open to spending my hard earned money to stop "specific, and identifiable" pollution problems worldwide, not at all, but I want to be sure that my money is not just being squandered on programs that are not necessary. For example, we decided in the early sixties that our automobiles were emitting too much exhaust pollutants into the atmosphere and we formulated a smog prevention system that has been pretty successful to date. We also stopped refineries from summarily pumping gaseous waste out their smoke stacks without the proper processing. These are worthwhile measureable accomplishments. Crap 'n Trade is a blatant program of OVERKILL that is only going to result in the lining of the government's entitlement providing pockets on the backs of hard working Americans.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
All you Limbaugh devotees give yourselves away by continually using silly little phrases that your corporate talk-radio masters feed to you.
You are right that we spend too much money on entitlement programs. We keep carbon taxes too low because we think plasticized suburbanites are entitled to drive giant vehicles everywhere they go, and that nobody should have to ride a bike or, God forbid, walk! And we spend too much money subsidizing obese Americans who feel that they are entitled to beef and pork and doughnuts and Coca-cola. And we are destroying our children's future because we feel that we are entitled to vacation homes, and crisp cool , and mansions for all, and balmy inddor temperatures in the winter
God forbid that we should have to wear a jacket in winter, or sweat in the summer, or be in a room with a family member, or share a bathroom. We all feel like we are entitled to live like kings, and the future doesn't matter.
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
the sixties!! If I didn't know better I might think I'm ready an op ed from "Rolling Stone" magazine.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
Whenever I watch one of those rock-and-roll documentaries on PBS (or movies like Dirty Harry or Forrest Gump), I wonder what it was like back in the days of Free Love, Tune in and Drop out, and Make Love Not War. Was it as exciting as it looks?
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
people got way too high on drugs and started forming very unrealistic outlooks on life. One of the pioneers was an indiot by the name of Timothy Leary who took so much LSD that he didn't know which way was up or down!! Google him up if your'e too young to know who he was. My generation really did a number on their ability to focus on what trying to live a contemporary productive life involved. I'm firmly of the belief that phenomenon created of lot of the liberals of today. In circa 1967 Berkeley CA, if you showed an interest in anything that smacked of "materialism" you were seen as a red neck and not to be trusted! You can still see some of that mentality today. Leary's mantra was "tune in, turn on, drop out"!! What a mutton head!!!
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
It's always fun to hear wild and woolly tales from veterans of the sixties. Did you take LSD in the 60s? Probably not too much, just a reasonable amount. What did you learn from the experience?
Great leaders have been preaching against materialism for centuries. Jesus Christ spoke of its evils many times. But maybe that's only because he snacked on some mushrooms in the cow pastures!
Joined: Feb 2009
Current Posts: 273
up their lives and their futures, by dropping way too much acid. Weed was really the predominant reality chaser of the day. The problem with smoking too much weed was that it easily killed one's initiative to do much of anything productive short of tripping out on things that were deemed "far out". The younger the user the more adverse the impact could be. Imagine what happens to an adolescent who fogs their existence with cannabis during the most important formative stages of their socialization process i.e. SCHOOLING!!! This is part of the reason so many of our youngsters in this country have such poor reading and writing skills.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
You are right that people shouldn't drop too much acid or smoke too much marijuana. But like Goldilocks choosing her porridge, just the right amount might help you a lot. I read that college students who had tried LSD had higher GPAs. I wonder why? I guess a little Cannabis, Psilocybe, or LSD may help motivate them to learn about the world. Maybe it helps them visualize how all those scientific theories work. They may gain the insight to see through the corporate propaganda and government lies. They may become enlightened enough to reject rightwing illogic and turn off Fox News.
But what about you Mr. McCoo? Are you blaming marijuana or LSD for your logical deficiencies, low test scores, and failure to succeed in the science classroom? (if you're posting under your real name, you probably shouldn't answer.)
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Tmacoo-
Who beside yourself, has determined that spending money to stop, or at least limit the progression of, global climate change is 'unnecessary'? On what objective criteria is your opinion based? Have you bothered to notice that the melting of the arctic ice cap, which is the direct result of global climate change, threatens to cause the polar bear population to become extinct? Have you bothered to read the projections of scientists who have actually studied, and are knowledgeable about, this issue regarding the predicted impact that climate change will have on the planet as a whole? And yet, you simply pronounce, without any expanation or offer of any factual basis whatsoever, that spending money to reverse this trend is 'unnecessary'?
Sorry, Mr. Tmacoo, but I will rely on information provided by trained scientists, who have actually conducted research on this issue and who work in this field, in order to evaluate what is, and is not, 'unnecessary'. Steven Chu is a Nobel laureate; how many have you been awarded? The pronouncements of laymen like yourself, whose primary objective it is to shill for the right wing political agenda, carry very little weight; except to illustrate why it is important to keep politics out of science and avoid the head in the sand approach to scientific issues that was promoted so zealously by the prior administration over the last eight years.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
I'm old enough to remember the fluoride scare too. But reasonable people and good science prevailed to the benefit of many children. There will always be alarmist or even people with good intentions but with conflicting erroneous opinions.
The alarmist almost caused the Cranberry industry to go broke when the berry was erroneously linked to cancer. The recent swine flu pandemic has decidedly gone over the top alarmist. Don't you think?
But to dismiss a large scientific community and claim that multitudes of scientist with impeccable credentials and other qualified people are chicken littles regarding carbon dioxide gas in our atmosphere is just so wrong.
