Why Liberals Fear Global Warming Far More Than Conservatives?
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
Warming Baloney Alert)
Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
this? After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time,
Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the
Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and
drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So
why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do
conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do
religious people love their children less?
The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist,
sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously
don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one
remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might
therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming
thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer
corporate profits to saving the planet.
But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of
conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world
(like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big
business as amoral as leftists do).
No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions
just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between
liberals and conservatives.
Here are six more likely explanations:
-- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will
destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the
Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria,
many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT
Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism);
secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the
remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and
opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).
-- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news
sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine
says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried,
very worried, about global warming.
It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question
authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media.
Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But
conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve
the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever
read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk
radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to
liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also
received many years of liberal education.
-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person,
liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as
when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when
experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals,
"expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given
area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts
should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on
matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater
wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of
expertise.
That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel
Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against
capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel
laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel
laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than,
let us say, a taxi driver.
-- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far
lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and
socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be
most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil
such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids
confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on
socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global
warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil
fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled
and big business increases its profits.
-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A
threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat
to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest
threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green
Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism:
Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold
the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than
global warming.
-- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more
exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils
committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam
Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the
remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or
secondhand smoke).
One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with
fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they
fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
MarkA
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming
> Baloney Alert)
>
>
> Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
>
>
>
> Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
>
>
> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
> far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
convenient. Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that has
a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person. We
should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to use
energy more wisely. Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us if
we continue our current policies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean
that we should not take reasonable precautions. It's not like we can flip
a switch to reverse global warming, once it becomes obvious that disaster
is, in fact, looming just ahead.
Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to the
fossil fuel industry, and a track record of being unwilling to accept
scientific consensus as a guide to shaping policy. The current
conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
says about your policies, hire a different scientist. Anyone who believes
that listening to ideologically motivated conservative "scientists" is a
sound policy would do well to read Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller
v. DASB trial, where the Judge rebuked several of the Board members for
outright lies under oath.
> One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
> threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with
> fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they
> fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
Or, our grandchildren may ask us what coastal cities like "New York" and
"Los Angeles" were like. What was it like when there were world-wide food
riots, before famine and drought killed billions of people in a few short
years? If our grandkids are really smart, they may want to know what
Saddam Hussain did to justify having the USA invade his country, promote
American Imperialism, and deepen the rift between the Middle East and the
Western nations. Hell, people TODAY would like to know the answer to that
one!
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Wayne Throop
Or the Right is prone to complacency.
: -- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news
: sources report something, it is true.
Or the Right belives it's worth debating who reported something,
instead of debating the thing itself.
: -- The Left believes in experts.
Or the Right cherrypicks experts.
: -- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far
: lesser ones.
Or people have a short planning horizon.
: -- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature.
Or the Right is far more likely to revere, even worship, "development".
: -- Leftists tend to fear dying more.
Or Rightists think it won't happen to them.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Gene Ward Smith
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> this?
Maybe conservatives are selfish pigs who don't care about anyone but
themselves, including their own descendents? It would explain the Bush
budget.
Pubkeybreaker
MarkA wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> >
> > Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming
> > Baloney Alert)
> >
> > Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
> >
> > Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
> >
> > Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
> > far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
Because liberals are intelligent enough to understand the consequences
of
global warming, while conservatives (in the sense you mean) are just
knuckle
dragging simple minded morons.
Mike Schilling
> -- The Left believes in experts.
And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
FED UP
> Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
> burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
> convenient.
Who burns without restraint, other than Al Gore ?
$3 a gallon is a restraint.
A just who has the "right" to "restrain" us anyhow ?
You hint at totalitarianism and are therefore a Nazi.
Liberals just can't hide their real colors.
>Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that has
> a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
> dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
You mean COMMUNIST CHINA ?
> All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent
person.
A ploy used in every Liberal arguement...."You disagree with me, you
aren't intelligent.
I define intelligence."
A reasonably intelligent person would want more information about
global warming before closing down all our industry and outlawing
privately owned vehicles.
This is what a President Gore would do.
> We
> should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to use
> energy more wisely.
We ? Are you doing this ?
And indeed yes, I urge all you Liberals to use energy more wisely.
Knock yourself out.
And mind you own business....this is the problem though isn't it ?
IT'S PRECISELY OTHER'S BUSINESS/LIVES YOU WANT TO CONTROL !
It ALWAYS get's back to EXACTLY this about Liberals..you notice ?
EVERY crisis demands that they control other peoples lives.
>Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us if
> we continue our current policies?
USA CO2 emissions have fallen during Bush's terms.
> Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to the
> fossil fuel industry,
And what of Al Gore's tie to oil ?
> The current
> conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
> says about your policies, hire a different scientist.
Pure hypocracy ! This is exactly what the Leftist hate extremist do.
Gunner
>
>There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
>there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
>than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
>determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
>accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
Actually..yes, there are LOTS of questions. Only to the Greens and the
Mindless Left are there no questions.
I wonder..when the arctic was green..what was the CO2 count? Did all
those Fred Flintstone-mobiles raise the CO2 count? Was Barny Rubble
directly responsible for the last ice age?
Was it dinosaur farts?
Inquireing minds really want to know.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Gunner
<Robert_s...@raytheon.com> wrote:
Wonderful troll! Its bringing out all the hate filled Libtard Useful
idiots!!
Gunner
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone want to set up a pool on how many leftard buffoons get involved
in this troll?
I can forsee the shouts of Nazi! in the next dozen or so exchanges.
The cretaceous period It was Bush's Fault!!!!
snicker...
Gene Ward Smith
Gunner wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 10:10:44 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
> Anyone want to set up a pool on how many leftard buffoons get involved
> in this troll?
I'd say the dimwitted buffoon who fell for the gag was you.
> I can forsee the shouts of Nazi! in the next dozen or so exchanges.
Moron.
Pubkeybreaker
Please. Calling him a moron is an insult to morons.
I don't think he is intelligent enough to be a moron.
Gunner
<Robert_s...@raytheon.com> wrote:
ALERT: As you may know, the current Treasury Secretary John Snow is
leaving office, and Goldman Sachs Chairman & CEO Henry Paulson has been
nominated to be his successor.
So what's the big deal about that?
It's a HUGE deal. Many people aren't aware that Mr. Paulson also serves
as Chairman of the Nature Conservancy, an environmental activist group
that takes stands on issues (such as the Kyoto Treaty) that are far-out
on the left-wing -- and are diametrically opposed to the positions of
the Bush Administration. The Nature Conservancy has also spent recent
years mired in scandal, as exposed in a Washington Post series and in
Senate hearings.
Under Mr. Paulson's leadership, Goldman Sachs adopted in November of
2005 a controversial "Environmental Policy," which parallels the
positions of the Nature Conservancy on key issues.
As various media reports indicated, the Goldman Sachs Annual Meeting on
Friday, March 31 was dominated by discussions of whether Mr. Paulson had
a conflict-of-interest in his dual role as Chairman of both Goldman
Sachs and the Nature Conservancy, and whether the "Environmental Policy"
was detrimental to Goldman Sachs' own interests, and the American
economy as a whole.
Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about Mr. Paulson's personal
and business ethics. In 2005, Goldman Sachs made a donation of 680,000
acres of land in Chile to a group called the Wildlife Conservation
Society (WCS) that publicly identifies itself as a "partner" of the
Nature Conservancy. Mr. Paulson's son, Merritt Paulson, is a Trustee of
WCS.
At the Goldman Sachs annual meeting, Mr. Paulson asserted that the
Nature Conservancy was purposely not involved with the Chilean land
deal. Yet the 2004 tax return of the Nature Conservancy itemizes a
$144,000 consulting fee received from Goldman Sachs for assistance on
the Chilean land deal.
For these reasons, concerned Americans -- that's YOU and ME -- need to
urge the U.S. Senate to ask Henry Paulson some TOUGH questions before
they vote to confirm him as the new Secretary of the Treasury.
TAKE ACTION: As John Carlisle, policy director at the National Legal and
Policy Center, recently said, "As head of the Nature Conservancy,
Paulson often made decisions that benefited the Conservancy at the
expense of Goldman and its shareholders. Based on his private sector
record, Paulson simply can't be trusted as Treasury Secretary to
faithfully adhere to important Administration policies on Kyoto and the
environment."
"The Goldman board failed to respond to questions about the apparent
conflict-of-interest between Paulson's environmental agenda and his
management of the company," noted Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise
Action Fund (FEAF). "You do not want someone serving as a cabinet
officer who has a habit of indulging his environmental hobby at the
expense of his financial responsibilities."
President Bush took the right step in not committing the United States
to a treaty that would likely cost millions of American jobs to address
an unproven global warming threat. As Steve Milloy of the FEAF said,
"Henry Paulson would undermine the Administration's ability to counter
global warming alarmism." Click below NOW to send a FREE message to both
of your Senators, urging them to take this unique opportunity to ask
TOUGH questions of this apparent environmental activist UNDER OATH:
Gunner
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
More Leftards! Their schooling!! Toss out the hooks!!
Gunner
Gunner
Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
Laugh laugh laugh
Sanity's little helper
alt.atheism,alt.anarchism,alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,rec.arts.sf.written
and wrote:
> Do
> conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do
> religious people love their children less?
3).
--
Living your life by reading the Bible is a bit like cleaning your house by
reading the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208, HB #6
omare...@aol.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> Warming Baloney Alert)
Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
country or their species.
Gunner
>
>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>>
>>
>> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
>> Warming Baloney Alert)
>
>Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
>country or their species.
>
Pretty much true.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
jcon
Gunner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:21:31 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> -- The Left believes in experts.
> >
> >And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
> >
> >
> >
> Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
>
It's not a fair comparison. Since Limbaugh, Coulter,
and Hannity never had any credibility to begin with,
they don't have to worry about losing it.
-jc
jcon
favorite line:
> -- The Left believes in experts.
Yes, it's very silly to trust climatologists and geophysicists
when it comes to global warming. Much better to trust
politicians and popular authors.
Somehow this reminds of Colbert's remark "Reality
has a well-known liberal bias".
-jc
Mark_R...@hotmail.com
> Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
> country or their species.
And you have proof, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
Richard R. Hershberger
Gunner wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 11:21:04 -0700, omare...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >>
> >>
> >> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> >> Warming Baloney Alert)
> >
> >Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
> >country or their species.
> >
>
> Pretty much true.
>
> Gunner
Interesting: The people who post in this thread with a left-wing
position are berated by you as buffoons who fell for a troll. The
people who post in this thread with a right-wing position get from you
an approving, if content-free, aol. Hmm...
dan
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> Warming Baloney Alert)
>
>
> Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
> Here are six more likely explanations:
>
> -- The Left is prone to hysteria.
Like "Saddam has WMDs?"
Occasionally, when facts dictate, "the Left" (or liberals, or lots of
other folk-not-NeoCons) do take the conservative viewpoint of
following/promoting the course of least potential damage until the
situation is clarified...
"Conservatives" like to follow the radical course of full steam ahead
and damn the torpedoes, especially when dollars are involved.
> -- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news
> sources report something, it is true.
Unfortunately, since there is ZERO evidence of this statement, the
author provides ZERO evidence of its veracity.
First, the news of global warming, for instance, comes from the science
literature, and not the NYT. Second, the NYT is not even close to a
liberal news source; further, there are NO (ZERO)liberal news sources
among the main stream media.
> -- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person,
> liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts
Wow! Is it just me, or is the author (along with any of his adherents)
schizophrenic?
> -- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far
> lesser ones.
Then he goes on to describe how "the Left" confronts the greater evils
while "the Right" fight the lesser ones. Interesting. I wonder if many
of his fans saw the pattern?
> -- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature.
Again a fallacious statement with no possible support goes, um, unsupported!
"Respect for" and "understanding of" are leagues away from "revere" or
"worship."
> -- Leftists tend to fear dying more.
Hardly, of course. If the author thinks he does not fear dying, he is a
fool... But, of course, he does, as do 99.9% of all humans.
What "Leftists" and liberals and other sentient being fear is the
manipulation of information (such as the author does) such that a false
"enemy" is demonized for the express purpose of removing his/her human
status. Once that is done (as the author does), any policy is
acceptable. Those of us who actually have a brain and use it understand
that a group of policymakers who demonize one group can (and are
documented doing) demonize ANY group that suits their fancy, even any
group to which the author can be tied. Thus, "Leftists" and other
thinking persons DO NOT fear death more than others, but instead are
helping to protect all from tyranny, EVEN THE AUTHOR HIMSELF who would
heap that very tyranny upon us for a few pieces of silver (without our
telling him we want him to do so)...
> One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
> threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with
> fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they
> fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
Too bad for the author, of course. It sucks being on the wrong side
EVERY time...
Dan
dan
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>>
>>
>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming
>>Baloney Alert)
>>
>>
>>Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
>>
>>
>>
>>Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
>>
>>
>>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
>>far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
>
>
> There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
> there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
> determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
Note that the author does not even question that fact in the least while
fostering his twaddle on the audience...
Dan
dan
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:38:51 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
>>there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
>>than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
>>determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
>>accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
>
>
> Actually..yes, there are LOTS of questions. Only to the Greens and the
> Mindless Left are there no questions.
>
> I wonder..when the arctic was green..
When was "the arctic" green?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Dan
dan
> On 20 Jun 2006 10:10:44 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
> <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>>this?
>>
>>Maybe conservatives are selfish pigs who don't care about anyone but
>>themselves, including their own descendents? It would explain the Bush
>>budget.
>
>
>
> Anyone want to set up a pool on how many leftard buffoons get involved
> in this troll?
Well, it sure caught at least ONE rightard buffoon, so far!
Dan
Howard Brazee
Often they are wrong, but they've gotta try.
I believe the Kyoto accords won't make much difference. The part of
Global Warming caused by people has lots of sources, such as
irrigation, cities, farms, highways, over-fishing, logging, and stuff
that can't be solved except by getting rid of population.
Conservatives tend to believe, that returning to the old values will
make everything the way they pretend it was when we were kids. Working
against Climate Change is not an old-value.
Nobody likes climate change, and lots of history has been because of
climate changes, as people migrate when their old locations could no
longer support them. But nobody has come up with proposals about
what to do when climate changes come. And climate changes do come
(whether caused by God, nature, or man). If Canada gets more
wealthy and Mexico gets more poor due to global warming, what do we
do?
Howard Brazee
>Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
>country or their species.
Some are. But in general, I see more Liberals who act as though they
care about others than I see Conservatives acting as though they care
about others.
Whether their acts help others is a different issue.
brique
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3kjg92t7kdkp96ivv...@4ax.com...
Let's see, probably invade Canada, sorry, liberate an oppressed people
suffering under a vile regime, and they have to stop the oil fields falling
into the hands of Cuba and being used to finance
Al-Queda....ummm....Mexico..... well, finish what they started a good while
ago and annex the rest of it and finally avenge the Alamo, then move all the
welfare bludgers there... they have to stop the Mexican oil fields falling
into the hands of Cuba and being used to finance Al-Queda as well.... ....
next, Venezuala, more suffering under the cruel heel of a vicious tyrannical
regime.... so it's liberate those oilfields, sorry, oppressed peoples too,
before Cuba uses them to finance Al-Queda... Brazil, oh, nice PR move, they
can liberate the poor oppressed rain-forest Indians.... and protect the
oilfields from nasty Cubans selling it to China, I mean financing Al-Queda
as well.... North Korea? No oil, big nukes, oh well, sign a peace treaty and
try and flog them some burgers... Europe, under the heel of cheese-eating
surrender-monkeys, their oil is running out but they do have some nice golf
courses so they need liberating too, in case Bin Laden takes up golf....
see, its not really a problem, this global warming thing.
raven1
<soundof...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>this?
Because liberals actually give a shit about the planet?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Tony
> On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
>>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>this?
>
>
> Because liberals actually give a shit about the planet?
Why is it that liberals are so tolerant, except when it comes to
different political philosophies?
> --
>
> "O Sybilli, si ergo
> Fortibus es in ero
> O Nobili! Themis trux
> Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Your sig is broken - it should be dash dash space
--
"The most convoluted explanation that fits all the available and made-up
facts is the most likely to be believed by conspiracy theorists"
imb...@mindspring.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do
> (Global Warming Baloney Alert)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/science/earth/20sea.html
Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: June 20, 2006
NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. - When scientists consider the
possible effects of global warming, there is a lot they don't know.
But they can say one thing for sure: sea levels will rise.
This rising water will be felt along the artificially maintained
beaches of New Jersey, in the vanishing marshes of Louisiana,
even on the ocean bluffs of California. According to a 2000
report by the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment, at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of
the United States coast may be lost to rising seas by 2060.
There were 350,000 of these houses when the report was
written, but today there are far more.
"If it is as bad as people are saying, at some point it will be a
crisis," said Thomas Tomasello of Tallahassee, Fla., a lawyer
who represents many owners of coastal property. But he does
not dwell on it. "I cannot deal with sea level rise," he said.
"That's such a huge issue."
Though most of the country's ocean beaches are eroding,
few coastal jurisdictions consider sea level rise in their
coastal planning, and still fewer incorporate the fact that the
rise is accelerating. Instead, they are sticking with policies
that geologists say may help them in the short term but will
be untenable or even destructive in the future.
[........................................]
Does the Government Know?
James Titus, an Environmental Protection Agency project
manager for sea level rise who is leading an agency mapping
effort, wrote an essay for a law review a few years ago in which
he argued that the nation needed to make decisions on whether
or how wetlands and beaches should be allowed to migrate
inland. Otherwise, he wrote, government policy is saying, in
effect, that "wetlands and beaches are important resources
that must be preserved for the duration of this generation, but
whether they survive for the next 50 to 100 years is not our
problem."
Mr. Titus titled his essay, published in the Golden Gate Law
Review in 2000, "Does the U.S. Government Realize That the
Sea Is Rising?" It was accompanied by a disclaimer noting
that it did not represent the views of the E.P.A.
Reached by telephone, Mr. Titus said he was no longer
allowed to discuss such issues publicly and referred questions
to the agency's press office, which would not allow him to speak
about it on the record. Instead, requests for on-the-record infor-
mation were referred to Bill Wehrum, the agency's acting assist-
ant administrator for air and radiation.
"The administration's strategy for dealing with climate change
is to continue to put significant resources into understanding
climate change," Mr. Wehrum said. "The goal is to develop
information that will be useful for local planners. This is about
looking at coastal areas and assessing how those areas are
used and then helping people with the question of how much
protection they might want to provide for those areas if sea
level continues to rise."
In general, Mr. Wehrum said, it seemed quite likely that people
would want to protect developed areas and might be willing to
let undeveloped areas like wildlife refuges or coastal farms
migrate.
Meanwhile, though, people like Ms. Winters and Dr. Williams
watch as, one by one, people make decisions that will
collectively have big implications for beaches.
"The levee failures and flooding of Katrina were no surprise to
geologists who studied the area," Dr. Williams said, and
damage from future coastal storms will not surprise them either.
But he said, "I don't think we have the political will at the
administration level" to confront the issue.
"We're rebuilding bigger and better," Dr. Williams said.
"We see that in every storm."
.
.
--
Gene Ward Smith
Tony wrote:
> Why is it that liberals are so tolerant, except when it comes to
> different political philosophies?
Why is it that conservatives are too effing stupid to check and see who
started this flame-bait war?
Mark K. Bilbo
<1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
> far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
science and practice "faith."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
cliff...@yahoo.co.uk
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> Warming Baloney Alert)
Anti-environmentalism is primarily a bible-thumper thing. It's based on
biblical passages like the following:
Genesis, Chapter 1
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created
he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which
is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In addition, there is a lot of doomsday stuff in the Bible. Here's an
example:
Revelation 21
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the
first earth had passed away . . .
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!"
Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and
true."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the
Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink
without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes
will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This
is the second death."
People under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected to
worry about the environment. Why care about the earth when the
droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are
signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global
climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And
why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who
performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few
billion barrels of light crude with a Word?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/bible102904.cfm
Howard Brazee
<cliff...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Anti-environmentalism is primarily a bible-thumper thing. It's based on
>biblical passages like the following:
But if we have dominion over the Earth, we have a responsibility to
husband its resources and take good care of our responsibility.
It depends on whether someone is a Christian because he's conservative
and wants to return to the values of his childhood, or whether he's a
Christian because he loves God and His creation and values the
Scripture.
eyelessgame
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> Warming Baloney Alert)
To give a far more serious answer than this dipshit (or the
original-author freeptards) deserve, I think there's an answer that can
get a bit past the fingerpointing.
First, we should all acknowledge that there are conservatives who
believe global warming is a real human-caused problem. It's not that
all conservatives or republicans reject it.
But four groups of conservatives, broadly speaking, do reject it. In
all four cases, it's because they follow an ideology that has
difficulty dealing with the reality of global warming. (Note that I'm
not asserting liberals don't have ideologies that cause difficulty in
recognizing some realities as well. Of course we do. Everyone does, to
greater or lesser extents.)
1. Evangelical Christian Republicans do not believe that global warming
is a problem -- that's different from disbelieving it (though they may
also not believe in it, simply because they consider any scientific
conclusion to be evidence of Man's hubris). They believe that if the
earth is warming, it must be either (a) God's will, or (b) a sign of
the End Times. Either way, there's nothing we can do about it, and
(unless the Rapture is imminent) God will provide anyway so who cares.
2. Big-Business Republicans -- particularly oil executives and other
industries who profit by causing global warming -- generally don't
acknowledge the problem because they profit by denying it. "It is hard
to convince a man of a truth when his income depends on him not
believing it." It is normal human nature to deny responsibility when
you are accused of a foul thing, whether you are claimed to have done
it deliberately or not. I do not think in most cases this is conscious
deception; it is more self-deception.
3. Libertarian Republicans generally disbelieve global warming because
libertarian philosophy does not provide a solution to it, other than to
say that if it becomes a bad enough problem market forces will demand a
solution and human ingenuity will provide one. Since the only
reasonable approaches to combat global warming are (at this point)
collective action, libertarian philosophy holds that these approaches
must be wrong; hence the problem they are trying to solve must not
exist, or at least must not be serious enough. This is rather like the
evangelical Christian position above, actually, and that's not a
coincidence.
4. Unthinkingly-partisan Republicans reject global warming simply
because Democrats believe in it. In the same way that the Bush
Administration in 2001 did not believe bin Laden was a real threat
simply because the Clinton Administration warned them he was, these
folks reason that since Democrats and Republicans are opposing
political parties, it follows that if Democrats favor something,
Republicans oppose it.
Often there is rather comical conspiracy theory behind it, smacking of
creationist arguments -- it's asserted that somehow scientists *want*
global warming to be true, and that they invent and suppress research
to prevent the truth from coming out. How and why they do this is of
course left vague -- the why, especially, is curious: it's generally
blamed on the supposition that scientists hate capitalism, technology,
freedom, America, and God. Conspiracy theories, however, tend to be
justifications for holding the positions above -- the positions above
are the real sources of the opposition; conspiracy theories are
invented to explain why the science is against their beliefs.
Again, I'm not claiming moral superiority here -- there exist
Republican-backed positions that I, as a liberal Democrat, reject for
what are probably irrational reasons. There are even cases where
science supports a conservative position, and I often must struggle
(and sometimes fail) to come to terms with it. But at this point there
isn't a reasonable or respectable scientific position that rejects
global warming as a real, and human-caused, problem. Yet the groups
above still reject it, and I can understand their reasons -- even if I
consider them irrational, and have no problem holding their positions
up for ridicule. But it's important to fairly state their positions
first, and I hope I've done so.
eyelessgame
Chris H. Fleming
I completely agree that many Christians make a good argument for taking
care of the Earth. (which is basically the same argument they make for
taking care of their bodies)
But on the other hand, one must also admit that there are a great many
Christians (all seemingly on the right) that only believe scientific
consensus when they feel like it. It is a dire problem when a people
will not admit reality. What can they not be made to believe? And what
can they not be made to do?
Fester
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>>
>>
>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming
>>Baloney Alert)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
>>
>>
>>far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
>
>
True.
just as
> there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
> determine.
Absolutely FALSE! There have been demonstrated epochs of CO2 levels
many times greater than what we see now or anticipate for the near
future (a century or so), even in the most dire of simulations.
> There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
This is the crux of the global warming hoax. The computer models are
reasonably good at modeling CO2 forcing and attempt to address radiative
heat transfer. However, the science is *highly* speculative regarding
the effects of warming on water vapor, which is *much* more of a
significant factor in heat retention. They also do a poor job of
modeling convective heat transfer, which is orders of magnitude more
significant than radiative transfer. The models assume a positive
feedback where the evidence does not support it. In fact, Richard
Lindzen (climatologist at MIT) has been in the forefront of arguing that
the feedback from CO2 buildup is a negative one due to the water vapor
effects (increased cloud cover reflecting more radiation).
> Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
> burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
> convenient. Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that has
> a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
> dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Here in America we have determined that we don't need to dismantle our
technological infrastructure to pander to a bunch of chicken littles
with bogus models.
> All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person.
Indeed, the effects of the global warming zealots on our way of life is
something to be vigilant against.
> We
> should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to use
> energy more wisely. Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us if
> we continue our current policies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean
> that we should not take reasonable precautions. It's not like we can flip
> a switch to reverse global warming, once it becomes obvious that disaster
> is, in fact, looming just ahead.
I agree that we should be promoting alternative energy sources, but not
because of the global warming hype.
> Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to the
> fossil fuel industry, and a track record of being unwilling to accept
> scientific consensus as a guide to shaping policy. The current
> conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
> says about your policies, hire a different scientist. Anyone who believes
> that listening to ideologically motivated conservative "scientists" is a
> sound policy would do well to read Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller
> v. DASB trial, where the Judge rebuked several of the Board members for
> outright lies under oath.
Pure BS. The Bush administration is highly active in promoting and
bringing alternative energy sources on line. This is another political
myth. We are seeing both massive research and the large-scale roll out
of E85 compatible vehicles, for example, and for the first time in
decades, the plans for new nuclear power plants.
>>One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
>>threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with
>>fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they
>>fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
>
>
> Or, our grandchildren may ask us what coastal cities like "New York" and
> "Los Angeles" were like. What was it like when there were world-wide food
> riots, before famine and drought killed billions of people in a few short
> years? If our grandkids are really smart, they may want to know what
> Saddam Hussain did to justify having the USA invade his country, promote
> American Imperialism, and deepen the rift between the Middle East and the
> Western nations. Hell, people TODAY would like to know the answer to that
> one!
Yes, hyperbolic crap is the weapon of choice for the warming hysterics.
Here's a good place to start your education:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
--
<^}})<
/\/\
Fester
More politically-motivated nonsense. The best scientific evidence
shows that warming has resulted in higher precipitation levels in the
extreme latitudes. The result is that the ice packs are actually
*increasing*. I now, dramatic video of ice calving along the
continental shelf looks scary, but it's been going on for billions of
years! If anything, the global warming (whatever the causes) is
reducing sea levels. Furthermore, the difference in temperatures across
high and mid latitudes is falling as a result of the higher latitudes
warming up, resulting in *less* fuel for tropical storms (the
temperature gradients are what fuels them). If anything, the effects of
global warming are a *reduction* of hurricanes, like Katrina! NO
suffered from a sinking of the land and from diversion of money from
levees to the pockets of their corrupt pols (Does the name William
Jefferson ring a bell? How about Nagin or Landrieu?)
Wayne Throop
: If anything, [...] If anything, [...] [.. etc, etc ..]
The temperature is not increasing. And anyways the increasing
temperature we see is causing ice to grow faster, so the hurricanes are
smaller, and the sea levels lower. And anyways the bigger hurricanes
and higher sea levels we see wouldn't have hurt anything if corrupt
politicians hadn't raided the funds for the levee system. So there.
You've proved your case with rigorous geometric logic. Congratulations.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
brique
Fester <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:o%2mg.22170$Qg.1...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> MarkA wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >>
> >>
> >>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
Warming
> >>Baloney Alert)
> >>
> >>
> >>Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
> >>
> >>
> >>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
is
> >>far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
> >
> >
> > There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring,
>
> True.
>
> just as
> > there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> > than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
> > determine.
>
> Absolutely FALSE! There have been demonstrated epochs of CO2 levels
> many times greater than what we see now or anticipate for the near
> future (a century or so), even in the most dire of simulations.
It is incorrectly stated. Current green house gas levels are the highest
recorded during humanities spell upon the earth. There have been higher
levels recorded, but that was during the epochs under which dinosaurs
occurred and, eventually, perished.
>
> > There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> > accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
>
> This is the crux of the global warming hoax. The computer models are
> reasonably good at modeling CO2 forcing and attempt to address radiative
> heat transfer. However, the science is *highly* speculative regarding
> the effects of warming on water vapor, which is *much* more of a
> significant factor in heat retention. They also do a poor job of
> modeling convective heat transfer, which is orders of magnitude more
> significant than radiative transfer. The models assume a positive
> feedback where the evidence does not support it. In fact, Richard
> Lindzen (climatologist at MIT) has been in the forefront of arguing that
> the feedback from CO2 buildup is a negative one due to the water vapor
> effects (increased cloud cover reflecting more radiation).
Okay, so not as much atmospheric warming, just a lot more rain instead?
Still not good for coastal communities. But at least you recognise that
overall atmopsheric and oceanic temperature increases will affect the
current climatic conditions whose stability we have previously taken for
granted.
I think there is some near-hysterical over-dependence on 'key' figures like
'CO2 levels' from both sides of this debate. CO2 is one of the contributing
gases, along with quite a few others, contributing to a process which
neither side fully understands. It's not just the raw amounts of any gas,
it's what the 'mix' is in the atmosphere and the consequent effects upon how
that atmosphere then functions. Humans can breathe 'air' with very high
oxygen levels, but then the side effects are that metals oxidise much
quicker and combustion occurs more easily and with greater intensity. We can
breathe 'air'with much higher CO2 levels, but then we get more lethargic but
combustion is inhibited on the plus side. We currently have population
patterns still highly dependant upon 'traditional' climate conditions,
agricultural practices still based on prevailing climctic conditions and
whilst the better-off nations may be able to relocate entire coastal
populations to higher ground, fund agricultural modifications and modify
their entire infrastructure to accomodate climactic changes (which don't
have to be 'negative' changes to severely mess-up matters, just listen to a
bunch of farmers debating how much sunshine and rain they have had or need
and when for their harvest to be successful). But for the less well-off
nations that ability to adapt economically and agriculturally to a differing
climactic model is less certain, in fact, highly unlikely.
That humanity can survive considerable climactic change is probable. The
question becomes how much of humanity will be able to do that surviving and
what sort of climate it will have to accomodated in matters like viable
crops (very temperature dependent) , building styles (particularily in
flood-plains if higher rain-falls are likely), increased or changed erosion
patterns (river and coastal).
What is easily understood is that climatic change 'appears' to be occuring
with an 'apparent' increased intensity and the changes are moving beyond the
'range' under which our current civilisation has grown and adapted itself.
Is this merely a cyclical chift which will revert in a couple of hundred
years or so? It's possible, the changes any meaningful climatic change will
inevitably force upon humanity may alleviate some of the forces promoting
that shift. They may have no effect whatsoever. None of us really know. The
shift may be more permanent, lasting in the thousands of years rather than
hundreds. But that will be a problem for our descendents to find the answer
to.
>
> > Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
> > burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
> > convenient. Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that
has
> > a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
> > dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> Here in America we have determined that we don't need to dismantle our
> technological infrastructure to pander to a bunch of chicken littles
> with bogus models.
I think of more concern to you should be whether your technological
infrastructure is capable of supporting your society in the face of
climactic change.
Coastal defences which can handle category 3 storms are fine if all you get
are category 3 storms. They don't do much if you start getting more Cat 5
storms as seems to be the case.
>
> > All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person.
>
> Indeed, the effects of the global warming zealots on our way of life is
> something to be vigilant against.
Is it unconstitutional or just plain un-american to have to listen to bad
news?
> > We
> > should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to
use
> > energy more wisely. Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us if
> > we continue our current policies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean
> > that we should not take reasonable precautions. It's not like we can
flip
> > a switch to reverse global warming, once it becomes obvious that
disaster
> > is, in fact, looming just ahead.
>
> I agree that we should be promoting alternative energy sources, but not
> because of the global warming hype.
Frankly, you dont have a choice anyway. Petrochemicals have a limited
production life, barring a find or two on the scale of a Saudi Arabia which
may then extend production for a decade or so. if you want affordable
gasoline to keep your lifestyle unchanged, then you had better start
demanding alternative energy sources to take the strain off current demand
levels for it.
>
> > Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to
the
> > fossil fuel industry, and a track record of being unwilling to accept
> > scientific consensus as a guide to shaping policy. The current
> > conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
> > says about your policies, hire a different scientist. Anyone who
believes
> > that listening to ideologically motivated conservative "scientists" is a
> > sound policy would do well to read Judge Jones' decision in the
Kitzmiller
> > v. DASB trial, where the Judge rebuked several of the Board members for
> > outright lies under oath.
>
> Pure BS. The Bush administration is highly active in promoting and
> bringing alternative energy sources on line. This is another political
> myth. We are seeing both massive research and the large-scale roll out
> of E85 compatible vehicles, for example, and for the first time in
> decades, the plans for new nuclear power plants.
Whilst we have seen the total dismantling of the electric-vehicle scheme,
total in that all the leased vehicles have been reclaimed by the
manufacturers and crushed.
E85 is still 85% petroleum-based product, miles per gallon are reduced by
around 20-25% in the models adapted to run on it compared to 100% petroleum
fuelled models.
So, to do the same miles, you will end up using pretty much the same amount
of petroleum based product anyway. Currently, its a sham, unless
manufacturers can modify their current engines, or build new ones, which can
alter that sham, its just so much PR.
As for nuclear power, lower initial environmental concerns, maybe, but a
massive future one when the stations need dismantling. Still, we wont be
alive to worry about that so, who gives a fuck, eh?
shrikeback
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:t8KdnUVHlucbGgXZ...@megapath.net...
> Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
> <1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
>
>> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>> is
>> far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
>
> Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
> science and practice "faith."
"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is
the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said MIT professor
of meteorology Richard Lindzen
shrikeback
"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:l8qg92l8pbt1rk2lh...@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> <soundof...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>this?
>
> Because liberals actually give a shit about the planet?
No, because CO2 offers such promising regulations.
imb...@mindspring.com
eyelessgame wrote:
>
> 3. Libertarian Republicans generally disbelieve global warming because
> libertarian philosophy does not provide a solution to it, other than to
> say that if it becomes a bad enough problem market forces will demand a
> solution and human ingenuity will provide one. Since the only
> reasonable approaches to combat global warming are (at this point)
Technology isn't lifting all boats, but we keep adding more boats!
As our numbers increase, there will be more conflicts at all levels --
local, regional, national, international and global -- that wouldn't
happen if population were stabilized.
It would be much more equitable having each individual fight the
flu on his own, rather than waste resources having armies fight each
other over resources. By stopping the suppression of influenza,
everyone could be on the front lines, instead of just a few good men.
.
.
--
Luke Silburn
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>>
>>
>> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
>> Warming Baloney Alert)
>
> To give a far more serious answer than this dipshit (or the
> original-author freeptards) deserve, I think there's an answer that can
> get a bit past the fingerpointing.
>
An excellent post. Kudos.
Regards
Luke
Fester
Absolutely nobody has claimed that CO2 buildup near the earth's surface
is significantly affected by global warming or it's causes. Certainly
combustion produces other pollutants with unhealthy effects (such as
acid rain, smog, etc), but that is a separate issue that has greatly
improved since the 1970's in the US.
> We currently have population
> patterns still highly dependant upon 'traditional' climate conditions,
> agricultural practices still based on prevailing climctic conditions and
> whilst the better-off nations may be able to relocate entire coastal
> populations to higher ground, fund agricultural modifications and modify
> their entire infrastructure to accomodate climactic changes (which don't
> have to be 'negative' changes to severely mess-up matters, just listen to a
> bunch of farmers debating how much sunshine and rain they have had or need
> and when for their harvest to be successful).
During the 18th century we had a mini ice age. Climate *will* change,
irrespective of anything we do.
> But for the less well-off
> nations that ability to adapt economically and agriculturally to a differing
> climactic model is less certain, in fact, highly unlikely.
Much of the hype of global warming is a result of those notions lacking
a strong or growing industrial base who want to catch up by
limiting/slowing the economy of the more industrialized nations. That
is the real reason behind Kyoto, for example, which exempts China,
India, Russia, etc.
> That humanity can survive considerable climactic change is probable. The
> question becomes how much of humanity will be able to do that surviving and
> what sort of climate it will have to accomodated in matters like viable
> crops (very temperature dependent) , building styles (particularily in
> flood-plains if higher rain-falls are likely), increased or changed erosion
> patterns (river and coastal).
Whether we can or cannot survive climate changes, there is insufficient
evidence to say that we are *causing* climate change. When I say
insufficient, I mean that the claims being made are extremely dubious
because as I noted, the factors most important to the problem are the
least well understood.
> What is easily understood is that climatic change 'appears' to be occuring
> with an 'apparent' increased intensity and the changes are moving beyond the
> 'range' under which our current civilisation has grown and adapted itself.
Not at all true. The extreme changes you are talking about occur only
in simulations that are based on unsubstantiated runaway feedback
mechanisms (CO2->Warming->more CO2). As Lindzen points out, this
feedback and the claims based on it are most likely bogus.
> Is this merely a cyclical chift which will revert in a couple of hundred
> years or so? It's possible, the changes any meaningful climatic change will
> inevitably force upon humanity may alleviate some of the forces promoting
> that shift. They may have no effect whatsoever. None of us really know. The
> shift may be more permanent, lasting in the thousands of years rather than
> hundreds. But that will be a problem for our descendents to find the answer
> to.
The best that we can do is apply *real* science and skeptical inquiry of
catastrophic claims that lack substance. We should know when, for
example, we are being presented with cherry-picked data from advocates
and when caveats in scientific studies are dropped so as to convey much
more certainty than the science provides.
>>>Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
>>>burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
>>>convenient. Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that
>
> has
>
>>>a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
>>>dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>>
>>Here in America we have determined that we don't need to dismantle our
>>technological infrastructure to pander to a bunch of chicken littles
>>with bogus models.
>
>
> I think of more concern to you should be whether your technological
> infrastructure is capable of supporting your society in the face of
> climactic change.
> Coastal defences which can handle category 3 storms are fine if all you get
> are category 3 storms. They don't do much if you start getting more Cat 5
> storms as seems to be the case.
Among the effects of the current climate trends are that storms should
actually *decrease*. In addition, the claims of ocean level changes are
entirely unsubstantial. Again, the science regarding the effects of
water vapor on both temperature and arctic ice point in the opposite
directions.
>>>All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person.
>>
>>Indeed, the effects of the global warming zealots on our way of life is
>>something to be vigilant against.
>
>
> Is it unconstitutional or just plain un-american to have to listen to bad
> news?
It is irrational to dismantle our society in response to dubious, highly
speculative and inflated claims of disaster.
Absolutely not true. Do the math:
1.25 (lower mileage) * .15 (amount of gas in E85) = (about) .19 gallons
of gas for the equivalent of a gallon of pure gasoline.
Electric vehicles are a sham, because they require energy to charge the
batteries.
> As for nuclear power, lower initial environmental concerns, maybe, but a
> massive future one when the stations need dismantling. Still, we wont be
> alive to worry about that so, who gives a fuck, eh?
You really should learn about what you're talking about before
broadcasting it.
Fester
Try again. It's rather like observing a carrier wave and a signal in RF
transmissions. Climate change is a much lower-frequency carrier that is
only observable in longer term trends. Weather is a much
higher-frequency signal that is superimposed on climate changes. So
yes, in shorter periods of observation one will see the effects of
weather variation quite clearly, but one must look at data across
centuries to get a picture of climate change on weather.
Liz
<soundof...@fastmail.fm> in news message
<1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives
As a moderate and independent, I fear conservatives more than global
warming.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
Gunner
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:21:31 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> -- The Left believes in experts.
>> >
>> >And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
>>
>
>It's not a fair comparison. Since Limbaugh, Coulter,
>and Hannity never had any credibility to begin with,
>they don't have to worry about losing it.
Your opinion is noted.
Say..seen any exploding gas tanks recently on TV?
Laugh laugh laugh
Gunner
>
>-jc
>
>
>> Laugh laugh laugh
>>
>>
>> Gunner
>>
>> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
>> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
>> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
>> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>>
>> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
>> for torturing the cat." Gunner
"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
of defense." --Walter Williams
Gunner
>omare...@aol.com wrote:
>> Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
>> country or their species.
>
>And you have proof, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
Sure! All we need to do is read their posts. Its quite obvious.
Gunner
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
>Gunner wrote:
>> On 20 Jun 2006 11:21:04 -0700, omare...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
>> >> Warming Baloney Alert)
>> >
>> >Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
>> >country or their species.
>> >
>>
>> Pretty much true.
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Interesting: The people who post in this thread with a left-wing
>position are berated by you as buffoons who fell for a troll. The
>people who post in this thread with a right-wing position get from you
>an approving, if content-free, aol. Hmm...
Of course. Im a right winger. Somehow this is new to you? Been
living in a cave since '71?
Gunner
Gunner
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
>
>> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
>> far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
>
>Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
>science and practice "faith."
Odd coming from an emotions based groupie of a failed political
ideology.
Mark K. Bilbo
<i6gi9215eagplc3ur...@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>>Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
>><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
>>
>>> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>> this?
>>
>>Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
>>science and practice "faith."
>
> Odd coming from an emotions based groupie of a failed political ideology.
And what would that ideology be?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >
> >
> > Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global Warming
> > Baloney Alert)
> >
> >
> > Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
> >
> >
> >
> > Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
> >
> >
> > Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is
> > far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?
>
> There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
> there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> than they ever have been in the history of the world,
Sorry, that's wrong. It's true that the CO2 levels are higher than they
have been in human history, but in the deep past, Co2 has been a
dominant gas in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
> as far as we can
> determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
True, the question is just how much. Enev the IPCC has twenty models
that shows different degrees of warming.
>
> Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
> burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
> convenient.
Of course it is. Why shoudn't it be?
> Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that has
> a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
> dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person. We
> should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to use
> energy more wisely. Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us if
> we continue our current policies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean
> that we should not take reasonable precautions.
The question is what these "reasonable precautions" will cost, and how
that will affect the future of human economic development.
> It's not like we can flip
> a switch to reverse global warming, once it becomes obvious that disaster
> is, in fact, looming just ahead.
Even the most pessimistic IPCC models do not point to disaster.
>
> Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to the
> fossil fuel industry, and a track record of being unwilling to accept
> scientific consensus as a guide to shaping policy. The current
> conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
> says about your policies, hire a different scientist. Anyone who believes
> that listening to ideologically motivated conservative "scientists" is a
> sound policy would do well to read Judge Jones' decision in the Kitzmiller
> v. DASB trial, where the Judge rebuked several of the Board members for
> outright lies under oath.
>
>
> > One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
> > threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with
> > fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they
> > fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
>
> Or, our grandchildren may ask us what coastal cities like "New York" and
> "Los Angeles" were like.
The most pessimistic IPCC model I've seen forecats a 90 cm global ocean
rise by 2100. Are you saying that NY and LA will be completely flodded
by 90 cm more of water?
> What was it like when there were world-wide food
> riots, before famine and drought killed billions of people in a few short
> years?
The world has already warmed 0,6° C since 1960's and there's no
indication that this has caused any droughts worldwide or in the USA
(read up on the Palmer Drought Index).
> If our grandkids are really smart, they may want to know what
> Saddam Hussain did to justify having the USA invade his country, promote
> American Imperialism, and deepen the rift between the Middle East and the
> Western nations. Hell, people TODAY would like to know the answer to that
> one!
--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://liberterran.org
http://antipartiet.dk
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On 20 Jun 2006 10:10:44 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
> <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >
> >> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> >> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> >> this?
> >
> >Maybe conservatives are selfish pigs who don't care about anyone but
> >themselves, including their own descendents? It would explain the Bush
> >budget.
>
>
> Anyone want to set up a pool on how many leftard buffoons get involved
> in this troll?
>
> I can forsee the shouts of Nazi! in the next dozen or so exchanges.
>
> The cretaceous period It was Bush's Fault!!!!
>
> snicker...
Well, the point about Bush & CO. passing on the debt to later generation
is true enough.
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> Gunner wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:38:51 GMT, MarkA <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There is absolutely no question that global warming is occurring, just as
> >>there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> >>than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
> >>determine. There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> >>accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
> >
> >
> > Actually..yes, there are LOTS of questions. Only to the Greens and the
> > Mindless Left are there no questions.
> >
> > I wonder..when the arctic was green..
>
> When was "the arctic" green?
>
> Enquiring minds want to know...
>
> Dan
I think heø's referring to the medival warm period, where the vikings
could farm some of greenland in a way that's impossible now.
Gunner
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>Previously, on alt.atheism, Gunner in episode
><i6gi9215eagplc3ur...@4ax.com>...
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>>
>>>Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
>>><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
>>>
>>>> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>>> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>>> this?
>>>
>>>Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
>>>science and practice "faith."
>>
>> Odd coming from an emotions based groupie of a failed political ideology.
>
>And what would that ideology be?
Liberalism of course.
You didnt get the memo?
Gunner
which debt is that?
Jeff McCann
"Tony" <ton...@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:129gsi8...@corp.supernews.com...
> raven1 wrote:
> > On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
> > <soundof...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> >>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> >>this?
> >
> >
>
> different political philosophies?
Um, is it because liberalism is mainly a political philosophy itself, so
bitching about liberals being intolerant of opposing political philosophies
is a ridiculous criticism?
Jeff
rrh...@acme.com
Gunner wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2006 12:20:44 -0700, "Richard R. Hershberger"
> <rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gunner wrote:
> >> On 20 Jun 2006 11:21:04 -0700, omare...@aol.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >> >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> >> >> Warming Baloney Alert)
> >> >
> >> >Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
> >> >country or their species.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Pretty much true.
> >>
> >> Gunner
> >
> >Interesting: The people who post in this thread with a left-wing
> >position are berated by you as buffoons who fell for a troll. The
> >people who post in this thread with a right-wing position get from you
> >an approving, if content-free, aol. Hmm...
>
> Of course. Im a right winger. Somehow this is new to you? Been
> living in a cave since '71?
>
> Gunner
Alas, your fame is not so widespread as you seem to think. This is, to
the best of my recollection, the first time you have impinged upon my
consciousness. But that isn't really the point, unless you are
suggesting that it is impossible for a right winger to support his
position by employing facts and logic. If this is your belief, surely
this would suggest that you ought to reconsider your position. Or do
you consider this a religious dogma, outside the realm of facts and
logic?
Richard R. Hershberger
Mike Schilling
"Jeff McCann" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:zLcmg.94895$QU3....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
That criticism is pure Karl Rove: accuse your enemies of your own faults
(e.g, question their militray service.) Liberals aren't writing books that
call conservatives traitorous, godless, baby-murderers.
Jeff McCann
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:i6gi9215eagplc3ur...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
> >Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
> ><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
> >
> >> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
is
> >> far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
this?
> >
> >Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
> >science and practice "faith."
>
> Odd coming from an emotions based groupie of a failed political
> ideology.
Its OK, Gunner, we're used to odd comments coming from you, and we're quite
familiar with your emotionally based devotion to your failed political
ideology. But don't worry, they've burned themselves out in record time,
and will soon be found on the ash heap of history, alongside all the other
failed ideologies. ;-)
Jeff
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 15:51:20 +0200, pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter
> Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>
> >Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Jun 2006 10:10:44 -0700, "Gene Ward Smith"
> >> <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> >> >> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> >> >> this?
> >> >
> >> >Maybe conservatives are selfish pigs who don't care about anyone but
> >> >themselves, including their own descendents? It would explain the Bush
> >> >budget.
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone want to set up a pool on how many leftard buffoons get involved
> >> in this troll?
> >>
> >> I can forsee the shouts of Nazi! in the next dozen or so exchanges.
> >>
> >> The cretaceous period It was Bush's Fault!!!!
> >>
> >> snicker...
> >
> >Well, the point about Bush & CO. passing on the debt to later generation
> >is true enough.
>
> which debt is that?
>
> Gunner
This debt:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
(typical anti-Republican bullshit, snipped)
>Again, I'm not claiming moral superiority here
Yes, you are.
> -- there exist
>Republican-backed positions that I, as a liberal Democrat, reject for
>what are probably irrational reasons. There are even cases where
>science supports a conservative position, and I often must struggle
>(and sometimes fail) to come to terms with it. But at this point there
>isn't a reasonable or respectable scientific position that rejects
>global warming as a real, and human-caused, problem.
That's complete nonsense. Of course there is "a reasonable
or respectable scientific position that rejects global
warming as a real, and human-caused, problem."
> Yet the groups
>above still reject it,
For good reasons, not only purely political reasons.
> and I can understand their reasons -- even if I
>consider them irrational, and have no problem holding their positions
>up for ridicule. But it's important to fairly state their positions
>first, and I hope I've done so.
No, you haven't. You have mistated their positions and then
argued against them -- the classic "straw man" tactic.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Robert Sturgeon
wrote:
>On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
><soundof...@fastmail.fm> in news message
><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives
>
>
>As a moderate and independent, I fear conservatives more than global
>warming.
You have no reason to fear either. You may have good
reasons to oppose "conservatives," but not to fear them --
anymore than I have reasons to fear "liberals."
2505 Dead
wrote:
>On 20 Jun 2006 11:37:11 -0700, "jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:21:31 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> -- The Left believes in experts.
>>> >
>>> >And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
>>>
>>
>>It's not a fair comparison. Since Limbaugh, Coulter,
>>and Hannity never had any credibility to begin with,
>>they don't have to worry about losing it.
>
>Your opinion is noted.
>
>Say..seen any exploding gas tanks recently on TV?
>
>Laugh laugh laugh
I bet I could find misrepresentations by any of those three just as
big as the 20 year old incident you are referring to.
But then, being a cowardly American right winger, you NEED your
leaders to lie to you. You expect it. It's what you deserve.
>
>Gunner
>
>>
>>-jc
>>
>>
>>> Laugh laugh laugh
>>>
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>>
>>> "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
>>> Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
>>> off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
>>> them self determination under "play nice" rules.
>>>
>>> Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
>>> for torturing the cat." Gunner
>
>
>"The importance of morality is that people behave themselves even if
>nobody's watching. There are not enough cops and laws to replace
>personal morality as a means to produce a civilized society. Indeed,
>the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of
>defense for a civilized society. Unfortunately, too many of us see
>police, laws and the criminal justice system as society's first line
>of defense." --Walter Williams
--
Go, England!
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
2505 Dead
It has been green in the more distant past. They've found fossilized
sequoias in the Greenland ice cap, indicating that it was temperate
for a long time. During the Triassic, the arctic was flat-out
tropical.
Basically, he's tring to pretend that we don't acknowledge normal
climatic fluctuation, which is nonsense.
There's two big differences between man-caused global warming, that
the type the globe normally experiences:
1) We're seeing change in decades that normally occurs over millenia
2) There's nearly seven billion of us, armed to the teeth and facing
widespread crop failures as a result of sudden climate change.
Of course, the earth has seen sudden climate changes before. Asteroid
strikes, BIG volcanoes, and so on. They all have one thing in common:
the top of the food chain gets eliminated.
That would be us.
Jeffrey Scott Linder
Nomally occur over millenia? The science begs to differ with you
Zepp...as I have posted for you before. I guess this post is not the
post where you decide to be honest for a change is it?
>2) There's nearly seven billion of us, armed to the teeth and facing
>widespread crop failures as a result of sudden climate change.
>
>Of course, the earth has seen sudden climate changes before. Asteroid
>strikes, BIG volcanoes, and so on. They all have one thing in common:
>the top of the food chain gets eliminated.
>
>That would be us.
JSL
jcon
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
>
>
> Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> Warming Baloney Alert)
>
This claim that global warming is "controversial"
reminds me of a book I read recently, "The Alarming History of
Medicine". According to the author, even into the 20th century
there were still some doctors who thought the germ theory was
a bunch of nonsense and that washing one's hands prior to
surgery was a silly waste of time.
-jc
>
> Townhall.com ^ | 06/20/06 | Dennis Prager
>
>
>
> Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
>
>
> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> this? After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time,
> Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the
> Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and
> drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So
> why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do
> conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do
> religious people love their children less?
>
> The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist,
> sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously
> don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one
> remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might
> therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming
> thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer
> corporate profits to saving the planet.
>
> But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of
> conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world
> (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big
> business as amoral as leftists do).
>
> No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions
> just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between
> liberals and conservatives.
>
> Here are six more likely explanations:
>
> -- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will
> destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the
> Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria,
> many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT
> Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism);
> secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the
> remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and
> opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).
>
> -- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news
> sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine
> says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried,
> very worried, about global warming.
>
> It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question
> authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media.
> Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But
> conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve
> the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever
> read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk
> radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to
> liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also
> received many years of liberal education.
>
> -- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person,
> liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as
> when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when
> experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals,
> "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given
> area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts
> should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on
> matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater
> wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of
> expertise.
>
> That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel
> Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against
> capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel
> laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel
> laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than,
> let us say, a taxi driver.
>
> -- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far
> lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and
> socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be
> most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil
> such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids
> confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on
> socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global
> warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil
> fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled
> and big business increases its profits.
>
> -- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A
> threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat
> to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest
> threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green
> Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism:
>
> Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold
> the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than
> global warming.
>
> -- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more
> exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils
> committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam
> Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the
> remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or
> secondhand smoke).
Gunner
>> >
>> >Interesting: The people who post in this thread with a left-wing
>> >position are berated by you as buffoons who fell for a troll. The
>> >people who post in this thread with a right-wing position get from you
>> >an approving, if content-free, aol. Hmm...
>>
>> Of course. Im a right winger. Somehow this is new to you? Been
>> living in a cave since '71?
>>
>> Gunner
>
>Alas, your fame is not so widespread as you seem to think. This is, to
>the best of my recollection, the first time you have impinged upon my
>consciousness. But that isn't really the point, unless you are
>suggesting that it is impossible for a right winger to support his
>position by employing facts and logic. If this is your belief, surely
>this would suggest that you ought to reconsider your position. Or do
>you consider this a religious dogma, outside the realm of facts and
>logic?
>
>Richard R. Hershberger
Frankly Hersy..Ive never heard of you either, and I dont feel any gain
since I have.
I answered the question. If you dont like the answer...tough noogies.
Gunner
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:46:55 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 20 Jun 2006 11:37:11 -0700, "jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Gunner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:21:31 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>>>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -- The Left believes in experts.
>>>> >
>>>> >And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not a fair comparison. Since Limbaugh, Coulter,
>>>and Hannity never had any credibility to begin with,
>>>they don't have to worry about losing it.
>>
>>Your opinion is noted.
>>
>>Say..seen any exploding gas tanks recently on TV?
>>
>>Laugh laugh laugh
>
>I bet I could find misrepresentations by any of those three just as
>big as the 20 year old incident you are referring to.
>
>But then, being a cowardly American right winger, you NEED your
>leaders to lie to you. You expect it. It's what you deserve.
your opinion, like that of a Downs Syndrome victim, is noted with
amusement, and ignored.
Gunner
Gunner
Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
You are aware that that debt clock has been running in one fashion or
another, for 50+ yrs, are you not? We are still paying the debt on
LBJs Great Society..hell..FDRs misadventures.
So?
Gunner
They are not???? Amazon.com begs to differ with you.
rrh...@acme.com
Gunner wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2006 07:35:53 -0700, rrh...@acme.com wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >Interesting: The people who post in this thread with a left-wing
> >> >position are berated by you as buffoons who fell for a troll. The
> >> >people who post in this thread with a right-wing position get from you
> >> >an approving, if content-free, aol. Hmm...
> >>
> >> Of course. Im a right winger. Somehow this is new to you? Been
> >> living in a cave since '71?
> >>
> >> Gunner
> >
> >Alas, your fame is not so widespread as you seem to think. This is, to
> >the best of my recollection, the first time you have impinged upon my
> >consciousness. But that isn't really the point, unless you are
> >suggesting that it is impossible for a right winger to support his
> >position by employing facts and logic. If this is your belief, surely
> >this would suggest that you ought to reconsider your position. Or do
> >you consider this a religious dogma, outside the realm of facts and
> >logic?
> >
> >Richard R. Hershberger
>
> Frankly Hersy..Ive never heard of you either, and I dont feel any gain
> since I have.
You are the one who suggested that your reputation was somehow
relevant. I prefer to make my arguments self-contained.
> I answered the question. If you dont like the answer...tough noogies.
>
> Gunner
I didn't ask any questions in my first post in this thread. I did ask
a question in my second post, but you manifestly did not answer it.
But I suppose there was an implied question: do you actually have
anything of substance to say? And yes, you did give an implied answer.
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard Eney
This is one possibility, but this week's edition of SCIENCE discusses a
period -- the Pliocene -- in which the Arctic (and presumably Antarctic)
_was_ green, sea levels were a lot higher, and yet the composition of the
atmosphere was substantially the same as that today. The authors
speculate about possible explanations for the warmer conditions when there
was no greater "greenhouse effect" than there is now. Not tomention that
there weren't any discharges of industrial waste gasses and freon.
-- Dick Eney
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:30:57 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>>Previously, on alt.atheism, Gunner in episode
>><i6gi9215eagplc3ur...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:40:54 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>>> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Previously, on alt.atheism, Sound of Trumpet in episode
>>>><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>...
>>>>
>>>>> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a
>>>>> liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a
>>>>> conservative. Why is this?
>>>>
>>>>Because so-called "conservatives" are these days inclined to ignore
>>>>science and practice "faith."
>>>
>>> Odd coming from an emotions based groupie of a failed political
>>> ideology.
>>
>>And what would that ideology be?
>
> Liberalism of course.
>
> You didnt get the memo?
So since you can only think in simplistic, binary categories, you've
assigned me one that means "not me?"
Tony
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:17:34 GMT, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> You have no reason to fear either. You may have good
> reasons to oppose "conservatives," but not to fear them --
> anymore than I have reasons to fear "liberals."
I recall hearing/reading this somewhere:
"Conservatives believe liberals are wrong. Liberals believe
conservatives are evil"
--
"The most convoluted explanation that fits all the available and made-up
facts is the most likely to be believed by conspiracy theorists"
Tony
> On 20 Jun 2006 19:43:30 -0700, "eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net>
> wrote:
>
> That's complete nonsense. Of course there is "a reasonable
> or respectable scientific position that rejects global
> warming as a real, and human-caused, problem."
It is much easier to vilify your opponent if you state your opinion as a
fact, and then proceed to attack him for not accepting the "fact".
>>Yet the groups
>>above still reject it,
>
> For good reasons, not only purely political reasons.
To some people, the ONLY reasons for believing anything is political.
>>and I can understand their reasons -- even if I
>>consider them irrational, and have no problem holding their positions
>>up for ridicule. But it's important to fairly state their positions
>>first, and I hope I've done so.
>
> No, you haven't. You have mistated their positions and then
> argued against them -- the classic "straw man" tactic.
But that's SO much easier than actually discussing the facts in a
rational manner.
brique
Fester <n...@home.com> wrote in message
news:l79mg.81461$Lg.4...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> brique wrote:
>
> > Fester <n...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:o%2mg.22170$Qg.1...@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> >>MarkA wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do (Global
> >
> > Warming
> >
> >>>>Baloney Alert)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Posted on 06/19/2006 10:13:56 PM PDT by goldstategop
> >>>>
> >>>>
liberal
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>>far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
this?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>just as
> >>
> >>>there is no question that atmospheric levels of CO2 are far higher now
> >>>than they ever have been in the history of the world, as far as we can
> >>>determine.
> >>
> >>many times greater than what we see now or anticipate for the near
> >>future (a century or so), even in the most dire of simulations.
> >
> >
> > It is incorrectly stated. Current green house gas levels are the highest
> > recorded during humanities spell upon the earth. There have been higher
> > levels recorded, but that was during the epochs under which dinosaurs
> > occurred and, eventually, perished.
> >
> >
> >>>There is also no question that high levels of CO2 will
> >>>accelerate the warming that is already occurring.
> >>
> >>reasonably good at modeling CO2 forcing and attempt to address radiative
> >>heat transfer. However, the science is *highly* speculative regarding
> >>the effects of warming on water vapor, which is *much* more of a
> >>significant factor in heat retention. They also do a poor job of
> >>modeling convective heat transfer, which is orders of magnitude more
> >>significant than radiative transfer. The models assume a positive
> >>feedback where the evidence does not support it. In fact, Richard
> >>Lindzen (climatologist at MIT) has been in the forefront of arguing that
> >>the feedback from CO2 buildup is a negative one due to the water vapor
> >>effects (increased cloud cover reflecting more radiation).
> >
> >
> > Okay, so not as much atmospheric warming, just a lot more rain instead?
> > Still not good for coastal communities. But at least you recognise that
> > overall atmopsheric and oceanic temperature increases will affect the
> > current climatic conditions whose stability we have previously taken
for
> > granted.
> > I think there is some near-hysterical over-dependence on 'key' figures
like
> > 'CO2 levels' from both sides of this debate. CO2 is one of the
contributing
> > gases, along with quite a few others, contributing to a process which
> > neither side fully understands. It's not just the raw amounts of any
gas,
> > it's what the 'mix' is in the atmosphere and the consequent effects upon
how
> > that atmosphere then functions. Humans can breathe 'air' with very high
> > oxygen levels, but then the side effects are that metals oxidise much
> > quicker and combustion occurs more easily and with greater intensity. We
can
> > breathe 'air'with much higher CO2 levels, but then we get more lethargic
but
> > combustion is inhibited on the plus side.
>
> Absolutely nobody has claimed that CO2 buildup near the earth's surface
> is significantly affected by global warming or it's causes. Certainly
> combustion produces other pollutants with unhealthy effects (such as
> acid rain, smog, etc), but that is a separate issue that has greatly
> improved since the 1970's in the US.
>
> > We currently have population
> > patterns still highly dependant upon 'traditional' climate conditions,
> > agricultural practices still based on prevailing climctic conditions and
> > whilst the better-off nations may be able to relocate entire coastal
> > populations to higher ground, fund agricultural modifications and modify
> > their entire infrastructure to accomodate climactic changes (which don't
> > have to be 'negative' changes to severely mess-up matters, just listen
to a
> > bunch of farmers debating how much sunshine and rain they have had or
need
> > and when for their harvest to be successful).
>
> During the 18th century we had a mini ice age. Climate *will* change,
> irrespective of anything we do.
>
> > But for the less well-off
> > nations that ability to adapt economically and agriculturally to a
differing
> > climactic model is less certain, in fact, highly unlikely.
>
> Much of the hype of global warming is a result of those notions lacking
> a strong or growing industrial base who want to catch up by
> limiting/slowing the economy of the more industrialized nations. That
> is the real reason behind Kyoto, for example, which exempts China,
> India, Russia, etc.
>
> > That humanity can survive considerable climactic change is probable. The
> > question becomes how much of humanity will be able to do that surviving
and
> > what sort of climate it will have to accomodated in matters like viable
> > crops (very temperature dependent) , building styles (particularily in
> > flood-plains if higher rain-falls are likely), increased or changed
erosion
> > patterns (river and coastal).
>
> Whether we can or cannot survive climate changes, there is insufficient
> evidence to say that we are *causing* climate change. When I say
> insufficient, I mean that the claims being made are extremely dubious
> because as I noted, the factors most important to the problem are the
> least well understood.
Human activity is contributing to climate change, that is simple enough to
understand.
Our industrial and domestic activity is contributing large amounts of heat
into our atmosphere. Our activities contribute large amounts of chemicals
and gases, in varying quantities into our atmosphere. Our agricultural and
urban developments affect watersheds, coastlines, rivers and plains, we
de-forest by the square mile, and we slash and burn more again.
It would take an enormous leap of optimism to assume all of this activity
over the last century or two has had no effect whatsoever or is somehow made
inconsequnetial by comparison to the flatulance of the global beef herd.
The global climate system is affected on a local level by various processes
and consequently this interacts with other localities. This interaction may
be temporary ( such as the effects of the Mt St Helens eruption, or
Krakatoa). Clear-felling large tracts of forest has immediate effects on our
environment, from increased erosion, reduced carbon take-up
'Least well understood' is putting it mildly, we are playing with a giant
chemistry set and relying on good luck that we havent yet added the wrong
concentration of innocent gas A to unknown element B and produced toxic
hazard C. The problem is that the chemistry set is the planet we have to
live on and if we fuck up, we can't just put it all back in the box and
pretend to our parents it was some passing anarcho-pixies that blew up the
kitchen.
>
> > What is easily understood is that climatic change 'appears' to be
occuring
> > with an 'apparent' increased intensity and the changes are moving beyond
the
> > 'range' under which our current civilisation has grown and adapted
itself.
>
> Not at all true. The extreme changes you are talking about occur only
> in simulations that are based on unsubstantiated runaway feedback
> mechanisms (CO2->Warming->more CO2). As Lindzen points out, this
> feedback and the claims based on it are most likely bogus.
If so, it is only one aspect of the situation and it would be as easy to
produce a dozen or so scientists who would claim the opposite. That is why I
qualified my comment with the terms 'appears' and 'apparrent' for the simple
reason that more scientists seem to be supporting that premise than are
opposing it. It is entirely *possible* that Lindzen is right, but it is more
*probable* that the many scientists producing research which rebuts his
claim are right.
>
> > Is this merely a cyclical chift which will revert in a couple of hundred
> > years or so? It's possible, the changes any meaningful climatic change
will
> > inevitably force upon humanity may alleviate some of the forces
promoting
> > that shift. They may have no effect whatsoever. None of us really know.
The
> > shift may be more permanent, lasting in the thousands of years rather
than
> > hundreds. But that will be a problem for our descendents to find the
answer
> > to.
>
> The best that we can do is apply *real* science and skeptical inquiry of
> catastrophic claims that lack substance. We should know when, for
> example, we are being presented with cherry-picked data from advocates
> and when caveats in scientific studies are dropped so as to convey much
> more certainty than the science provides.
Such an admonition applies to both sides of the debate, from the extremes at
both ends of the scale, from the 'we are all going to die tomorrow' brigade
to the 'Problem? What problem?' brigade.
Otherwise we fall into the trap of dismissing all 'bad news' as being
extremistic propaganda and accepting all 'good news' as mere confirmation
that nothing bad is going to happen anyway. The reverse also applies,
healthy skepticism looks in both directions.
>
> >>>Here in the USA, we have adopted a mentality that it is our "right" to
> >>>burn fossil fuels without restraint, to make our daily lives more
> >>>convenient. Now, China is starting to emerge as another country that
> >
> > has
> >
> >>>a lot of pent-up demand for fossil fuels that it is starting to burn,
> >>>dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere.
> >>
> >>Here in America we have determined that we don't need to dismantle our
> >>technological infrastructure to pander to a bunch of chicken littles
> >>with bogus models.
> >
> >
> > I think of more concern to you should be whether your technological
> > infrastructure is capable of supporting your society in the face of
> > climactic change.
> > Coastal defences which can handle category 3 storms are fine if all you
get
> > are category 3 storms. They don't do much if you start getting more Cat
5
> > storms as seems to be the case.
>
> Among the effects of the current climate trends are that storms should
> actually *decrease*. In addition, the claims of ocean level changes are
> entirely unsubstantial. Again, the science regarding the effects of
> water vapor on both temperature and arctic ice point in the opposite
> directions.
Incorrect, hurricanes are affected by oceanic temperature, the warmer the
water the storm is crossing, the more it intensifies the storm, it's one of
the reasons there why there *is* a hurricane season.
And ocean temperatures are recorded as rising over the last 30 years and no
indication that the rise will halt or revert.
>
> >>>All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person.
> >>
> >>Indeed, the effects of the global warming zealots on our way of life is
> >>something to be vigilant against.
> >
> >
> > Is it unconstitutional or just plain un-american to have to listen to
bad
> > news?
>
> It is irrational to dismantle our society in response to dubious, highly
> speculative and inflated claims of disaster.
Why do you assume your society would have to be 'dis-mantled' ? Your
micro-wave ovens, dryers and TV's will work just as well on electricity
from renewable sources.
Invest a little in improved insulation, or home generation systems like
heat-pumps, solar panels, windmill generators, grey-water systems and you
get to save on your utility bills as well making your home a more valuable
asset. One home built here as a research project ended up making money for
the owner, it is so energy-efficeint it contributes surplus power into the
grid and the utility company pays him.
If you are on a natural gas supply, buy a compressor, convert your car to
run on it and you get a tankful of gasoline equivalent for a fraction of the
pump price.
Oh, and you also get to reduce demand for petroleum products, helping keep
raw material prices down so benefiting when you purchase goods made from
petro-chems.
What's not to like about that?
>
> >>> We
> >>>should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to
> >
> > use
> >
> >>>energy more wisely. Do we know absolutely that catastrophe awaits us
if
> >>>we continue our current policies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean
> >>>that we should not take reasonable precautions. It's not like we can
> >
> > flip
> >
> >>>a switch to reverse global warming, once it becomes obvious that
> >
> > disaster
> >
> >>>is, in fact, looming just ahead.
> >>
> >>I agree that we should be promoting alternative energy sources, but not
> >>because of the global warming hype.
> >
> >
> > Frankly, you dont have a choice anyway. Petrochemicals have a limited
> > production life, barring a find or two on the scale of a Saudi Arabia
which
> > may then extend production for a decade or so. if you want affordable
> > gasoline to keep your lifestyle unchanged, then you had better start
> > demanding alternative energy sources to take the strain off current
demand
> > levels for it.
> >
> >
> >>>Unfortunately, we have an administration with close financial ties to
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>fossil fuel industry, and a track record of being unwilling to accept
> >>>scientific consensus as a guide to shaping policy. The current
> >>>conservative view in Washington is that if you don't like what science
> >>>says about your policies, hire a different scientist. Anyone who
> >
> > believes
> >
> >>>that listening to ideologically motivated conservative "scientists" is
a
> >>>sound policy would do well to read Judge Jones' decision in the
> >
> > Kitzmiller
> >
> >>>v. DASB trial, where the Judge rebuked several of the Board members for
> >>>outright lies under oath.
> >>
> >>Pure BS. The Bush administration is highly active in promoting and
> >>bringing alternative energy sources on line. This is another political
> >>myth. We are seeing both massive research and the large-scale roll out
> >>of E85 compatible vehicles, for example, and for the first time in
> >>decades, the plans for new nuclear power plants.
> >
> >
> > Whilst we have seen the total dismantling of the electric-vehicle
scheme,
> > total in that all the leased vehicles have been reclaimed by the
> > manufacturers and crushed.
> > E85 is still 85% petroleum-based product, miles per gallon are reduced
by
> > around 20-25% in the models adapted to run on it compared to 100%
petroleum
> > fuelled models.
> > So, to do the same miles, you will end up using pretty much the same
amount
> > of petroleum based product anyway.
>
> > Currently, its a sham, unless
> > manufacturers can modify their current engines, or build new ones, which
can
> > alter that sham, its just so much PR.
>
> Absolutely not true. Do the math:
>
> 1.25 (lower mileage) * .15 (amount of gas in E85) = (about) .19 gallons
> of gas for the equivalent of a gallon of pure gasoline.
>
> Electric vehicles are a sham, because they require energy to charge the
> batteries.
It would appear my source was mistaken, it stated that E85 was 85%
gasoline/15% ethanol. Further checking shows the opposite, as you note
above, is true. I have sent a snotty e-mail to the author of the article
that misled me.
That said, ethanol has been in common use in Brazil for decades now, one
wonders why it has taken so long for it to spread to a wider audience, but
it is a good thing if it does.
Re: electric powered cars : Indeed they do, but electric power is still more
environmentally cleaner than gasoline. The ideal would be a home generator
system which will charge the batteries for you overnight thus giving you
almost free travel. One sytem uses the waste heat from domestic boiler
systems to generate electricity, rather efficiently too.
>
> > As for nuclear power, lower initial environmental concerns, maybe, but a
> > massive future one when the stations need dismantling. Still, we wont be
> > alive to worry about that so, who gives a fuck, eh?
>
> You really should learn about what you're talking about before
> broadcasting it.
You suggest dismantling decommisioned nuclear power stations is cost free?
So, why is it when the Uk sold its government built nuclear power stations
into the private sector, it had to underwrite the de-commisioning costs
before any private sector investors would buy them?
>
> >>>>One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism
> >>>>threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied
with
> >>>>fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say
they
> >>>>fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Or, our grandchildren may ask us what coastal cities like "New York"
and
> >>>"Los Angeles" were like. What was it like when there were world-wide
> >
> > food
> >
> >>>riots, before famine and drought killed billions of people in a few
> >
> > short
> >
> >>>years? If our grandkids are really smart, they may want to know what
> >>>Saddam Hussain did to justify having the USA invade his country,
promote
> >>>American Imperialism, and deepen the rift between the Middle East and
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>Western nations. Hell, people TODAY would like to know the answer to
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>one!
> >>
> >>Yes, hyperbolic crap is the weapon of choice for the warming hysterics.
> >> Here's a good place to start your education:
> >>
> >>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >><^}})<
> >> /\/\
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> <^}})<
> /\/\
Gene Ward Smith
Tony wrote:
> I recall hearing/reading this somewhere:
>
> "Conservatives believe liberals are wrong. Liberals believe
> conservatives are evil"
Ann Coulter is a liberal? Go figure.
