73
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 09:03 pm
blatham wrote:
Good to talk to you again too. Things are fine here with our jewelry business enjoying initial success and one of Lola's daughters living here and attending school and with my daughter just back from another adventure travelling in eastern europe and working for a bit in Lisbon. Times are good. Other than as regards the descent of your country down the moral and intellectual toilet, of course.


Do you make custom jewelry,and do you ship it to the states?

If you do,can you PM me so I can ask about prices.

Thanx
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 09:13 pm
Ain't my website - ain't even American, its Canadian. Sorry 'bout the ads - I really never see them; ad-blocking, ya know Mr. Green

Does appear the article stirred things up a bit, and that's what was intended. I do find interesting that nobody here has taken apart any of the article's assertions, though.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2006 09:37 pm
timberlandko wrote:

Does appear the article stirred things up a bit, and that's what was intended. I do find interesting that nobody here has taken apart any of the article's assertions, though.


Hard to do that when you are busy composing rather bitter ad hominem attacks replete with misspellings and non-sequitors.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 12:20 am
timberlandko wrote:
Ain't my website - ain't even American, its Canadian. Sorry 'bout the ads - I really never see them; ad-blocking, ya know Mr. Green

Does appear the article stirred things up a bit, and that's what was intended. I do find interesting that nobody here has taken apart any of the article's assertions, though.


Not terribly Canadian though a Canadian seems to have originated it. Go down through the list of contributors and it's a townhall crowd with a US military propaganist or two and a former student of my alma mater,Rachel Marsden, who is certifiable (read the wikipedia piece).

This is a townhall clone site. Like townhall or fox or pravda, it has a propaganda function and that is all it is about. It does not, nor will it ever, carry reports or studies which support the premises of global warming precisely because it has a singular propaganda function.

As to the assertions made...why bother contesting them here? They aren't authoritative, they aren't cited, they aren't even linked, they follow an old trick of putting forward multiple voices (which may or may not be accurately duplicated) to suggest a preponderant view when that isn't even close to being so, etc. And in any case, assertions and counter-assertions will simply fall into the shirts/skins mode because the discourse has been shaped in that manner to hold back, as long as possible, popular acceptance of the premises of global warming and what will be consequent legislation.

Over the last two decades I have watched this issue arise and move into public consciousness as verification increases across the boards. And I've watched the countering gambits from industry and the folks who function in industry's interests. The movement has been inexorable. Now, even Bush has been forced to acknowledge the reality of global warming even while many of the idiots who post on this board apparently think Bush farted rather than spoke. And now, of course, the strategy is to argue that even while global warming is real, doing anything about it will hurt you and me more than doing something (no mention of hurt to Exxon or GM's interests here and certainly no mention of the many, many millions those corporations have spent on disinformation campaigns).

So, why bother? I have amost zero confidence that we are, as a species, bright enough to avoid the catastrophes of massive human displacement with all of the starvation and unrest which that will breed.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 04:52 am
blatham wrote:
I have amost zero confidence that we are, as a species, bright enough to avoid the catastrophes of massive human displacement with all of the starvation and unrest which that will breed.
Its a terrifying prospect I agree. The future will see more resource wars and fights to occupy the most habitable land. For a few, life will be good, very good...as it always has been. But they will have to take ever more violent measures to defend it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 05:47 am
bm
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 06:01 am
Here's a site of interest. It's a blog on climate science.

http://www.realclimate.org/
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 06:03 am
Timber quoted from Harris's piece
Quote:
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.


One of the most consistent 'defenses' that the pro-human-caused-global-warming lobby here use is that the scientists opposing that theory are all in bed with big oil or other self-interested parties. Now Harris cites names and organizations that are not in bed with big oil or any other self-interested group on this issue, and they are dismissed as 'irrelevent', 'unimportant', or 'nothing of interest'.

At least you got that much response. There was none when I posted the same article a page or two before you did.

The lack of even curiosity about any view that is in the least skeptical about humans creating global warming is astounding. You have to wonder why some seem to eager, even fanatical, about wanting humankind to be the culprit here.

One thing is for certain. At any given time in the history of our universe, our planet will be warming or cooling and that much was a certainty before humankind ever walked erect.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 07:15 am
Quote:
At least you got that much response. There was none when I posted the same article a page or two before you did.

That you guys, and a bunch of others here, sit at the end of the same propaganda pipelines is more evident than you'll likely ever even glimpse. It is an intellectual and moral pathology which you'll probably carry to your graves and it is your grandkids who will suffer your foolishness and who will, I fervently hope, take an afternoon to deface those graves.


Quote:
One of the most consistent 'defenses' that the pro-human-caused-global-warming lobby here use is that the scientists opposing that theory are all in bed with big oil or other self-interested parties. Now Harris cites names and organizations that are not in bed with big oil or any other self-interested group on this issue, and they are dismissed as 'irrelevent', 'unimportant', or 'nothing of interest'.


Careless words = lazy intellect = stupidly false ideas. You are the epitomy of a lost cause, foxfyre, and I've no interest in debating with you any one of the numerous issues on which you cannot move, for whatever set of internal reasons.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 07:26 am
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
the scientists opposing that theory are all in bed with big oil or other self-interested parties.


Could you explain how we are not all in bed with "big oil" through our pension schemes and lifestyles.

The only people who can afford to castigate "big oil" without looking stupid are those who live in caves and dine off seaweed. The rest: left,right, centre, off the wall, sweet pretty things and snarling hubritics are all "addicted" to big oil on the mainline artery and are scapegoating big oil out of a guilty conscience.

I once worked out for threaders on current usages what each American birth represented in oil consumption over an average lifespan and still you make babies and then whinge about the effect. It's all the fault of big oil.

The Chicago get together went ahead in a blaze of glory despite the State of the Union and adverts paying for these threads saying FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING and I was treated like a pariah and got no support from anywhere for pointing out these obvious discrepancies.

I feel sorry for Mr Bush trying to run 290 odd million hypocrites.


Anybody fancy "little oil". Well certainly not jet travellers, drivers, patients, (fill in rest of list for yourselves-it's too long for me)

I'm watching the river flow.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 07:51 am
List of graves to deface...three and counting.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 07:53 am
spendius wrote:
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
the scientists opposing that theory are all in bed with big oil or other self-interested parties.


Could you explain how we are not all in bed with "big oil" through our pension schemes and lifestyles.

The only people who can afford to castigate "big oil" without looking stupid are those who live in caves and dine off seaweed. The rest: left,right, centre, off the wall, sweet pretty things and snarling hubritics are all "addicted" to big oil on the mainline artery and are scapegoating big oil out of a guilty conscience.

I once worked out for threaders on current usages what each American birth represented in oil consumption over an average lifespan and still you make babies and then whinge about the effect. It's all the fault of big oil.

The Chicago get together went ahead in a blaze of glory despite the State of the Union and adverts paying for these threads saying FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING and I was treated like a pariah and got no support from anywhere for pointing out these obvious discrepancies.

I feel sorry for Mr Bush trying to run 290 odd million hypocrites.


Anybody fancy "little oil". Well certainly not jet travellers, drivers, patients, (fill in rest of list for yourselves-it's too long for me)

I'm watching the river flow.


Those who cherry pick a phrase out of context will usually be able to denigrate those they don't like however dishonestly they do that. Put the phrase you cherry picked from my quote into its proper context, and you will see how the cherry picking changed what I said. I rarely consider you, Spendius, to be either unreasonable or mean spirited, however, and generally find our disagreements on things to be at least enjoyable.

Those, however, who cannot articulate a rational argument without ad hominems or stating dismissive disinterest only underscore the emptiness of their position and/or unwillingness to consider any facts that might compromise their own tunnel visioned and unsupportable view of reality.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 08:06 am
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
Good to talk to you again too. Things are fine here with our jewelry business enjoying initial success and one of Lola's daughters living here and attending school and with my daughter just back from another adventure travelling in eastern europe and working for a bit in Lisbon. Times are good. Other than as regards the descent of your country down the moral and intellectual toilet, of course.


Do you make custom jewelry,and do you ship it to the states?

If you do,can you PM me so I can ask about prices.

Thanx


mm

Actually, we are set up in the US. The website and online sales operation are presently being built by folks who understand that world. But if you PM me your email address, I can send you some photos just as a matter of shared interest.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 08:22 am
spendi

Not much risk in watching those rivers.

A decade or two ago, a lava flow was seriously threatening a large city (edit: actually it was probably a small town, can't recall for sure) in Iceland. It occured to a couple of locals that they might be able to do something about it by cooling off the leading edge of the flow and, effectively, creating a solid barrier in the flow's path. They headed out with hoses and a firetruck and began spraying water on the edge of the flow. The endeavor gained national notoriety and was referred to in the press and by the fellows sitting about the tv in the pub as "pissing on the volcano". But it actually worked. Great piece on this in the New Yorker and you might be able to find it online.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 10:02 am
Bernie-

At least the volcano wouldn't be running around pretending it is all sweet and virtuous like all these participants in the 20,000,000 barrels a day (and rising) dependency fix do.

Foxy-

The point I was trying to make was that it is of no consequence who is in bed with whom or who is-

Quote:
dismissed as 'irrelevent', 'unimportant', or 'nothing of interest'.


Or who does the dismissing.

As Mr Bush said, and I'm certain he meant it, you (and us) are addicted to oil and there it is.

Have you any idea of the total amount of fossil fuels that have been consumed in the last 100 years. I don't know either but to try to argue that it hasn't changed anything is patently ridiculous. It has certainly contributed to the Dow's upward swing and our fancy lifestyles and that is what we are addicted to and we have it worse than any heroin junkie. At least he can try to take the cold turkey. We can't.

As Dylan said-

"We're going all the way till the wheels fall off and burn."

If Bernie is right and future generations desecrate our graves that's their affair but everytime you use oil to relieve your boredom or to lord it over your compatriots you justify them doing so. It's a personal choice. I have no car. I prefer to invest in oil companies. I have never been more than a mile from my residence in the last five years during my liesure time and I always walk. But if everybody behaved like me the Dow would be in single figures, property would be a liability and unemployment would be 70% at least assuming anarchy hadn't intervened first.

I'm just lazy. I'm not claiming any moral superiority. I'm just telling it as I see it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2006 10:27 am
spendius wrote:
Bernie-

At least the volcano wouldn't be running around pretending it is all sweet and virtuous like all these participants in the 20,000,000 barrels a day (and rising) dependency fix do.

Foxy-

The point I was trying to make was that it is of no consequence who is in bed with whom or who is-

Quote:
dismissed as 'irrelevent', 'unimportant', or 'nothing of interest'.


Or who does the dismissing.

As Mr Bush said, and I'm certain he meant it, you (and us) are addicted to oil and there it is.

Have you any idea of the total amount of fossil fuels that have been consumed in the last 100 years. I don't know either but to try to argue that it hasn't changed anything is patently ridiculous. It has certainly contributed to the Dow's upward swing and our fancy lifestyles and that is what we are addicted to and we have it worse than any heroin junkie. At least he can try to take the cold turkey. We can't.

As Dylan said-

"We're going all the way till the wheels fall off and burn."

If Bernie is right and future generations desecrate our graves that's their affair but everytime you use oil to relieve your boredom or to lord it over your compatriots you justify them doing so. It's a personal choice. I have no car. I prefer to invest in oil companies. I have never been more than a mile from my residence in the last five years during my liesure time and I always walk. But if everybody behaved like me the Dow would be in single figures, property would be a liability and unemployment would be 70% at least assuming anarchy hadn't intervened first.

I'm just lazy. I'm not claiming any moral superiority. I'm just telling it as I see it.


Of course we are addicted to oil and we are likely to be so for the foreseeable future. I think, however, we are far more likely to work towards solutions to that if we include the oil companies in the process rather than summarily condemning them as happens sooner or later in virtually every discussion on the environment.

Evenso, the addiction to oil does not necessarily extrapolate into the use of petroleum products or other fossil fuels being the primary cause or even any cause of the earth warming. Some of us are passionately interested in this subject and wanting real answers and that includes looking at data submitted by everybody.

Some seem to want only certain answers and therefore dismiss, often rudely, any data submitted that provides different answers. Who does the dismissing in that case is I think pertinent especially when it is those people who are doing the accusing.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2006 01:00 am
I posted twelve Items so that Mr. Kuvasz could peruse them and answer them.

No one has seen fit to attempt to rebut them. I will hold that the twelve Items I posted, when read by anyone who knows how to think, will show that there are so many problems involved in the global warming area, that there can be no definitive answers at this time.

Mr. Timberlandko was the only one who delved into "climate science" and Foxfyre touched on it.

I will not replicate my posts but will rather list the main point covered by each one of my items- 1-12. If those posts cannot be rebutted, I must, of course, indicate that I have not been rebutted and, therefore, my posts stand.

l. Problem with usage of temperature proxy data

2. Problem set up by the 1910-1945 temperature increase

3. Problem set up by the inability to predict the global temperature over the coming years because of the incredible complexity of the Earth's climate and the factors which go into it.

4. Faithful modeling of all the important factors in the climate system is something that current computer models cannot handle.

5. The effect of water vapor feedback is poorly understood and may, according to some theorists, lead to much less warming than predicted.

6. Problem set up by the fact that the observed troposcopic warming shows no real trend.

7. Models utlized by the IPCC appear to overestimate "warming". The IPCC has laid out 40 scenarios and appear to be touting the most pessimistic ones. It must be repeated that these are all COMPUTER MODELS.

8.Other contributors to the possible warming may be, for one, solar activity. If that is correct, at least part of the global warming is completely uncontrollable

************************************************************

People who have read about "Global warming" are aware that the Kyoto Protocol was presented to the US Senate in 1997. The US Senate turned it down 95-0 mainly because the protocol did not include China and India since they were listed as "Developing Countries".

Mr. Walter Hinteler gives an interesting poll which shows how people FEEL about Global Warming.

I have information which, I am certain, is far more important than how people feel about Global Warming. It tells us what people DO about Global Warming--especially the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR20050628011248

note- If this link does not get you to the information below, search--

Robert Samuelson Greenhouse Hypocrisy


Robert Samuelson tells us that Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy.

quote

"Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George W. Bush for not embracing the Kyoto protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions--the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990(Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002,global emissions of CO2, the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The US increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done better.

Here are some IEA estimates of the increases:

France 6.9 percent, Italy 8.3 percent, Greece 28.2 percent, Ireland 40.3 percent, the Netherlands 13.2 per cent, Portugal 59 percent, spain 46.9 percent, It is true that Germany ( down 13.3 percent) has made big reductions. But those cuts were not due to Kyoto. Since 1990 Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in Eastern Germany, that was a huge one time saving....On their present courses, many Euopean countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming--and then do little...since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent, Japan's 18.9 percent"

end of quote.

I note that Germany is achieving their goal of reduction of CO2 emissions. They are to be congratulated. Any country which is willing to carry the enormous load of a 11% Unemployment Rate because of their devotion to clean skies should be complimented.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2006 05:11 am
Bernard wrote:
Any country which is willing to carry the enormous load of a 11% Unemployment Rate because of their devotion to clean skies should be complimented.


Do you have any evidence to show that Germany's "devotion to clean skies" is responsible for their unemployment, or is this wishful thinking on your part.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 02:21 am
No, I don't xingu. but I am certain that most of the problems in Germany stem from their failed socialistic government operations.

The European countries,like France, are learning that you cannot cut the working week of some people down to 35 hours and still have the kind of productivity which will enable your company to compete with other countries in the world on price and quality.

In case you don't know it, Xingu--Communism is dead and Socialism is dying!!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2006 02:33 am
BernardR wrote:

The European countries,like France, are learning that you cannot cut the working week of some people down to 35 hours and still have the kind of productivity which will enable your company to compete with other countries in the world on price and quality.


It's certainly well known that European products are only of minor quality, so I don't respond on this. (And of course extremely high prsced.)

To strenthen your other argument:

according to EU-law, every working person must have 24 days holidays (in Germany it's now 29 days in average, plus 12 public holidays average, average 39.2 hours/week):

http://i5.tinypic.com/14ncj2o.jpg

source: National Statistics (UK)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 02:07:39