There is a debate on the subject, but to disregard these knowledgeable people and declare their message junk science is just not logical as our dear Mr. Spock would have said.
Joined: Sep 2008
Current Posts: 96
I wouldn't call it "junk science", I do agree there are way too many unknowns that can have an impact. Given the cost associated with this "effort", I would think there should be more proof - esp when we went through the global cooling scare in the 1970's and it's coming around again.
We don't have the technology available to be able to say specifically what "causes climate change and by how much". There are too many things that can impact it - much more than man's doings. I'm willing to bet that the tools coming around in the next 20-30 eyars will completely disprove any of today's thoughts about global warming - then it'll change again in another 20-30 years.
Show me the proof that man is causing global warming and I'll shut up. But throwing scientists' opinions at me is not offering PROOF.
Like you, I read about everything I can get my hands on. I don't limit myself to those publications with which I agree, as that is worse than reading nothing. Unfortunately, too many of the limousine liberals aren't willing to make that step and limit themselves to whatever their preconceived beliefs hold them to. They're not willing to make truly informed decisions - unless those decisions are already in line with their beliefs.
Keep on reading and educating the unwashed masses.
Joined: Mar 2007
Current Posts: 446
In my opinion, the most important species is the human, and the most most important human is ME. The rest of you aren't even real. You're just streams of letters running into my computer.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
"The rest of you aren't even real."
You are wrong sir; "I think about text messaging, therefore I am".
Joined: Aug 2003
Current Posts: 220
What good is an Economy Science that dismisses the risk of human survival? Was that like the AIG dismissing the risk of $42 Trillion in hedge derivatives? The risk of burning up humans in an oven hotter than Auschwitz is a far, far, more important risk, if you ask humans with a human brain able to understand deduction and feel pain, NOW, for the pain they will inflict on all people within this Century. I saw a sequence of slides showing the end of Polar ice, either it was all invented or it is all fact and some people are unable to comprehend this reality.
Normally we would say that some cannot understand because of some personal limitation but, in this case, the idea of burning in an oven is easy to imagine, thanks to Hitler. The only question we really have is WHETHER OR NOT we will do enough, on time to reverse Global Warming. The one thing that nobody has said, is what would it take to reverse Global Warming and keep it from becoming Global Heating and Global Burning. You know why?
Nobody has said how because there is no way to do it!
There is no theoretically way for nature or humans to remove Carbon Dioxide from the air -anymore. Once there were two ways,
(1) Vegetaion split CO2 into Carbon put on the soil and Oxygen for us to survive and
(2) The oceans absorbed CO2 but in 2007 they found the oceans are full, the oceans are saturated with Carbon Dioxide and now, get this, the ocean will begin to RELEASE CO2, as the oceans warm up, even a tenth of a tenth of degree will force the realease of CO2, OK not in Gigatons, immediately, but later, and the rate will increase exponentially.
But, you are sure you are right, and I am glad for you.
If you thought you were wrong, you would be anxious and disturbed, because there is no solution. You are better off not knowing, those that know are unable to stop Global Warming -leave'm alone!
MikeSar
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
The Polar Ice cap is very efficient at reflecting the sun's energy back into space. When the cap is gone, ocean water will absorb much of that same energy - exacerbating the global warming phenomenon. That's the bad news, there isn't any good news.
Joined: Nov 2007
Current Posts: 1107
There will always be dissenting opinion whenever a group of people struggle to find a solution to a problem based on less than proven evidence. Many times, a trial by jury goes through the same process. The jurors come to a conclusion based on evidence, and a certain amount of cognitive skills.
I suspect the same thing happens at the EPA. Once a policy has been formulated and determined to be correct based on available science, then that policy should be accepted and become law until proven otherwise.
You should note the process the Government is going through with acetaminophen after all these years of being "safe and effective." How do they determine a safe and effective maximum dosage? By debating the available evidence and coming to a conclusion. No one wants the government to throw their hands up in the air and say "We don't know." An answer based on good science is expected.
If our lone dissenter at the EPA has a intractable problem with the conclusion of the agency, he should quit and publish his own paper, rather than causing dissention and confusion within the EPA's position.
In other words, it's either get on board, or get out of the way. That's how most successful organizations work.
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
chewy wrote '... Once a policy has been formulated and determined to be correct based on available science ...'
My understanding is that the policy was directed to the EPA with instructions to find the science that fit it.
'... If our lone dissenter at the EPA ...'
He was a lone dissenter because he was ordered to find another project and not to contact his colleagues and was thus unable to form an opposing consensus at risk of losing his job. That's political science, not environmental science.
And your example of the jury is immaterial because trying to compare a result of morality that has no mathematical basis to a scientific issue that should have an empirical (not modeled) mathematical basis is nonsense.
RealAmerica
Joined: Aug 2003
Current Posts: 220
In Norway they have Salmon Farms on the ocean and they fly fresh salmon to New York, guranteed to have been alive within 24 hours, or its free. Could we do the same? Put a few farms in Alaska, scoop the fish and feed the bears? Put the humans, and farm in a cage, for a change, and let the bears gorge and live. Any volunteers? MikeSar
Joined: Sep 2006
Current Posts: 1158
No Link of CO2 and Warming?
Here's an interesting read. It's not from the EPA. It's not from the MSM. It is scientific enough to raise the question, "if the science is there, how much CO2 does it take to raise the temperature 1 degree?". If you can't quantify it, how can you label a conclusion 'scientific'?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/no_evi...
RealAmerica
Joined: Jul 2006
Current Posts: 769
Another view of Dr. David Evans:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist...