[OT] Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers
Mayor of R'lyeh
1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
virtue.
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
is that we are going to solve this crisis."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
Edwin
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.
I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
am I closed to counter-arguments.
You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
and everything you hold dear, at all cost.
You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
out.
"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
give them hope? What's the right mix?"
A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
is. "
> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...
> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
below;
> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
huggers..."
TheLetterK
You can hardly blame them. Most of them have been indoctrinated into
this sort of belief almost since birth. "Unnatural == Bad", "Humans ==
Ultimate cause of global warming", etc, etc.
TheLetterK
>
> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
> I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> am I closed to counter-arguments.
I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
history.
>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
> "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> full-blown discussion of the solutions."
None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
ecosystem.
Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> virtue.
>
>I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>am I closed to counter-arguments.
Then you're a definite minority on that side.
>
>You seem to have a need to characterize people who don't share your
>opinions into an evil, lying, scheming mob who're out to destroy you
>and everything you hold dear, at all cost.
>
>You did some creative snipping below. I inserted the context you took
>out.
>
>"Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate
>about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or
>give them hope? What's the right mix?"
>
>A: "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head
>is. "
>
>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
>> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
>
>"Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept
>the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to
>a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
>> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
>> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
>
>Or he could try to get you to read everything said there instead...
Everything you added was simply Al Gore's rationalization about why
its ok for him to lie. That was already present in the quote I
provided so the further elaboration on his part wasn't needed for
context.
>
>> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
>> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
>> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
>
>Above you're acting as you accuse others of doing in the paragraph
>below;
I'm hardly engaging in unwarranted scare tactics by exposing Al Gore's
confession that he's lying about global warming.
>
>> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
>> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
>> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
>> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
>> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
>> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
>> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>
>You're mashing all your opponents into one indistinguishable lump
>again... all you failed to do is toss out the words "hippies" and "tree
>huggers..."
I prefer the term 'stankin' hippies' for that sort.
George Graves
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:21:39 -0400, Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> >
> > 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> > virtue.
> >
> > "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> > bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> > to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> > they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> > believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> > presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
> > the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
> > is that we are going to solve this crisis."
> > http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
> > It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
This is only part of the reason. I have a college buddy who is a
researcher in another, unrelated field, but he works for a large
midwestern university and he tells me that most researchers will say
anything to obtain and/or keep a grant. Most of the people in the
earth-related sciences feel that the adage: "the squeeky wheel gets the
grease" is a fruitful avenue to persue in getting grant providers'
attentions. In other words, make whatever it is you're working on,
whether it be global warming, global dimming, the earth's core swapping
poles, ozone depletion, etc., into a potential disaster of biblical
proportions in order to scare the pocketbooks into funding your research
further. Its all about the big spin and the media is always there to
take negative news and run with it.
--
George Graves
The health of our society is a direct result of the men
and women we choose to admire.
Bob_S
<gmgraves-B6581F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
blame, in whole or in part.
--
Cheers,
Bob S
John
made such a fool of yourself yet again. People that argue against
global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
argued the Earth was flat.
Wegie
Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
> blame, in whole or in part.
yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so
god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".
wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
mars.
--
.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
LOL! I read what he said. He admits that he's lying to scare people.
Its quyite plain.
> People that argue against
>global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
>argued the Earth was flat.
No one ever did. That's a 19th century myth. Now they do remind me of
those 'scientists' who were arguing during the 1970's that we were all
going to die in a new Ice Age...largely because its mostly the same
bunch.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Will someone get Chicken Little here a helmet? 8)
John
Not only are you technically incompetent with computers but also
incompetent in Science and reading as well.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Unable to counter my arguments with facts, John resorts to
namecalling.
John
ZnU
<gmgraves-B6581F...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
You guys sound like the Creationists. It's all a big conspiracy of the
scientific establishment. Right.
This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
a little whacky.
--
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
-- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005
ZnU
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>
> >
> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> >> virtue.
> >
> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>
> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
> history.
The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
provided another neat example.
The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
> >
> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>
> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
> ecosystem.
>
> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
the long run.
It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> virtue.
>> >
>> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>>
>> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> history.
>
>The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
>deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
>provided another neat example.
>
>The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
>nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
>
>That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
>be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
>he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
The reasoning from the global warming believers is like standing at
the beach watching the waves lapping at the shore and suddenly
deciding that the next wave can only be caused by man and that its
going to kill us all.
When something has been happening for thousands of years there's no
reason to believe that its anything different when it happens in your
lifetime.
>
>> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >
>> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>>
>> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
>> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
>> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
>> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
>> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
>> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
>> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>
>Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
>can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
>the long run.
>
>It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past
events.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article
You're going to seriously claim that scientists never fudge their
outcomes for grant money? Get real. Its happened too many times for
anyone to believe that.
>
>This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
>I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
>a little whacky.
LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
requires execution.
The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
most likely to be one of their own.
Dave Fritzinger
Of course it happens. Scientists are human, with all the foibles that
humans have. However, science is, by its nature, self correcting.
Mistakes do get caught because scientists tend to repeat other
scientists experiments. If they can't replicate them, they then tell
other scientists.
>
> >
> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it.
Tell us, oh wise one, what evidence you base this on. Show us the
evidence that falsifies Darwinian evolution. Don't worry, I'll wait.
> There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
Only to the scientific illiterate, Mayor. Again. show us the data (that
is hard data, not someone saying, this can't be possible) that
falsifies evolution. For that matter, come up with anything that shows
ID to be scientific. Present to us the theory of intelligent design.
Show us how it could be falsified. Show us what experimental data
supports it. This was asked of Michael Behe (the leading scientist who
supports ID) at the Dover trial, and the best he could do is admit
that, by the standards needed to make ID science, astrology would also
have to be considered a science.
> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.
Again, Mayor, show us the data that disproves evolution and common
descent. You won't do it because you can't.
> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.
No, if someone comes up with data that disproves evolution, it will be
doubted at first, much as Temin and Baltimore were doubted when they
first demonstrated reverse transcriptase, or Alverez was doubted when
he presented the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were destroyed by a
comet strike 65 million years ago. But, as the data showed they were
correct, their hypotheses were accepted. And, the same thing would
happen with someone who "disproved" evolution. It is very doubtful it
will happen, though, since there is data collected over 150 years that
all supports evolution and common descent. And, not a single data point
that casts doubt on the theory. If you disagree, present some data,
instead of your usual spouting of nonsense, such as above.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Alan Baker
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
> virtue.
Funny. That sounds like you...
Dave Fritzinger
That's funny. You put your own interpretation on what he said, IMHO. It
appears to me that he is saying you have to overwhelm them with facts,
not that you have to lie to them. But, that is because you want to
believe he is dishonest, while I believe in the honesty of people until
they prove otherwise.
[snip]
Mayor of R'lyeh
<dfri...@hotmail.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
You illustrate my point nicely, Dave. You sound like a Catholic that
has just come across someone who doubts Papal Infallibility.
ZnU
The current pattern of change does not appear to resemble pre-human
historical events. There has been extensive study of this. See,
climatologists get their grant money (to put this in terms you might
understand) whether global warming is caused by human activity or by
something else, and the answer to this question could have pretty big
implications, so they're more than willing to look at the full range of
possible causes.
It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
routes. Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms, which means
there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.
I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
we're screwed.
ZnU
What you're positing is that something like 95% of climatologists are
engaged in a huge conspiracy to mislead everyone else. That's not quite
the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?
I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
science -- who expose it.
> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >a little whacky.
>
> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> requires execution.
> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> most likely to be one of their own.
The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense. The current
understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond Darwin. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an overview. There's
certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that horizontal gene
transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely Darwinian view does not
contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher' species has gained acceptance
within just the last 10 years, as new evidence has come to light.
The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement have
any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible complexity and
specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a supported 'design
inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even in particularly subtle
ways. ID is based, when you get right down to it, on nothing more than
intuition -- intuition which not everyone shares.
Tim Smith
> In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>
>> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
>> blame, in whole or in part.
>
> yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> surely these fires are not "man made".
Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
--
--Tim Smith
Wegie
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
> > surely these fires are not "man made".
>
> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.
they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.
for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
Tonnes of CO2, (250 people) and similar length flights happen 100's of
times a day. pretty scary when you start to understand the problem.
http://www.climatecare.org/britishairways/index.cfm
--
.
ZnU
wrote:
A large plane that's 60-100% full typically burns less fuel per
passenger-mile than a car with one (sometimes two) people in it.
Airplanes aren't exactly environmentally friendly, but when you take
everything into account they're a much smaller problem than cars, and
probably one that would be a lot easier to fix, since moving planes to
hydrogen would only require changing fueling facilities at airports.
That's not a trivial task by any means, but compared with converting a
significant percentage of the gas stations in the world it's fairly
straightforward.
Airbus is already working on some basic R&D for hydrogen-fueled
passenger planes.
Dave Fritzinger
That's funny. You sound like someone who is totally unable to refute
any of the points I made. And, we both know why that is, dont' we?
Actually, you are pretty funny. You tried to phrase things so that if
anyone refutes what you said (which wasn't hard, since what you said
was so much BS), you could come back with the exact line you tried to
use on me. It is a pretty transparent dodge, though, as it is quite
obvious that you just don't have the ammo.
You are being more than a bit dishonest here, Mayor.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Its not a conspiracy, its just the way not-for-profit research works
these days.
> This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> a little whacky.
I didn't say that I agree with the Mayor about global warming, I just
said that researchers need grants to fund their research and they spin
their proposals to make sure that they get it. We all know that the
press thrives on bad news, so they are going to take the gist of these
proposals of doom and gloom and run with it.
George Graves
That's my opinion as well. And while there is some evidence to support
that the phenomenon is caused or at least exacerbated by human
activities, its hardly conclusive.
George Graves
Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
What makes you think that such a climate shift IS reversable? That if
the whole world stopped burning stuff for energy, that the earth would
start to cool? This scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Those Chinese
burn 2.2 billion tons of coal because/year because they have no other
way of keeping warm. Its like trying to get Brazilians to stop
burning/clearing the rain forest by telling them that its damaging the
ecosystem. While they might understand the concept on an intellectual
level, the answer will always come back that their families need to eat
NOW, and that clearing this new field is the only way to assure a crop
next year (because the jungle, paradoxically, has poor soil that can
only sustain a few crops before being depleted).
George Graves
The air got clearer, that's for sure.
TheLetterK
> In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> virtue.
>> >
>> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>>
>> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> history.
>
> The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
> deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
> provided another neat example.
>
> The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
> nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
Except the Earth's average temperature has *always* fluctuated , and we
aren't even into the high side of the scale yet (and these changes
generally occur fairly rapidly, geologically speaking). Can you explain
why the average global temperature between 1100 AD and 1400 AD was higher
than it is today (by quite a bit, in fact)? Surely you aren't suggesting
that there was heavy industrialization during the middle ages.
>
> That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
> be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
> he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
Can you provide any evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation
between global temperature increase and human-contributed greenhouse gas
emissions?
>
>> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >
>> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>>
>> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything approaching a
>> viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save natural respiration,
>> and we *still* wouldn't stop or even significantly slow the global warming
>> trend. Doing so would require active participation on our part (like
>> manually venting CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have
>> a profound negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's
>> ecosystem.
>>
>> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
>> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>
> Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
> can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
> the long run.
>
> It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
How? We lose a bit of land, but other land becomes more fertile. Some
deserts get dryer, but some grasslands get more rain, etc. Global warming
is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it, or even
significantly delay it. Human civilization could end tomorrow, and the
Earth's temperature would still keep getting warmer.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
> causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
> e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
> we're screwed.
>
> --
I don't think that there is much we can do about it EITHER way. While I
don't discount the possibility that global warming is caused
anthropogenically, or is at least exacerbated by anthropogenic activity,
I do feel that the evidence is not real compelling AT THIS TIME. OTOH, I
also am not sure what knowing this for a fact will do for us. The
population of this planet continues to grow at a largely unchecked rate.
These new arrivals need heat in winter, fires to cook their food, and
eventually, as second and third-world infrastructures catch-up to the
first-world, energy for their cars, electric lights, etc. Until then,
Chinese peasants will continue to burn coal and coke for their fires,
Brazilian farmers will continue their slash and burn tactics on the rain
forests because that's their only source of livelihood and there is
nothing on the horizon that could change either situation in the next 50
years at least. In fact, these greenhouse gas emissions are, if
anything, going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Do you
agree? While at this moment, we Americans use more resources per capita
than any other nation, the rest of the world is rapidly catching up with
us. How can anything be done? We could help by abandoning our cars, but
since there is no infrastructure that can replace them, its not likely.
Changing over completely to hydrogen to either burn (produces no
greehouse gases) or convert to electricity using fuel cells is probably
50 years off, and still that would only affect the contribution by the
developed nations while population in the underdeveloped nations along
with their increasing energy needs continue to grow at unprecedented
rates.
Again the question comes down to population. If there is too much
greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere to keep the climate
"stable", then the reason is that there are too many people here with
energy needs. There can be no argument that I'm aware of that says that
a smaller world population wouldn't significantly reduce the amount of
greenhouse emissions. If you know of one, please explain. Negative
population growth through financial penalties is also the easiest of all
the proposed global warming remedies to implement. No new technology is
needed, no changes in infrastructure, just laws limiting the size of
families. If each couple, starting today, could only have ONE offspring,
The current world popualtion would be about halved in less than 100
years. This is a lot easier to do than it will be to get over a billion
Chinese to stop burning coal and coke or getting Brazilian farmers to
stop burning the rainforests at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, we can
continue to work on technological "fixes" as well, which, when coupled
with lower populations, will result in significantly lower greenhouse
effect. Will this reverse global warming? If its anthropogenic, the
answer is "maybe". If its wholly natural, the answer is an emphatic no.
TheLetterK
> In article <127te49...@news.supernews.com>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
>> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
>> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
>> > surely these fires are not "man made".
>>
>> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
>> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
>> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
>
> yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
> an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
> burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
> any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.
Actually, the temperatures went up when the planes were grounded. The idea
was that the contrails reflected a significant amount of energy back into
space. There's actually some evidence that industrial output has a cooling
effect (it increases the amount of particulate matter in the
atmosphere, thereby reflecting more energy back away from the Earth).
>
> they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.
>
> for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
> Tonnes of CO2
Yes, your point? There's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. 358 tons of CO2
is completely insignificant, even when multiplied by all flights of that
length that would take place all week. Most of it doesn't even build up in
the atmosphere.
TheLetterK
Unfortunately, it's also true. When your funding is directly linked to
your ability to convince people of an impending disaster, you tend to
emphasize the dangers, ignore the benefits, and shove the discrepancies
under the rug.
TheLetterK
No, it doesn't. ID makes no sense in any context, or in any form.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>, Wegie wrote:
Jet engines produce a lot of heat. They're run the hardest during
takeoffs at airports. The official temperature measurements are taken
at airports. You do the math, Sparky.
TheLetterK
Before global warming became a big craze, how many climatologists got any
serious amount of funding? How about after the global warming scare? Self
interest is a powerful motivator. I don't think they're flat out
falsifying data, but I think many of their conclusions, theories, and
assertions have been made with the intent to draw more funding.
ZnU
The idea that the entire scientific establishment is engaged in a huge
conspiracy about global warming to protect grant money is one of the
most ludicrous ideas that has ever been advanced in this newsgroup --
and that's a fairly impressive feat.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Its nowhere near 95%.
> That's not quite
>the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?
Its also not true.
>I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
>fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
>science -- who expose it.
And it is being exposed. But the True Believers and their allies in
the liberal press are doing their best to suppress them. Remember the
stories about how there were no peer reviewed articles doubting
manmade catastrophic global warming? They were all over the place. How
many did you see when a researcher called bullshit on it and named a
whole slew of peer reviewed articles on that very topic?
Of course that goes back to point one I made. Global Warming
Fundamentalist think lying about their cause is a virtue.
>
>> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
>> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
>> >a little whacky.
>>
>> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
>> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
>> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
>> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
>> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
>> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
>> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
>> requires execution.
>> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
>> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
>> most likely to be one of their own.
>
>The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense.
Sure it does. They are true believers in their Holy Writ and no one
should dare question them! The early ones even went so far as to
invent the myth about people believing in a flat earth for the sole
purpose of having an insult to hurl at those who doubted the validity
of their faith.
You really should deal with these hatemongers sometime while
pretending to not be one and you'll see what I mean. You can discuss
anything with them, anything at all, except evolution and they'll be
as normal as can be. But the minute you make it known that you don''t
march in lockstep with the Darwinian Faith you'll see the sneer appear
on their lips, their faces will contort into a mask of rage and while
they're glowering at you the vilest of insults will begin coming your
way out of their mouths. Its quite a sight.
>The current
>understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond Darwin. See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an overview. There's
>certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that horizontal gene
>transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely Darwinian view does not
>contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher' species has gained acceptance
>within just the last 10 years, as new evidence has come to light.
>
>The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
>orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement have
>any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible complexity and
>specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a supported 'design
>inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even in particularly subtle
>ways. ID is based, when you get right down to it, on nothing more than
>intuition -- intuition which not everyone shares.
--
ZnU
Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
trend.
> > That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
> > be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
> > he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
>
> Can you provide any evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation
> between global temperature increase and human-contributed greenhouse gas
> emissions?
There has been extensive research into this, and the quick summary is
that the current warming trend matches up better with what the models
based on anthropogenic greenhouse emissions predict than with previous
historical warming events.
The "bit of land" we lose happens to contain quite a few major cities,
which developed in low-lying costal areas because of the economic
incentives of being port cities. Moreover, human civilization cannot
tolerate significant reductions in agricultural output even over very
short time scales. And we know we have enough arable land to feed
everyone now. We don't know we will in the aftermath of climate changes.
Maybe we'll have more. But maybe we'll have less. Risking it is not a
good bed.
> Global warming is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it,
> or even significantly delay it. Human civilization could end
> tomorrow, and the Earth's temperature would still keep getting
> warmer.
You're making baseless assertions.
Mayor of R'lyeh
The Global Warming Fundamentalists have told so many lies that its
hard to believe anything they say. I still want my question answered.
Why is this minor climate change caused by man when none of the ones
in the past that were much, much more drastic weren't?
I had an interesting conversation with a friend who is a True
Believer. I forget the exact announcement but I believe was some
breathless declaration on how some recent year was the warmest in 1200
years somewhere. He was quoting this and using it to 'prove' that we
had destroyed the atmosphere and that we were all going to die. I
looked at him and asked him if he thought the world had ended in the
year AD 800. Of course he said 'No.' So I asked him if this particular
temparture hadn't been the harbinger of DOOM! then why did he think
that it was now? His only answer was to blather on about how 'evil'
modern civilization was. Or at least I think it was. I pretty much
quit listening after it became obvious that he really didn't have an
answer.
We don't need to. We can keep everything in place and adapt.
> Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
>year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
>manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that higher
>ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms,
We're entering the upside of the storm cycle anyway.
> which means
>there will be sudden violent weather events to deal with as well as slow
>changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.
You mean like there's always been?
>
>I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
>causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
>e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
>we're screwed.
The variations that we're seeing are minor. They're well within the
normal range. We're far from 'screwed'.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:30:03 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to
>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 20:09:13 -0700, John <no...@nospam.com> chose to
>>>> bless us with the following wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>>>>>> virtue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>>>>>> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>>>>>> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>>>>>> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>>>>>> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>>>>>> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up
>>>>>> the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it
>>>>>> is that we are going to solve this crisis."
>>>>>> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
>>>>>> It should be fun to watch ZnU morph this into a right wing site. 8)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever, Al. Why tell the truth when you can tell what you know to be
>>>>>> nothing more than a boogeyman tale that you represent as true? I
>>>>>> wonder if there's any contolling legal authority? 8)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) When you tell them the truth they start screaming that you're part
>>>>>> of a conspiracy to conceal the *real truth*. Just like those guys who
>>>>>> claim that aliens are visiting and that claim the Buildenburgers, CFO,
>>>>>> Illuminati, the Masons and a few others are secretly controlling all
>>>>>> of our lives, the envirowhackos have got the REAL info. Those
>>>>>> scientist who tell them that they're full of beans are part of the
>>>>>> conspiracy. What a bunch of maroons!
>>>>>> http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously you didn't read CAREFULLY what Gore said or you would not have
>>>>> made such a fool of yourself yet again.
>>>> LOL! I read what he said. He admits that he's lying to scare people.
>>>> Its quyite plain.
>>>>
>>>>> People that argue against
>>>>> global warming are rare and remind one of the scientists years ago that
>>>>> argued the Earth was flat.
>>>> No one ever did. That's a 19th century myth. Now they do remind me of
>>>> those 'scientists' who were arguing during the 1970's that we were all
>>>> going to die in a new Ice Age...largely because its mostly the same
>>>> bunch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not only are you technically incompetent with computers but also
>>> incompetent in Science and reading as well.
>>
>> Unable to counter my arguments with facts, John resorts to
>> namecalling.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>You stated ZERO FACTS. Therefore there was nothing to dispute.
There's plenty of facts for those with the powers of reading
comprehension.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Why would a common practice necessarily be a conspiracy? That's like
saying that because millions of people use an alarm clock to wake them
up for work in the morning, that its a conspiracy or that people who
watch "Desperate Housewives" instead of a "NOVA" on global warming are
conspiring to ignore global warming. If its common practise for
researchers to exagerate in order to get funding, then its common
practise for researchers to exagerate to get funding. There is no hint
of collusion or conspiracy in that.
Mayor of R'lyeh
It because of these disagreements and the lack of importance of
biological studies in most people's lives that I say we admit that
we're at loggerheads and simply disengage. We're wasting too many
resources on this fight and its getting nowhere.
Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
their kids in.
Dave Fritzinger
Actually, it is only getting nowhere among the ignorant. Scientists,
who actually study evolution know that it is the cause of the diversity
of life on Earth. It is only the religious fundimentalists who refuse
to accept that fact. If you go and actually study the data, you would
realize that fact.
> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> their kids in.
Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
be...
ZnU
<gmgraves-E59764...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Nuclear fission is safe, reasonably cheap, and is here now. It's quite
plausible for developing nations as well as developed nations. China has
a huge nuclear power program underway, because they recognize exactly
the problem you're discussing.
There are even ways to deal with nations which we might not necessarily
trust with nuclear material. There are proposals for building sealed,
tamper-proof, self-maintaining rectors which could be delivered by ship,
and provide power for 50 years while storing waste internally. Or we can
use reactors to produce hydrogen or methanol or whatever, and ship that
to them.
Add in wind power, which is already about as cheap as coal power. While
too variable over short time spans to provide a significant fraction of
power to the grid, it could be used to produce hydrogen. Same deal for
solar, except that it presently costs 5-6 times as much as wind. One
neat thing about wind and solar is that they lend themselves to
decentralized deployed, which reduces transmission losses and may lead
to greater reliability.
If hydrogen turns out to be too inconvenient to use as a vehicle fuel,
which seems possible, use ethanol. In the United States, where it's made
from corn, it's not particularly cheap or efficient; government support
of it is basically a subsidy for ADM. But in Brazil, where it's made
from sugar cane, it's a very different matter. Ethanol production in
Brazil is energy-positive, carbon neutral, and ethanol ends up costing
about $0.63/gallon. It has a somewhat lower energy density than
gasoline, so maybe $0.80 of ethanol is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
Seems like a pretty good deal these days, no? And this is not some
hypothetical thing that won't scale up. Brazil has replaced 40% of the
gasoline used in cars with ethanol already.
Moreover, ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, and is largely compatible
with existing gasoline infrastructure, so there's no reason why a switch
has to happen all at once. It's not too hard to build cars which will
run on 100% gasoline, 100% ethanol, or some blend. Many vehicles sold
now in the US can already run on E85, which is 85% ethanol.
> Again the question comes down to population.
Even if you were to cut global population in half, it's unlikely you
would solve the problem. Particularly since e.g. cheaper energy would be
likely to lead to higher per-capita energy consumption.
[snip]
ZnU
<gmgraves-55A15E...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
But as I pointed out, even if this kooky idea is right, and 95% of
climatologists are misleading everyone to get grant money, that still
doesn't explain why they say that global warming is caused by humans. In
fact, it seems to me they'd be better off pretending they didn't have
any idea whether humans were responsible, so they could justify big
studies to settle the question.
> > This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> > I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> > a little whacky.
>
> I didn't say that I agree with the Mayor about global warming, I just
> said that researchers need grants to fund their research and they spin
> their proposals to make sure that they get it. We all know that the
> press thrives on bad news, so they are going to take the gist of these
> proposals of doom and gloom and run with it.
--
Mayor of R'lyeh
Preach it, Brother!
>> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
>> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
>> their kids in.
>
>Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
>country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
>schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
>be...
Because all of those engineers, accountants, CEOs, machinists, writers
and other non-biology professionals are doing nothing but flipping
burgers.
Do you have to work at being this big of a hysterical ninny or does it
come natural for you?
Mayor of R'lyeh
You need to look up 'dishonest'. It doesn't mean 'disagrees with
Fritzinger' which is how you use it.
ZnU
It doesn't matter what the exact number is. Your conspiracy theory is
not particularly more plausable if it's 50%.
> > That's not quite
> >the same thing as a few scientists fudging their results, now is it?
>
> Its also not true.
>
> >I think you'll notice, if you actually examine the history of scientific
> >fraud, that it's virtually always other scientists -- not critics of
> >science -- who expose it.
>
> And it is being exposed. But the True Believers and their allies in
> the liberal press are doing their best to suppress them. Remember the
> stories about how there were no peer reviewed articles doubting
> manmade catastrophic global warming? They were all over the place. How
> many did you see when a researcher called bullshit on it and named a
> whole slew of peer reviewed articles on that very topic?
> Of course that goes back to point one I made. Global Warming
> Fundamentalist think lying about their cause is a virtue.
You're probably talking about the Oreskes December 2004 essay in Science
and Peiser's response. Unfortunately for you, the only bullshit involved
in that case is Peiser's. Peiser claimed to have found 34 papers which
rejected the anthropogenic view, but an examination of the abstracts
doesn't seem to back up his claims.
See http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser/ for full abstracts, and links
to four analyses by people who know what they're talking about.
> >> >This makes sense coming from Mayor. I mean, he *is* a Creationist. But
> >> >I'd expect you to be a little smarter, George, even if your politics are
> >> >a little whacky.
> >>
> >> LOL! So much for your powers of observation. I've said it many times
> >> that I believe there's a natural process going on but that Darwin
> >> doesn't even come close to explaining it. There's too many times where
> >> things just appear in a rapid fashion for Darwin or any of its
> >> reworkings to account for them. Right now a combo of ID and some
> >> unknown natural process looks like it makes more sense than Darwin.
> >> But to the Darwin Fundamentalist any deviation from the Holy Writ
> >> requires execution.
> >> The sad thing is that even if this other process is found Darwin
> >> Fundamentalists will call for the discover's blood even though he's
> >> most likely to be one of their own.
> >
> >The phrase "Darwin Fundamentalist" doesn't even make sense.
>
> Sure it does. They are true believers in their Holy Writ and no one
> should dare question them!
You should really try responding to my argument instead of my thesis
statement, Mayor. It's still quoted below, if you want to try again.
[snip]
> >The current understanding of evolution has already moved well beyond
> >Darwin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis for an
> >overview. There's certainly room for new ideas; the discovery that
> >horizontal gene transfer (something with, incidentally, a purely
> >Darwinian view does not contemplate at all) can occur in 'higher'
> >species has gained acceptance within just the last 10 years, as new
> >evidence has come to light.
> >
> >The reason ID isn't getting anywhere isn't because of some Darwinian
> >orthodoxy; it's because none of the proposals of the ID movement
> >have any kind of scientific merit. In particular, irreducible
> >complexity and specified complexity, which are supposed to lead to a
> >supported 'design inference' are fundamentally flawed, and not even
> >in particularly subtle ways. ID is based, when you get right down to
> >it, on nothing more than intuition -- intuition which not everyone
> >shares.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Not at all. I tried to answer your objections, and you just ignored my
answers and gave your "fundy" answer above. You did not even try to
defend your assertions wrt evolution. Instead, you accused me of being
a "Darwinian fundamentalist", whatever that is. Perhaps you need to
look up the definition of dishonest. In this case, ISTM that the
definition fits you to a tee.
BTW, if you are unwilling to defend your points, you would look one
heckofa lot better if you didn't bother to make them.
Dave Fritzinger
Unable to refute anything I have said, the Mayor tries to change the
subject.
>
> >> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> >> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> >> their kids in.
> >
> >Yeah, and in a few years, we will have two groups of people in the
> >country. The burger flippers (the ones who attended the anti-science
> >schools) and those who are educated. It is clear which one you want to
> >be...
>
> Because all of those engineers, accountants, CEOs, machinists, writers
> and other non-biology professionals are doing nothing but flipping
> burgers.
> Do you have to work at being this big of a hysterical ninny or does it
> come natural for you?
You are not one to talk. Indeed, you seem to come across as a ninny
(and, I am being kind in that description) every time you attempt to
discuss science. What I am trying to say is that you can either teach
science, or not teach science. If you are going to teach science, you
need to teach all of it, not just the popular parts. After all, we
don't get a vote on how the universe works.
ZnU
This question has been extensively answered in the scientific
literature, Mayor. It's a major area of study, and it's trivial to find
references. Wikipedia links to a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
> I had an interesting conversation with a friend who is a True
> Believer. I forget the exact announcement but I believe was some
> breathless declaration on how some recent year was the warmest in 1200
> years somewhere. He was quoting this and using it to 'prove' that we
> had destroyed the atmosphere and that we were all going to die. I
> looked at him and asked him if he thought the world had ended in the
> year AD 800.
The scientific consensus on the cause of global warming is not based on
such trivial data points, Mayor. The media and politicians might like to
repeat them, because unlike actual climate science they're easy for the
public to understand, but they're not really relevant.
[snip]
> >> >> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased crop
> >> >> output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
> >> >
> >> >Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle, which we
> >> >can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for the planet, in
> >> >the long run.
> >> >
> >> >It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short run.
> >>
> >> We have a much greater capacity to adapt when climate changes than
> >> they did in the past. It wouldn't be near as catastrophic as past events.
> >
> >It's a hell of a lot harder to move cities and vast agricultural
> >operations than it is for a bunch of nomads to change their migration
> >routes.
>
> We don't need to. We can keep everything in place and adapt.
Oh, sure, why not? We could just convert cities from streets to canals.
I mean, it works for Venice, right?
> > Moreover, it won't just be sea levels rising a few millimeters a
> > year or something, which is a problem that, while costly, would be
> > manageable without catastrophe. It's very well established that
> > higher ocean temperatures produce more severe tropical storms,
>
> We're entering the upside of the storm cycle anyway.
>
> > which means there will be sudden violent weather events to deal
> > with as well as slow changes in sea level, optimal land use, etc.
>
> You mean like there's always been?
Aside from the greater intensity and increased frequency, yes.
> >I don't know why you guys are so hopeful that global warming has natural
> >causes. If we're causing it, maybe it's not to late to do something. If
> >e.g. solar variation is causing it (not presently considered likely),
> >we're screwed.
>
> The variations that we're seeing are minor. They're well within the
> normal range. We're far from 'screwed'.
Oh, well. If you say so.
ZnU
<gmgraves-0EB753...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
A common practice to deceive the public, which nobody reveals, would
require a conspiracy.
ZnU
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no disagreement within the actual scientific establishment, and
while IDists and Creationists make a lot of noise, opposing them doesn't
really require a lot in the way of resources. Most of the fight may be
done already, actually. The courts established a long time ago that
Creationism wasn't science. ID seemed to some like a clever way to get
around that restriction, but has met with little success so far. I
expect we'll see the whole thing die down again for a while until the
anti-science types come up with some new scam.
> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> their kids in.
Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
modern biology.
ZnU
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:54:07 -0600, Wegie wrote:
>
> > In article <127te49...@news.supernews.com>,
> > Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
> >> > and
> >> > huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
> >> > like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
> >> > ecosystem,
> >> > surely these fires are not "man made".
> >>
> >> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
> >> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
> >> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
> >
> > yeah, airplanes is where most EVERYONE misses / forgets the impact, it's
> > an out of sight / out of mind kind of thing. About 1 gallon a second is
> > burned in 747-787s, and there are always about 200 of them in the air at
> > any one time, and 1000's of smaller planes are always up in the air too.
>
> Actually, the temperatures went up when the planes were grounded. The idea
> was that the contrails reflected a significant amount of energy back into
> space. There's actually some evidence that industrial output has a cooling
> effect (it increases the amount of particulate matter in the
> atmosphere, thereby reflecting more energy back away from the Earth).
Yeah, particulate matter is neat for that. Too bad about all the cancer
it causes.
> > they are invisibly lacing the planet with fire 24 hours a day.
> >
> > for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
> > Tonnes of CO2
>
> Yes, your point? There's a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. 358 tons of CO2
> is completely insignificant, even when multiplied by all flights of that
> length that would take place all week. Most of it doesn't even build up in
> the atmosphere.
--
Dave Fritzinger
I believe that if you look at what the Discovery Institute has to say,
you will see that they already have come up with their new scam. It
appears to be called "teach the controversy".
Of course the fact that, among scientists at least, there is no
controversy carries little weight with them...
>
> > Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism teach it and let those
> > that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> > their kids in.
>
> Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
> years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
> school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
> modern biology.
I'm leaving this in, just because I want the Mayor to see it again...
8^)
Tim Smith
>> Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
>> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
>> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
>
Here's one link:
<http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp>
Google for 9/11 and contrails for others.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
wrote:
>>Hell, just grounding most aircraft in the US for the three days after 9/11
>>had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
>>Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
>
> Jet engines produce a lot of heat. They're run the hardest during takeoffs
> at airports. The official temperature measurements are taken at airports.
> You do the math, Sparky.
Uhm...the effect of grounding the planes was to *raise* temperature.
--
--Tim Smith
GreyCloud
> In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>,
> Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
>>>blame, in whole or in part.
>>
>>yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
>>and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so
>>god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
>>ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".
>>
>>wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
>>year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
>>work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
>>mars.
>
>
> What makes you think that such a climate shift IS reversable? That if
> the whole world stopped burning stuff for energy, that the earth would
> start to cool? This scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Those Chinese
> burn 2.2 billion tons of coal because/year because they have no other
> way of keeping warm. Its like trying to get Brazilians to stop
> burning/clearing the rain forest by telling them that its damaging the
> ecosystem. While they might understand the concept on an intellectual
> level, the answer will always come back that their families need to eat
> NOW, and that clearing this new field is the only way to assure a crop
> next year (because the jungle, paradoxically, has poor soil that can
> only sustain a few crops before being depleted).
>
Another interesting thing is the suggestion of curtailing a lot of
industrial power plant production to curb the CO2. How many jobs will
be lost and how hard will this affect the stock markets?
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Wegie
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > for a simple round trip flight from Chicago to London, produces 358.00
> > Tonnes of CO2, (250 people) and similar length flights happen 100's of
> > times a day. pretty scary when you start to understand the problem.
> >
> > http://www.climatecare.org/britishairways/index.cfm
>
> A large plane that's 60-100% full typically burns less fuel per
> passenger-mile than a car with one (sometimes two) people in it.
yes, and while that very well may be true, 250 x 6 (or so) people don't
drive cars from chicago to london and back every day. i don't deny
airplanes are more efficient (per mile) but the huge number of miles
traveled by this method more than overruns a car comparison.
> Airplanes aren't exactly environmentally friendly, but when you take
> everything into account they're a much smaller problem than cars, and
> probably one that would be a lot easier to fix, since moving planes to
> hydrogen would only require changing fueling facilities at airports.
> That's not a trivial task by any means, but compared with converting a
> significant percentage of the gas stations in the world it's fairly
> straightforward.
>
> Airbus is already working on some basic R&D for hydrogen-fueled
> passenger planes.
yes, i've never seen extremely accurate numbers of people that file each
day, miles traveled, etc. it's surely 5% or less compared to
automobiles, but it's still a major contributor to pollution and the
earth getting warmer each year.
--
.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Let me know when that is even close to reality.
> There are even ways to deal with nations which we might not necessarily
> trust with nuclear material. There are proposals for building sealed,
> tamper-proof, self-maintaining rectors which could be delivered by ship,
> and provide power for 50 years while storing waste internally. Or we can
> use reactors to produce hydrogen or methanol or whatever, and ship that
> to them.
Again, let us know when that's a fact.
> Add in wind power, which is already about as cheap as coal power. While
> too variable over short time spans to provide a significant fraction of
> power to the grid, it could be used to produce hydrogen. Same deal for
> solar, except that it presently costs 5-6 times as much as wind. One
> neat thing about wind and solar is that they lend themselves to
> decentralized deployed, which reduces transmission losses and may lead
> to greater reliability.
>
> If hydrogen turns out to be too inconvenient to use as a vehicle fuel,
> which seems possible, use ethanol. In the United States, where it's made
> from corn, it's not particularly cheap or efficient; government support
> of it is basically a subsidy for ADM. But in Brazil, where it's made
> from sugar cane, it's a very different matter. Ethanol production in
> Brazil is energy-positive, carbon neutral, and ethanol ends up costing
> about $0.63/gallon. It has a somewhat lower energy density than
> gasoline, so maybe $0.80 of ethanol is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
> Seems like a pretty good deal these days, no? And this is not some
> hypothetical thing that won't scale up. Brazil has replaced 40% of the
> gasoline used in cars with ethanol already.
And this helps Brazilian clear-cutting and rain-forest burning, how?
>
> Moreover, ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, and is largely compatible
> with existing gasoline infrastructure, so there's no reason why a switch
> has to happen all at once. It's not too hard to build cars which will
> run on 100% gasoline, 100% ethanol, or some blend. Many vehicles sold
> now in the US can already run on E85, which is 85% ethanol.
>
> > Again the question comes down to population.
>
> Even if you were to cut global population in half, it's unlikely you
> would solve the problem. Particularly since e.g. cheaper energy would be
> likely to lead to higher per-capita energy consumption.
>
> [snip]
You are ignoring reality, znu, by posting pie-in-the-sky "could be's".
Why some of you guys continue to be so blind on the population issue
escapes me. Less people: Less pollution. Its that simple. Combined with
the alternative energy sources that you are championing above, and if
there is man-made global warming. then we might get a handle on reducing
our contributions to it. But one without the other is futile and even
silly. We have to reduce the world's population sooner or later and this
is as good a reason as any to start.
Mayor of R'lyeh
Which might mean something if they were the only ones involved.
> and
> while IDists and Creationists make a lot of noise, opposing them doesn't
> really require a lot in the way of resources.
It takes quite ofbitof time and money awa from schools.
> Most of the fight may be
> done already, actually. The courts established a long time ago that
> Creationism wasn't science. ID seemed to some like a clever way to get
> around that restriction, but has met with little success so far. I
> expect we'll see the whole thing die down again for a while until the
> anti-science types come up with some new scam.
This fight has been going on since the 1830's with no sign of ending. The
funny thing is that its largely because of the way the Darwinist
Fundamentalists presented it. If they had simply presented it as a theory
it would have been accepted by now. Instead, from the very beginning, they
presented it as proof that there was no God and unneccessarily got
people's hackle's up. The best bet the Darwin Fundamentlists have for it
gaining widespread acceptance mongst the populace is to just let the issue
drop for a couple of generations and then reintroduce it without all the
snotty arrogance that is their current hallmark. But of course they won't
do that. That would require a touch of humility, something that they've
proven time after time that they lack.
>> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism
teach it and let those
>> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
>> their kids in.
>
> Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
> years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
> school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
> modern biology.
There's nothing in my proposal that would keep any school system from
teaching the Darwinist Faith. It would simply allow those that don't want
to a safe withdraal.
Let's assume that you're right and that the biotech industry goes on a
massive hiring spree. What are they going to hire? 0.001% of the
graduating class? 0.005%? Lets go nuts and say that they hire 10% of
graduates in a certain year. The only reason you should be concerned about
my proposal is if that you believe that less schools than it takes to
account for that percentage of graduates is going to sign on to teach the
Darwinist Faith.
--
"The next time you her an alarming speech about
'global warming' on Earth Day, just remember
that the first Earth Day featured alarms about
the danger of a new Ice Age."
Thomas Sowell
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
I'm not sure that nobody reveals this. Most researchers would likely
readily admit that they slant their proposals toward doom-and-gloom in
order to assure funding. Most would tell you that they'd be fools not to.
Dave Fritzinger
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> This fight has been going on since the 1830's with no sign of ending. The
> funny thing is that its largely because of the way the Darwinist
> Fundamentalists presented it. If they had simply presented it as a theory
> it would have been accepted by now. Instead, from the very beginning, they
> presented it as proof that there was no God and unneccessarily got
> people's hackle's up. The best bet the Darwin Fundamentlists have for it
> gaining widespread acceptance mongst the populace is to just let the issue
> drop for a couple of generations and then reintroduce it without all the
> snotty arrogance that is their current hallmark. But of course they won't
> do that. That would require a touch of humility, something that they've
> proven time after time that they lack.
Speaking of arguing strawman arguments. You do realize that many of the
more prominent evolutionary biologists are not atheists. The included
is part of a post to talk origins, that was selected to be a post of
the month. I am quoting it because it is quite relevant to my point.
"Theodosius Dobzhansky (you can't get more orthodox than Orthodox).
Francisco Ayala and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (better known for his
philosophical writings, but a trained paleontologist). But perhaps like
Orthodox Christians, Catholic priests don't count as orthodox
Christians in your world.
Or perhaps the falsification of the Biblical account of the Flood would
be sufficient, rather than 'evolution' per se. If so, then we would
have to start with Steno, who countered the idea that seashells on
mountaintops were a consequence of the Big Flood, and proceed from that
point. Atheists and heretics tend not to be beatified by the Catholic
Church. After all, it isn't just biology that Fundamentalists oppose.
There is Asa Gray (a rather well-known botanist and early supporter of
Darwin in the U.S.): "The first American Darwinian, Harvard botanist
Asa Gray, was also an outspoken defender of the "compatibility"--that
was the word he chose--of evolution and a very traditional type of
Christian theism. Addressing the student body of the Yale Divinity
School in 1880, he identified "the essential contents of that
Christianity which is in my view as compatible with my evolutionary
conceptions as with former scientific beliefs," as being "briefly
summed up" in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, classic statements of
faith used as touchstones of Christian orthodoxy since the fourth
century."
E.D. Cope (rather well-known paleontologist) was a Pennsylvania Quaker.
His evolutionary ideas were Lamarckian, but they were still
'evolutionary'.
I have been unable to determine which church O.C. Marsh went to as a
child or whether he attended as an adult (other than for marriages or
funerals, including his own), but I would guess that it was one of the
New England based churches since his family was rather prominent.
The case of James Woodrow (uncle to Woodrow Wilson) is interesting. He
clearly did not see any contradiction between being a quite orthodox
Christian and an evolutionist, although his Church (Southern
Presbyterian) became more hostile to him over time. Compare the initial
church trials with later ones.
http://www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features/cm06_woodrow.html#Appointed
Part of the problem is that you have a strong US-centric bias. What was
true for the US (filled as it was with intellectual backwaters like the
South and frontiers until recently) in the early twentieth century was
not true in Europe. Although Darwin's mechanism tended to be more
popular in England than the continent, evolution (common descent and
change in species over time) was and remains essentially universal
among European scientists after Darwin.
"Unlike the United States, where a strong fundamentalist opposition to
evolutionism developed in the 1920s (most famously expressed in the
Scopes "monkey trial" of 1925), in Britain there was a concerted effort
to reconcile science and religion. Intellectually conservative
scientists championed the reconciliation and were supported by liberal
theologians in the Free Churches and the Church of England, especially
the Anglican "Modernists."
Part of the problem, of course, is that biographies (when they exist)
of scientists tend to focus on their scientific contributions and their
religious faith and church-going behavior (or lack thereof) is often
considered to be completely irrelevant and is not mentioned -- unless
they make a specific point of it or belonged to religious orders (as
many of the early 'scientists' did before science became an independent
profession). I do not find this lack of interest in the religious life
of professional scientists to be particularly surprising, since
science, unlike Biblical fundamentalism, does not have a litmus test of
Christian faith. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Christians, and
atheists can (and have) all make good scientists.
Fundamentalists of any stripe, OTOH, cannot be good scientists when the
evidence of nature contradicts their fundamental beliefs (whatever they
are). They can only deny that nature does contradict their beliefs or
they can discard their fundamental beliefs. Biographies of
creationists, not surprisingly, tend to emphasize their religious
beliefs rather than their scientific successes in fields of research
relevant to evolution. [With, of course, the exception of pre-Darwinian
and neo-Darwinian era scientists, when creationism was a more viable
explanation. Even then, these biological scientists were not often the
simple-minded Biblical literalists that we see on t.o. Take Louis
Agassiz, for example. He would not fit into the ICR.]
But, as the below shows, rather significant swaths of different faith
organizations have no problem with evolution. So any scientist that is
a member of these faiths need not be an atheist to be an evolutionary
biologist. Only certain narrow and fundamentalist sects within
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism seem to have a problem with
evolution.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp"
To this list, I would also add Francis Collins, who is the director of
the National Human Genome Research Institute and a Evangelical
Christian. So, your point about evolution being used to remove God is
just so much claptrap.
>
> >> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism
> teach it and let those
> >> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> >> their kids in.
> >
> > Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
> > years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
> > school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
> > modern biology.
>
> There's nothing in my proposal that would keep any school system from
> teaching the Darwinist Faith. It would simply allow those that don't want
> to a safe withdraal.
There is no "Darwinist Faith". That is only a figment of your
imagination. There is the study of evolutionary biology, which really
is the glue that holds all of modern biology together.
> Let's assume that you're right and that the biotech industry goes on a
> massive hiring spree. What are they going to hire? 0.001% of the
> graduating class? 0.005%? Lets go nuts and say that they hire 10% of
> graduates in a certain year. The only reason you should be concerned about
> my proposal is if that you believe that less schools than it takes to
> account for that percentage of graduates is going to sign on to teach the
> Darwinist Faith.
After my post above, you should realize there is no "Darwinist Faith",
and to continue to say that there is only casts grave doubts on your
honesty. Darwin got much right in evolutionary biology, but he also
made many mistakes and was unaware of genetics. Evolutionary biology
has moved on and learned much since Darwin. That he was a brilliant man
is unquestioned. However, the only people who suggest that people who
study evolution worship him are those who are ignorant of evolutionary
biology.
Dave Fritzinger
George Graves wrote:
[big snip]
> I'm not sure that nobody reveals this. Most researchers would likely
> readily admit that they slant their proposals toward doom-and-gloom in
> order to assure funding. Most would tell you that they'd be fools not to.
>
George, I would really like to see you support that. When it comes to
funding, you generally have to write a grant that explains what you
have accomplished in the field you wish to study, and describe what
experiments you wish to do and how you wish to do them. I won't say
that peer review is completely fair, since the reviewers are human, but
it is probably the best system around to make sure that the best
research plans get funded.
Tim Smith
> yes, i've never seen extremely accurate numbers of people that file each
> day, miles traveled, etc. it's surely 5% or less compared to automobiles,
> but it's still a major contributor to pollution and the earth getting
> warmer each year.
Another possibly significant factor to consider is that cars generally don't
travel at 30k feet. :-) It's not just the amount of emissions that need to
be considered, but also where they are emitted.
--
--Tim Smith
ZnU
Please explain.
> > Most of the fight may be
> > done already, actually. The courts established a long time ago that
> > Creationism wasn't science. ID seemed to some like a clever way to get
> > around that restriction, but has met with little success so far. I
> > expect we'll see the whole thing die down again for a while until the
> > anti-science types come up with some new scam.
>
> This fight has been going on since the 1830's with no sign of ending. The
> funny thing is that its largely because of the way the Darwinist
> Fundamentalists presented it. If they had simply presented it as a theory
> it would have been accepted by now. Instead, from the very beginning, they
> presented it as proof that there was no God and unneccessarily got
> people's hackle's up.
Please provide support for this claim.
> The best bet the Darwin Fundamentlists have for it gaining widespread
> acceptance mongst the populace is to just let the issue drop for a
> couple of generations and then reintroduce it without all the snotty
> arrogance that is their current hallmark. But of course they won't do
> that. That would require a touch of humility, something that they've
> proven time after time that they lack.
Mayor, what the Creationists and ID types are trying to do with respect
to biology is almost precisely the equivalent of trying to sneak
geocentrism into science classrooms where astronomy is supposed to be
taught. Would you expect astronomers to show 'humility' in the face of
such an attempt?
See, this is what I think you miss. Evolution really is one of the basic
foundations of modern biology. While not everything is pinned down yet,
and there's still room for new ideas, the basics are completely taken
for granted by people who work in the field -- just the way
heliocentrism is taken for granted by astronomers.
Expecting biologists to show humility in the face of Creationist
nonsense is basically the equivalent of me expecting you to show
humility when I tell you what color your house is, despite the fact that
you probably picked the paint and I've never seen your house. Obviously,
you're unlikely to do that. You're going to tell me I'm wrong, and I
don't know what I'm talking about, and you'd be justified in doing so.
> >> Let those schools that want to teach Darwinism
> teach it and let those
> >> that don''t want to not. Parents can decide which school they want
> >> their kids in.
> >
> > Biotechnology is going to be a major growth industry in the next 50
> > years. If the US wants to be competitive, it's not a good idea to have a
> > school system which doesn't teach students the basic underpinnings of
> > modern biology.
>
> There's nothing in my proposal that would keep any school system from
> teaching the Darwinist Faith. It would simply allow those that don't want
> to a safe withdraal.
> Let's assume that you're right and that the biotech industry goes on a
> massive hiring spree. What are they going to hire? 0.001% of the
> graduating class? 0.005%? Lets go nuts and say that they hire 10% of
> graduates in a certain year. The only reason you should be concerned about
> my proposal is if that you believe that less schools than it takes to
> account for that percentage of graduates is going to sign on to teach the
> Darwinist Faith.
There's already a worker shortage in biotech, Mayor.
See, for instance, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072530/from/RL.3/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
³This is not a good time to be recruiting in biotech,² said Stephen
Israel, managing director of the biotechnology recruiting practice at
the Boston office of Los Angeles-based headhunter firm Korn/Ferry
International Inc. ³Because it is a strong market, there are too many
jobs and not enough people.²
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Smith
wrote:
> Let's assume that you're right and that the biotech industry goes on a
> massive hiring spree. What are they going to hire? 0.001% of the
> graduating class? 0.005%? Lets go nuts and say that they hire 10% of
> graduates in a certain year. The only reason you should be concerned about
> my proposal is if that you believe that less schools than it takes to
> account for that percentage of graduates is going to sign on to teach the
> Darwinist Faith.
It will affect more than that: there will be students from those schools
that decide not to teach science finding that they have to take remedial
science classes before they can get into a top university. That's going
to cause some annoyance, even among those who are not aiming for work in
the biotech industry.
--
--Tim Smith
tim.the...@gmail.com
ZnU wrote:
> Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
> You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
> cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
> is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
> trend.
I wonder if these people would argue that if the fed raised interest
rates 1% tomorrow, it would not have a serious effect on the economy,
because natural swings in interest rates have been higher than that?
--
--Tim Smith
ZnU
<gmgraves-CAE749...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
China has 10 nuclear power facilities presently under construction, and
plans to bring 30 plants online in the next 15 years. There is very
little reason to believe China will not be able to do this.
Here's a choice quote:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208china_htr.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critics of all political persuasions have insisted that such "breakneck"
speed in nuclear power plant construction cannot be achieved. John
Moens, an analyst at the U.S. Department of Energy, begged to differ. On
Jan. 15, he told the New York Times: "In 1970 we had a net capability of
7 million kilowatt hours [of nuclear generating capacity in the U.S.],
and by 1981 we had reached 56 million kilowatt hours. So the rate of
growth [the Chinese] propose is not only conceivable, it has been done
before."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > There are even ways to deal with nations which we might not necessarily
> > trust with nuclear material. There are proposals for building sealed,
> > tamper-proof, self-maintaining rectors which could be delivered by ship,
> > and provide power for 50 years while storing waste internally. Or we can
> > use reactors to produce hydrogen or methanol or whatever, and ship that
> > to them.
>
> Again, let us know when that's a fact.
Nothing I'm proposing here requires any fundamentally new technology. If
we decided to do these things, we could do them, starting today.
> > Add in wind power, which is already about as cheap as coal power. While
> > too variable over short time spans to provide a significant fraction of
> > power to the grid, it could be used to produce hydrogen. Same deal for
> > solar, except that it presently costs 5-6 times as much as wind. One
> > neat thing about wind and solar is that they lend themselves to
> > decentralized deployed, which reduces transmission losses and may lead
> > to greater reliability.
> >
> > If hydrogen turns out to be too inconvenient to use as a vehicle fuel,
> > which seems possible, use ethanol. In the United States, where it's made
> > from corn, it's not particularly cheap or efficient; government support
> > of it is basically a subsidy for ADM. But in Brazil, where it's made
> > from sugar cane, it's a very different matter. Ethanol production in
> > Brazil is energy-positive, carbon neutral, and ethanol ends up costing
> > about $0.63/gallon. It has a somewhat lower energy density than
> > gasoline, so maybe $0.80 of ethanol is equivalent to a gallon of gas.
> > Seems like a pretty good deal these days, no? And this is not some
> > hypothetical thing that won't scale up. Brazil has replaced 40% of the
> > gasoline used in cars with ethanol already.
>
> And this helps Brazilian clear-cutting and rain-forest burning, how?
It doesn't. I was talking about reliance on fossil fuels. Destruction of
rain forrest is a different matter, which can get pretty tricky. But I
will point out that discouraging Brazilian subsistence farmers from
cutting down rain forests would be a hell of a lot easier than
preventing them from having more than one kid per family.
> > Moreover, ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, and is largely compatible
> > with existing gasoline infrastructure, so there's no reason why a switch
> > has to happen all at once. It's not too hard to build cars which will
> > run on 100% gasoline, 100% ethanol, or some blend. Many vehicles sold
> > now in the US can already run on E85, which is 85% ethanol.
> >
> > > Again the question comes down to population.
> >
> > Even if you were to cut global population in half, it's unlikely you
> > would solve the problem. Particularly since e.g. cheaper energy would be
> > likely to lead to higher per-capita energy consumption.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> You are ignoring reality, znu, by posting pie-in-the-sky "could be's".
I'm talking about solutions to our energy problems using well
understood, present-day technologies that already have a reasonable
cost, as demonstrated by their real-world market prices.
Everything I'm proposing is far, far easier than cutting the Earth's
population in half.
> Why some of you guys continue to be so blind on the population issue
> escapes me. Less people: Less pollution. Its that simple. Combined with
> the alternative energy sources that you are championing above, and if
> there is man-made global warming. then we might get a handle on reducing
> our contributions to it. But one without the other is futile and even
> silly. We have to reduce the world's population sooner or later and this
> is as good a reason as any to start.
Your argument here makes little sense, George. As I pointed out, if
global warming is a danger with six billion people, it's likely still a
serious concern with three billion. On the other hand, six billion
people using carbon-neutral energy sources don't contribute anything
more to global warming than three billion.
Mayor of R'lyeh
This would be valid if Darwinism were the entirety of science.
John
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>> In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>, Wegie wrote:
>>> In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
>>>> blame, in whole or in part.
>>> yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal and
>>> huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so god
>>> like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the ecosystem,
>>> surely these fires are not "man made".
>> had significant effect on the temperature variation over those three days.
>> Pretty dramatic proof that we can affect things.
>
> Jet engines produce a lot of heat. They're run the hardest during
> takeoffs at airports. The official temperature measurements are taken
> at airports. You do the math, Sparky.
>
>
>
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
I don't doubt that. What I doubt is that it will significantly reduce
China's dependence on coal, especially in the boonies.
Based on?
Less people = less pollutants. That doesn't make any sense?
> On the other hand, six billion
> people using carbon-neutral energy sources don't contribute anything
> more to global warming than three billion.
There will NEVER be a such thing as a carbon neutral society. But we can
tread more lightly on this earth with fewer people.
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article
Or a common mindset.
--
"We believe Internet Explorer is a really good browser.
Internet Explorer is my browser of choice."
Steve Jobs
Snit
7ecv721d2n93k69tb...@4ax.com on 6/1/06 8:34 PM:
>>>> The idea that the entire scientific establishment is engaged in a huge
>>>> conspiracy about global warming to protect grant money is one of the
>>>> most ludicrous ideas that has ever been advanced in this newsgroup --
>>>> and that's a fairly impressive feat.
>>>
>>> Why would a common practice necessarily be a conspiracy? That's like
>>> saying that because millions of people use an alarm clock to wake
>>> them up for work in the morning, that its a conspiracy or that people
>>> who watch "Desperate Housewives" instead of a "NOVA" on global
>>> warming are conspiring to ignore global warming. If its common
>>> practise for researchers to exagerate in order to get funding, then
>>> its common practise for researchers to exagerate to get funding.
>>> There is no hint of collusion or conspiracy in that.
>>
>> A common practice to deceive the public, which nobody reveals, would
>> require a conspiracy.
>
> Or a common mindset.
Seems ludicrous to think that darn near every relevant scientist in the
world has a common mindset. Certainly not something I would believe without
some darn strong evidence. Some folks in a Usenet group whining that they
do not believe overwhelming consensus from people who know a topic far
better than any of us here simply will not be persuasive.
--
€ Things which are not the same are not "identical"
€ Incest and sex are not identical (only a pervert would disagree)
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
TheLetterK
> In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
> TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2006 23:56:17 -0400, ZnU wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2006.06.01....@none.net>,
>> > TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 31 May 2006 17:57:03 -0700, Edwin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> >> >> 1) They don't mind lying about their cause. In fact, they think its a
>> >> >> virtue.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe in Global Warming, but I am not willing to lie about it, nor
>> >> > am I closed to counter-arguments.
>> >>
>> >> I believe he was talking about the folks that insist that humans are the
>> >> ultimate cause of the global warming trend. Geological evidence, however,
>> >> quite clearly demonstrates that the Earth's temperature is not naturally
>> >> stable. We have, in fact, been living during a cool period of Earth's
>> >> history.
>> >
>> > The amount of faulty logic I've seen coming from the global warming
>> > deniers in just the last couple of days is astounding, and you've just
>> > provided another neat example.
>> >
>> > The fact that Earth's climate has changed in the past does absolutely
>> > nothing to prove that the *current* warming trend is not anthropogenic.
>>
>> Except the Earth's average temperature has *always* fluctuated , and we
>> aren't even into the high side of the scale yet (and these changes
>> generally occur fairly rapidly, geologically speaking). Can you explain
>> why the average global temperature between 1100 AD and 1400 AD was higher
>> than it is today (by quite a bit, in fact)? Surely you aren't suggesting
>> that there was heavy industrialization during the middle ages.
>
> Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
Because you didn't actually invalidate any point I made.
> You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
> cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
> is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
> trend.
Only if you base your conclusions on circumstantial data. We haven't been
directly recording temperatures in a useful manner until relatively
recently. There has not been enough data gathered to make that sort of
broad conclusion.
>
>> > That 'reasoning' is precisely analogous to saying that, well, Joe can't
>> > be in the hospital because he was hit by a car, because the *last* time
>> > he was in the hospital, it was because he fell out a window.
>>
>> Can you provide any evidence that demonstrates a positive correlation
>> between global temperature increase and human-contributed greenhouse gas
>> emissions?
>
> There has been extensive research into this, and the quick summary is
> that the current warming trend matches up better with what the models
> based on anthropogenic greenhouse emissions predict than with previous
> historical warming events.
Only when limited to historical data collected by direct recording, which
wasn't accurate or consistent enough to be reliable until the same time
that industrial output was rising (I.E we weren't taking consistent and
accurate measurements until the industrial revolution).
>
>> >> >> "In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a
>> >> >> bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle
>> >> >> to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if
>> >> >> they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I
>> >> >> believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual
>> >> >> presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the
>> >> >> audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is
>> >> >> that we are going to solve this crisis."
>> >> >
>> >> > "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the
>> >> > reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a
>> >> > full-blown discussion of the solutions."
>> >>
>> >> None of the environmental nutjobs have presented anything
>> >> approaching a viable 'solution'. We could cut all emissions save
>> >> natural respiration, and we *still* wouldn't stop or even
>> >> significantly slow the global warming trend. Doing so would
>> >> require active participation on our part (like manually venting
>> >> CO2 from the atmosphere). Of course, that would have a profound
>> >> negative effect on the long-term health of the Earth's ecosystem.
>> >>
>> >> Many people also ignore the benefits of global warming--increased
>> >> crop output, and greater amounts of fresh water, to name a few.
>> >
>> > Odds are, global warming (unless it ends up as a runaway cycle,
>> > which we can't really predict), wouldn't be particularly bad for
>> > the planet, in the long run.
>> >
>> > It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the short
>> > run.
>>
>> How? We lose a bit of land, but other land becomes more fertile. Some
>> deserts get dryer, but some grasslands get more rain, etc.
>
> The "bit of land" we lose happens to contain quite a few major cities,
> which developed in low-lying costal areas because of the economic
> incentives of being port cities.
Change is not inherently bad. Such would do wonders for the construction
and mass retail businesses.
> Moreover, human civilization cannot
> tolerate significant reductions in agricultural output even over very
> short time scales. And we know we have enough arable land to feed
> everyone now. We don't know we will in the aftermath of climate changes.
Higher CO2 concentrations has been demonstrated to improve plant
growth--higher plant growth usually means higher animal populations. Both
would result in more food. Higher global temperatures will usually mean
more rainfall as well, which *also* improves plant growth...
> Maybe
> we'll have more. But maybe we'll have less. Risking it is not a
> good bed.
It will *probably* yield greater food production, just in different places.
>
>> Global warming is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it, or
>> even significantly delay it. Human civilization could end tomorrow, and
>> the Earth's temperature would still keep getting warmer.
>
> You're making baseless assertions.
Baseless? No, that's a prediction based on reams of geological evidence.
The Earth goes through fluctuating hot and cold periods, this is a
verifiable scientific fact. It is also the result of natural
processes on the Earth, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to
prevent it from occurring again. Even if this current warming period is
caused by human intervention, the next one won't be.
TheLetterK
Yes, that's probably true. But 'best around' does not mean 'unbiased' or
'anywhere even close to ideal'. Of course, I'm sure you know that already.
ZnU
TheLetterK <n...@none.net> wrote:
I invalidated the point that it appears you attempted to make, twice. If
you were not attempting to make the point I have identified and refuted,
then as nearly as I can tell, instead of having an invalid point, you
have no point at all.
> > You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
> > cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
> > is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
> > trend.
>
> Only if you base your conclusions on circumstantial data. We haven't been
> directly recording temperatures in a useful manner until relatively
> recently. There has not been enough data gathered to make that sort of
> broad conclusion.
I see. So the historical data is just good enough that we can tell there
have been past warming trends, but not good enough to reveal the extent
of their similarity with the current warming trend.
How convenient for you.
[snip]
> >> > It would certainly be very bad for human civilization, in the
> >> > short run.
> >>
> >> How? We lose a bit of land, but other land becomes more fertile.
> >> Some deserts get dryer, but some grasslands get more rain, etc.
> >
> > The "bit of land" we lose happens to contain quite a few major
> > cities, which developed in low-lying costal areas because of the
> > economic incentives of being port cities.
>
> Change is not inherently bad. Such would do wonders for the
> construction and mass retail businesses.
Hey, there's an idea. We can evacuate and destroy a city every couple of
years, to help the economy. Let's start with something in a poorish
Southern state. I know, what if we destroyed New Orleans? I bet half a
year later, everyone who lived there would be much better off and the
local economy would be booming!
Oh, wait.
> > Moreover, human civilization cannot tolerate significant reductions
> > in agricultural output even over very short time scales. And we
> > know we have enough arable land to feed everyone now. We don't know
> > we will in the aftermath of climate changes.
>
> Higher CO2 concentrations has been demonstrated to improve plant
> growth--higher plant growth usually means higher animal populations.
> Both would result in more food. Higher global temperatures will
> usually mean more rainfall as well, which *also* improves plant
> growth...
Higher global temperatures also mean that tropical zone will expand,
while temperate zones will shrink. This may lead to more plant growth,
but whether it will be good for the specific crops on which e.g. the US
and Europe depend is much less clear.
> > Maybe we'll have more. But maybe we'll have less. Risking it is not
> > a good bed.
>
> It will *probably* yield greater food production, just in different
> places.
Maybe. Like I said, it's not worth the risk. It's like gambling with
your entire net worth; the downside (being homeless and destitute) is
much bigger than the up side (having some more money, when you already
had a comfortable life).
> >> Global warming is going to occur. Nothing we can do will prevent it, or
> >> even significantly delay it. Human civilization could end tomorrow, and
> >> the Earth's temperature would still keep getting warmer.
> >
> > You're making baseless assertions.
>
> Baseless? No, that's a prediction based on reams of geological evidence.
> The Earth goes through fluctuating hot and cold periods, this is a
> verifiable scientific fact. It is also the result of natural
> processes on the Earth, and there's absolutely nothing we can do to
> prevent it from occurring again. Even if this current warming period is
> caused by human intervention, the next one won't be.
True, but the next one, for all we know, might be 30,000 years from now.
Snit
znu-CADA79.0...@individual.net on 6/1/06 10:31 PM:
>>>> Except the Earth's average temperature has *always* fluctuated , and we
>>>> aren't even into the high side of the scale yet (and these changes
>>>> generally occur fairly rapidly, geologically speaking). Can you explain
>>>> why the average global temperature between 1100 AD and 1400 AD was higher
>>>> than it is today (by quite a bit, in fact)? Surely you aren't suggesting
>>>> that there was heavy industrialization during the middle ages.
>>>
>>> Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
>>
>> Because you didn't actually invalidate any point I made.
>
> I invalidated the point that it appears you attempted to make, twice. If
> you were not attempting to make the point I have identified and refuted,
> then as nearly as I can tell, instead of having an invalid point, you
> have no point at all.
>
>>> You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
>>> cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
>>> is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
>>> trend.
>>
>> Only if you base your conclusions on circumstantial data. We haven't been
>> directly recording temperatures in a useful manner until relatively
>> recently. There has not been enough data gathered to make that sort of
>> broad conclusion.
>
> I see. So the historical data is just good enough that we can tell there
> have been past warming trends, but not good enough to reveal the extent
> of their similarity with the current warming trend.
>
> How convenient for you.
Now that TLK has been shown, again, to not be able to think very clearly
about a subject, I wonder if he will sink, again, to spewing absurd quotes
and attributing them to others? He has done that in the past with each of
the following quotes:
"I said nothing new in this post, just repeated more of the same
demands that you believe I said because I said it. I then added
my own special brand of stupid. Whatever." - TheLetterK
"I don't have anything of value to add and am simply going to spew
another load of shit where I try to obfuscate those clear, and
accurate facts you presented!" - TheLetterK
"There is nothing I understand." - TheLetterK
He started doing that over the rather trivial error of his of not knowing OS
X is partially based on FreeBSD. It was quite pathetic.
ZnU
<gmgraves-CFD3D3...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Um. Common sense?
The only thing you have to do to get people to get subsistence farmers
to stop hacking down rain forests is to give them reliable farm land
(rain forrest land cleared by burning is actually horrible for farming)
and in some cases teach them sustainable farming methods. The problem is
not, for the most part, that such land does not exist, but rather is an
an issue of allocation.
Alternatively, create decent jobs for these folks in the modern economy
(which is developing pretty fast in Brazil).
I'm not trivializing either of these solutions; these are not easy
things to do. But compared with coming up with an effective means to
limit reproduction, they're easy. Limiting families to one child would
be a huge economic problem. As I'm sure you know, in most developing
nations, parents rely on support from the next generation, often in the
extended family group, to support them when they can no longer work. In
other words, kids are a retirement plan. Moreover, there are all kinds
of cultural factors that might date back hundreds of years, that you'd
need to overcome. Finally, even if everyone agreed it was a great item,
there would be *major* implementation problems.
My point here is, ditching fossil fuels will have vastly more effect on
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions than even very large population
reductions.
It's really not too hard to see how, with widespread deployment of
existing technologies, carbon emissions could be reduced to less than
10% of what they are now. With proper effort, this could be done over a
50 year time scale; most of the relevant infrastructure gets replaced
over a timescale like that anyway.
To match that reduction by just reducing the number of people,
obviously, you'd need to reduce the Earth's population to 600M.
Achieving that in the next 50 years would require draconian measures,
like mass sterilizations.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
Give them what Brazil doesn't have? That makes sense.
> The problem is
> not, for the most part, that such land does not exist, but rather is an
> an issue of allocation.
In Brazil, that kind of farm land doesn't exist - at least not in the
quantity needed to stop the slash and burn farming tactics. These people
do that because they have no other choice.
>
> Alternatively, create decent jobs for these folks in the modern economy
> (which is developing pretty fast in Brazil).
> I'm not trivializing either of these solutions; these are not easy
> things to do. But compared with coming up with an effective means to
> limit reproduction, they're easy. Limiting families to one child would
> be a huge economic problem. As I'm sure you know, in most developing
> nations, parents rely on support from the next generation, often in the
> extended family group, to support them when they can no longer work. In
> other words, kids are a retirement plan. Moreover, there are all kinds
> of cultural factors that might date back hundreds of years, that you'd
> need to overcome. Finally, even if everyone agreed it was a great item,
> there would be *major* implementation problems.
We have to start somewhere and it worked in China where the same types
of cultutal traditions existed.
I disagree. Both would transform this planet and raise the quality of
life for everyone.
> It's really not too hard to see how, with widespread deployment of
> existing technologies, carbon emissions could be reduced to less than
> 10% of what they are now. With proper effort, this could be done over a
> 50 year time scale; most of the relevant infrastructure gets replaced
> over a timescale like that anyway.
>
> To match that reduction by just reducing the number of people,
> obviously, you'd need to reduce the Earth's population to 600M.
> Achieving that in the next 50 years would require draconian measures,
> like mass sterilizations.
No, just laws with draconian monetary penalties for breaking those laws.
ZnU
<gmgraves-D99966...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
There's just one little problem with your theory. The public's
understanding of global warming is not, for the most part, based on
grant proposals. The slanting you describe would have to be far more
pervasive -- at the very least it would have to carry over to
peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals.
Anyway, as I've pointed out a couple of times now, even if this unlikely
theory is right, it only accounts for the "global warming is happening
and will be bad" component of what's perceived as the current scientific
consensus. It doesn't account for the "and humans are causing it"
component.
ZnU
tim.the...@gmail.com wrote:
Good analogy.
Of course, they'd probably start off by saying interest rates hadn't
gone up. And when they were forced to admit that they had, they'd
probably say that because interest rates had gone up without the Fed in
the past, there was no reason to believe the Fed was responsible this
time.
ZnU
<gmgraves-CFAB2A...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Brazil has plenty of arable land, it's just held in very few hands.
Something like 40% of it is owned by 1% of the population, and much of
that is used to grow cash crops for export.
Anyway, subsistence farming is not the only cause of rain forest
destruction. Commercial logging is also a significant cause, and would
be much easier to get a handle on. And actually, logging is in large
part responsible for the volume of subsistence farming occurring in rain
forests; logging roads give subsistence farmers access to far more land
than they could easily reach otherwise. So, if you shut down commercial
logging, you'd do a lot to curb subsistence farming as well.
> > Alternatively, create decent jobs for these folks in the modern
> > economy (which is developing pretty fast in Brazil).
>
> > I'm not trivializing either of these solutions; these are not easy
> > things to do. But compared with coming up with an effective means
> > to limit reproduction, they're easy. Limiting families to one child
> > would be a huge economic problem. As I'm sure you know, in most
> > developing nations, parents rely on support from the next
> > generation, often in the extended family group, to support them
> > when they can no longer work. In other words, kids are a retirement
> > plan. Moreover, there are all kinds of cultural factors that might
> > date back hundreds of years, that you'd need to overcome. Finally,
> > even if everyone agreed it was a great item, there would be *major*
> > implementation problems.
>
> We have to start somewhere and it worked in China where the same
> types of cultutal traditions existed.
China can do it because they're an authoritarian state with very little
respect for human rights. Even then, enforcement is spotty, and some of
the consequences of the policy have not been good.
The Wikipedia article about covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy
Anyway, China is pretty well off as far as resources and functional
government go, by the standards of developing nations. It's likely other
countries, even if they were willing to adopt China's draconian
policies, would enforce them even less effectively.
[snip]
> > It's really not too hard to see how, with widespread deployment of
> > existing technologies, carbon emissions could be reduced to less
> > than 10% of what they are now. With proper effort, this could be
> > done over a 50 year time scale; most of the relevant infrastructure
> > gets replaced over a timescale like that anyway.
> >
> > To match that reduction by just reducing the number of people,
> > obviously, you'd need to reduce the Earth's population to 600M.
> > Achieving that in the next 50 years would require draconian
> > measures, like mass sterilizations.
>
> No, just laws with draconian monetary penalties for breaking those
> laws.
You're going to impose draconian monetary penalties on people who make
two dollars a day? I'm sure that'll turn out well.
George Graves
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
I'm convinced that its the best way. Whether one makes $2/day or
$2000/day, stiff monetary penalties coupled with (in less developed
nations) freely avialble contraceptives and family
planning/counseling/education could turn this population bus around.
GreyCloud
Who knows, maybe that is why the HIV was created for in the first place.
I heard somewhere that the World Health Organization had something to do
with it thru their vaccination programs.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Bob B.
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1149207383.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> tim.the...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > > Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
> > > You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
> > > cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
> > > is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
> > > trend.
> >
> > I wonder if these people would argue that if the fed raised interest
> > rates 1% tomorrow, it would not have a serious effect on the economy,
> > because natural swings in interest rates have been higher than that?
>
> Good analogy.
No it isn't. The current rate is something like 5%, so a 1% rate
increase is a HUGE jump, where temperatures are up what, 1.5 degrees
over the last hundred years?
>
> Of course, they'd probably start off by saying interest rates hadn't
> gone up. And when they were forced to admit that they had, they'd
> probably say that because interest rates had gone up without the Fed in
> the past, there was no reason to believe the Fed was responsible this
> time.
If someone predicted that interest rates were going to go up by 1% at
some time in the near future, based on a small increase in current
interest rates, I would react cautiously, and not change my financial
strategy until I was really sure that the prediction was correct, and
that I fully understood what a future rise in interest rates would
really mean, because the history of financial predictions is pretty
poor, and often other conditions change so that a rise in interest rates
doesn't always result in the kind of financial changes people expect.
Bob B.
Snit
1ZKdneSIhplCQB3Z...@bresnan.com on 6/2/06 5:54 PM:
>> I'm convinced that its the best way. Whether one makes $2/day or
>> $2000/day, stiff monetary penalties coupled with (in less developed
>> nations) freely avialble contraceptives and family
>> planning/counseling/education could turn this population bus around.
>>
>
> Who knows, maybe that is why the HIV was created for in the first place.
> I heard somewhere that the World Health Organization had something to do
> with it thru their vaccination programs.
A short trip into the world of GreyCloud:
Somewhere, out there, in a small smoky room GreyCloud and the rest
of the Illuminati are preparing their final manipulations of the
sheeple. GreyCloud has let slip a few of their secrets: the next
US president, the cure for cancer, the hypnotic manipulations of all
polls, the problem with all global warming models, the world secret
police that censor political speech, and - the biggest secret of them
all - the existence of the short lived wireless mighty mouse. If
GreyCloud lets slip one more thing his role in M12 will be eliminated.
BEWARE MAJESTIC 11.
Aren't you going to be booted from M12 soon?
LOL!
--
€ As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
€ If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
€ One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted
Snit
bobinnv-70583B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com on 6/2/06 6:05
PM:
> In article <znu-662CAB.1...@individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <1149207383.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> tim.the...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>> Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
>>>> You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
>>>> cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
>>>> is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
>>>> trend.
>>>
>>> I wonder if these people would argue that if the fed raised interest
>>> rates 1% tomorrow, it would not have a serious effect on the economy,
>>> because natural swings in interest rates have been higher than that?
>>
>> Good analogy.
>
> No it isn't. The current rate is something like 5%, so a 1% rate
> increase is a HUGE jump, where temperatures are up what, 1.5 degrees
> over the last hundred years?
You missed the analogy: the point was not the exact numbers but the
comparison between the "natural" changes and the man-made forced changes.
>> Of course, they'd probably start off by saying interest rates hadn't
>> gone up. And when they were forced to admit that they had, they'd
>> probably say that because interest rates had gone up without the Fed in
>> the past, there was no reason to believe the Fed was responsible this
>> time.
>
> If someone predicted that interest rates were going to go up by 1% at
> some time in the near future, based on a small increase in current
> interest rates, I would react cautiously, and not change my financial
> strategy until I was really sure that the prediction was correct, and
> that I fully understood what a future rise in interest rates would
> really mean, because the history of financial predictions is pretty
> poor, and often other conditions change so that a rise in interest rates
> doesn't always result in the kind of financial changes people expect.
And it is that way with global warming - nobody really knows what effect
man's alteration of the environment is going to do - and has done already.
That is cause for caution, not reckless abandon.
--
€ Some people do use the term "screen name" in relation to IRC
€ Teaching is a "real job"
€ The tilde in an OS X path does *not* mean "the hard drive only"
ZnU
<bobinnv-70583B...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
"Bob B." <bob...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <znu-662CAB.1...@individual.net>,
> ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1149207383.8...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > tim.the...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > > Why are you repeating the exact same faulty logic I just called you on?
> > > > You are pretending that human industrial activity is the only possible
> > > > cause of warming. Nobody has ever suggested anything of the kind. There
> > > > is merely reason to believe it is the cause of *this particular* warming
> > > > trend.
> > >
> > > I wonder if these people would argue that if the fed raised interest
> > > rates 1% tomorrow, it would not have a serious effect on the economy,
> > > because natural swings in interest rates have been higher than that?
> >
> > Good analogy.
>
> No it isn't. The current rate is something like 5%, so a 1% rate
> increase is a HUGE jump, where temperatures are up what, 1.5 degrees
> over the last hundred years?
Temperature changes lag CO2 level changes. If you look at CO2 levels,
the changes are not minor.
Take a look at e.g.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-gre
enhouse-gas-concentrations/
What you're basically looking at there is the last 650K years of
greenhouse gas levels, and the correlation with temperature (which is,
you'll note, very strong). The difference between the peaks and the
valleys is the difference between moderate climate and ice age periods.
You'll notice that the difference in CO2 between a peak and a valley is
about 100 ppm. You'll also notice that during this entire 650,000 year
time period, CO2 levels have not risen above 300 ppm.
As of 2004, measured CO2 levels were 377 ppm, and over the previous
decade, CO2 levels have risen at 1.9 ppm *per year*.
Now, if 100 ppm is the difference between moderate climate and ice age,
what to you suppose happens when you add 77 ppm on top of the CO2 levels
that generate moderate climate?
[snip]
Timberwoof
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> Who knows, maybe that is why the HIV was created for in the first place.
> I heard somewhere that the World Health Organization had something to do
> with it thru their vaccination programs.
The technology for creating HIV did not exist when it first appeared.
How it or many parts of the immune system work were not understood until
years of research into AIDS.
You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain AIDS. It's just one more
of roughly two dozen diseases that have appeared or reappeared in the
past generation or so as the result of humans cultivating more land.
In "Guns, Germs, and Steel," Jared Diamond explains that African culture
adapted to the presence of many tropical diseases and that the arrival
of Europeans and technology changed all that.
And the usual problem with any such conspiracy theory is that all it
would take is one ethical doctor to leak a sensitive memo. Do you really
think that the WHO is an evil organization?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Snit
timberwoof.spam-B1...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 6/2/06
11:10 PM:
GreyCloud has a well thought out online name - his brain has become cloudy
and grey; he cannot think clearly and will not be able to answer your
question.
Wegie
> > > I wonder if these people would argue that if the fed raised interest
> > > rates 1% tomorrow, it would not have a serious effect on the economy,
> > > because natural swings in interest rates have been higher than that?
> >
> > Good analogy.
>
> No it isn't. The current rate is something like 5%, so a 1% rate
> increase is a HUGE jump, where temperatures are up what, 1.5 degrees
> over the last hundred years?
yes, but in geological time, a 1.5 degree rise, in a fraction of a
second, across the entire planet is a massive crisis, wake up people,
too much fossil fuel is being burned.
> > Of course, they'd probably start off by saying interest rates hadn't
> > gone up. And when they were forced to admit that they had, they'd
> > probably say that because interest rates had gone up without the Fed in
> > the past, there was no reason to believe the Fed was responsible this
> > time.
>
> If someone predicted that interest rates were going to go up by 1% at
> some time in the near future, based on a small increase in current
> interest rates, I would react cautiously, and not change my financial
> strategy until I was really sure that the prediction was correct, and
> that I fully understood what a future rise in interest rates would
> really mean, because the history of financial predictions is pretty
> poor, and often other conditions change so that a rise in interest rates
> doesn't always result in the kind of financial changes people expect.
whatever.
--
.
ZnU
GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > In article <gYsfg.32$065....@news.uswest.net>,
> > Wegie <he...@northere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>In article <Bob_S-36DFE8....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> >> Bob_S <Bo...@NOSPAM.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I believe the earth is warming. However, I am not convinced man is to
> >>>blame, in whole or in part.
> >>
> >>yeah, burning 88 million barrels of oil, a couple million tons of coal
> >>and huge amounts of natural gas each and every day, is "so natural". "so
> >>god like", surely that massive amount of fire has no effect on the
> >>ecosystem, surely these fires are not "man made".
> >>
> >>wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
> >>year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
> >>work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
> >>mars.
> >
> >
> > What makes you think that such a climate shift IS reversable? That if
> > the whole world stopped burning stuff for energy, that the earth would
> > start to cool? This scenario is highly unlikely anyway. Those Chinese
> > burn 2.2 billion tons of coal because/year because they have no other
> > way of keeping warm. Its like trying to get Brazilians to stop
> > burning/clearing the rain forest by telling them that its damaging the
> > ecosystem. While they might understand the concept on an intellectual
> > level, the answer will always come back that their families need to eat
> > NOW, and that clearing this new field is the only way to assure a crop
> > next year (because the jungle, paradoxically, has poor soil that can
> > only sustain a few crops before being depleted).
> >
>
> Another interesting thing is the suggestion of curtailing a lot of
> industrial power plant production to curb the CO2. How many jobs will
> be lost and how hard will this affect the stock markets?
Yeah, it's really too bad there's absolutely no way to produce power
without dumping lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. I mean, if only that
whole nuclear energy thing had panned out, I bet you'd see some nations,
like maybe France, getting, I don't know, maybe 80% of their power from
it.
Too bad large-scale nuclear energy programs turned out to be impossible.
Oh, wait. They didn't. You're constructing an absurd false dichotomy. I
should have realized sooner.
Lars Träger
> Less people = less pollutants. That doesn't make any sense?
USA = less people, China = less polution.
Things make less sense when the USA is involved.
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
> wake up people, china alone burns 2.22 billion tons of standard coal a
> year. the earth is on "unnatural" fire, it's now time to put industry to
> work to solve & reverse this whole mess, before earth becomes the next
> mars.
Wrong. China uses about 1.3 billion tons of coal per year. And while
we're at it, the USA about 1.1 billion. And I'm not going to go into
oil.
--
Lars T.