2500 Dead
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:49:31 -0700, 2505 Dead
><zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:46:55 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 20 Jun 2006 11:37:11 -0700, "jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gunner wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:21:31 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
>>>>> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> -- The Left believes in experts.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >And the right believes in Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> Say..hows Dan Rather doing these days?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's not a fair comparison. Since Limbaugh, Coulter,
>>>>and Hannity never had any credibility to begin with,
>>>>they don't have to worry about losing it.
>>>
>>>Your opinion is noted.
>>>
>>>Say..seen any exploding gas tanks recently on TV?
>>>
>>>Laugh laugh laugh
>>
>>I bet I could find misrepresentations by any of those three just as
>>big as the 20 year old incident you are referring to.
>>
>>But then, being a cowardly American right winger, you NEED your
>>leaders to lie to you. You expect it. It's what you deserve.
>
>your opinion, like that of a Downs Syndrome victim, is noted with
>amusement, and ignored.
Well, ignorance IS bliss...
Mike Schilling
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150913810....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
She is? Shit. Now I have to go be something else.
brique
> imb...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652253/posts
> >>
> >>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives Do
> >>(Global Warming Baloney Alert)
> >
> >
> >
> > Next Victim of Warming: The Beaches
> >
> > By CORNELIA DEAN
> > Published: June 20, 2006
> >
> > NEW SMYRNA BEACH, Fla. - When scientists consider the
> > possible effects of global warming, there is a lot they don't know.
> > But they can say one thing for sure: sea levels will rise.
> >
> > This rising water will be felt along the artificially maintained
> > beaches of New Jersey, in the vanishing marshes of Louisiana,
> > even on the ocean bluffs of California. According to a 2000
> > report by the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the
> > Environment, at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of
> > the United States coast may be lost to rising seas by 2060.
> > There were 350,000 of these houses when the report was
> > written, but today there are far more.
> >
> > "If it is as bad as people are saying, at some point it will be a
> > crisis," said Thomas Tomasello of Tallahassee, Fla., a lawyer
> > who represents many owners of coastal property. But he does
> > not dwell on it. "I cannot deal with sea level rise," he said.
> > "That's such a huge issue."
> >
> > Though most of the country's ocean beaches are eroding,
> > few coastal jurisdictions consider sea level rise in their
> > coastal planning, and still fewer incorporate the fact that the
> > rise is accelerating. Instead, they are sticking with policies
> > that geologists say may help them in the short term but will
> > be untenable or even destructive in the future.
> >
> > [........................................]
> >
> > Does the Government Know?
> >
> > James Titus, an Environmental Protection Agency project
> > manager for sea level rise who is leading an agency mapping
> > effort, wrote an essay for a law review a few years ago in which
> > he argued that the nation needed to make decisions on whether
> > or how wetlands and beaches should be allowed to migrate
> > inland. Otherwise, he wrote, government policy is saying, in
> > effect, that "wetlands and beaches are important resources
> > that must be preserved for the duration of this generation, but
> > whether they survive for the next 50 to 100 years is not our
> > problem."
> >
> > Mr. Titus titled his essay, published in the Golden Gate Law
> > Review in 2000, "Does the U.S. Government Realize That the
> > Sea Is Rising?" It was accompanied by a disclaimer noting
> > that it did not represent the views of the E.P.A.
> >
> > Reached by telephone, Mr. Titus said he was no longer
> > allowed to discuss such issues publicly and referred questions
> > to the agency's press office, which would not allow him to speak
> > about it on the record. Instead, requests for on-the-record infor-
> > mation were referred to Bill Wehrum, the agency's acting assist-
> > ant administrator for air and radiation.
> >
> > "The administration's strategy for dealing with climate change
> > is to continue to put significant resources into understanding
> > climate change," Mr. Wehrum said. "The goal is to develop
> > information that will be useful for local planners. This is about
> > looking at coastal areas and assessing how those areas are
> > used and then helping people with the question of how much
> > protection they might want to provide for those areas if sea
> > level continues to rise."
> >
> > In general, Mr. Wehrum said, it seemed quite likely that people
> > would want to protect developed areas and might be willing to
> > let undeveloped areas like wildlife refuges or coastal farms
> > migrate.
> >
> > Meanwhile, though, people like Ms. Winters and Dr. Williams
> > watch as, one by one, people make decisions that will
> > collectively have big implications for beaches.
> >
> > "The levee failures and flooding of Katrina were no surprise to
> > geologists who studied the area," Dr. Williams said, and
> > damage from future coastal storms will not surprise them either.
> > But he said, "I don't think we have the political will at the
> > administration level" to confront the issue.
> >
> > "We're rebuilding bigger and better," Dr. Williams said.
> > "We see that in every storm."
>
> More politically-motivated nonsense. The best scientific evidence
> shows that warming has resulted in higher precipitation levels in the
> extreme latitudes. The result is that the ice packs are actually
> *increasing*.
Do you have a source for this claim, as it does seem to be accepted that the
ice-fields are not *increasing* at all, but shrinking further each thaw
season and refreezing less in the winter season. This is also evidence that
there is increased glacier shrinkage and increased thawing of previously
perma-frost regions
>I now, dramatic video of ice calving along the
> continental shelf looks scary, but it's been going on for billions of
> years! If anything, the global warming (whatever the causes) is
> reducing sea levels.
Physical impossibility, warmer oceans occupy more space than a comparable
cold amount of water, or maybe an oceanographer should explain:
""Global sea level can rise for one of two reasons," says JPL oceanographer
Dr. Josh Willis. "One is when water gets hotter, it expands. The other is
when water is added to the ocean, which changes its mass. That happens, for
example, when glaciers melt."
So, for your lower sea levels and increased ice-fields, what is required is
global cooling, and nobody seems to have noticed that happening.
>Furthermore, the difference in temperatures across
> high and mid latitudes is falling as a result of the higher latitudes
> warming up, resulting in *less* fuel for tropical storms (the
> temperature gradients are what fuels them).
Incorrect, hurricanes are not formed by such temperature differences,
hurricanes (or typhoons, or cyclones) occur thus:
"Hurricanes form over tropical waters (between 8° and 20° latitude) in areas
of high humidity, light winds, and warm sea surface temperatures (typically
26.5°C [80°F] or greater). These conditions usually prevail in the summer
and early fall months of the tropical North Atlantic and North Pacific
Oceans and for this reason, hurricane "season" in the northern hemisphere
runs from June through November."
next: "The first sign of hurricane genesis (development) is the appearance
of a cluster of thunderstorms over the tropical oceans, called a tropical
disturbance. Tropical disturbances most commonly form in one of three
different ways, all of which involve the convergence of surface winds. Near
the equator, the easterly trade winds converge (come together) to trigger
numerous thunderstorms in a region called the Intertropical Convergence Zone
(ITCZ). Occasionally, a cluster of thunderstorms will break away from the
ITCZ and become better organized. Another mechanism is the convergence of
air that occurs along a mid-latitude frontal boundary that has made its way
into the Gulf of Mexico or off the East Coast of Florida. The last mechanism
is the easterly wave, a tropical disturbance that travels from east to west
in the region of the tropical easterlies. Converging winds on the east side
of the easterly wave trigger the development of thunderstorms. In fact, most
Atlantic hurricanes can be traced to easterly waves that form over Western
Africa."
then: "Given favorable conditions, the tropical disturbance can become
better organized, indicated by falling surface pressures in the area around
the storm and the development of a cyclonic circulation (counter-clockwise
in the Northern Hemisphere). Surface pressures fall as water vapor condenses
and releases latent heat into areas within the tropical disturbance. (Latent
heat is the heat energy released or absorbed during the phase change of a
substance-in this case, water vapor.) In response to the atmospheric
heating, the surrounding air becomes less dense and begins to rise. As the
warm air rises, it expands and cools triggering more condensation, the
release of more latent heat, and a further increase in buoyancy, thus
allowing more air to rise. A chain reaction (or feedback mechanism) is now
in progress, as the rising temperatures in the center of the storm cause
surface pressures to lower even more. Lower surface pressures encourage a
more rapid inflow of air at the surface, more thunderstorms, more heat,
lower surface pressure, stronger winds, and so on. If the storm is far
enough from the equator (generally at least 8° of latitude), the Coriolis
force will induce the converging winds into a counterclockwise circulation
about the storm's area of lowest surface pressure."
and so on.... nothing there about temperature difference between the north
and south.
BTW: If the higher latitudes are warming up, how is your increased
precipitation and ice-fields formation occuring?
> If anything, the effects of
> global warming are a *reduction* of hurricanes, like Katrina!
Incorrect, warmer oceans increase the likelihood of conditions occuring in
which a tropical storm can transform into a hurricane. Transit across warm
oceans will increase the intensity of the storm. What will decrease the
intensity is transit across cooler water or a land mass, which is why such
storms tend to peter out once they hit the shoreline or 'veer' along the
coast itself until they hit the colder northern water.
But, back to your theory, So what is causing the increase in the number of
higher category storms like Katrina then? Global cooling?
>NO suffered from a sinking of the land and from diversion of money from
> levees to the pockets of their corrupt pols (Does the name William
> Jefferson ring a bell? How about Nagin or Landrieu?)
Lousiana as a whole is sinking at a considerable rate, this is not any great
secret nor a recent event. Reclaimed marshland does sink as water is pumped
out, the Dutch have known this for centuries, and it is known about in the
Fenland area of the UK which has also been reclaimed from sea-marshes.
Sinking can also occur because of geological causes, such as the tilting of
the landmass of Great Britain, which is causing Scotland to rise and
Southern England to sink.
One would assume therefore that the threat of sea-level changes or increased
intensity of storms would be amplified and would warrant a greater degree of
consideration that appears to have been the case. This would apply to local,
state and federal government and politicians.
It is plain that the prime defence for NO against a category 5 storm was
wishful thinking on all levels coupled with a cavalier, 'It hasn't happened
yet, it may never happen anyway so instead let's spend the money on
something the voters will like at the next election' attitude.
And the laugh of it is, those voters will probably re-elect the same guys,
local, state and federal, next election on promises of better protection in
future which will be diluted down and siphoned off into more pleasing
initiatives and when the next Cat5 hits, they will all blame each other
again.
2500 Dead
At least one of the extinction level events caused by climate took
three million years. If anything, major climate change talkes longer
than just millennia.
>
>
>>2) There's nearly seven billion of us, armed to the teeth and facing
>>widespread crop failures as a result of sudden climate change.
>>
>>Of course, the earth has seen sudden climate changes before. Asteroid
>>strikes, BIG volcanoes, and so on. They all have one thing in common:
>>the top of the food chain gets eliminated.
>>
>>That would be us.
>
>JSL
And suddenly, Jeffy goes silent.
wbarwell
> Robert Sturgeon wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:17:34 GMT, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You have no reason to fear either. You may have good
>> reasons to oppose "conservatives," but not to fear them --
>> anymore than I have reasons to fear "liberals."
>
> I recall hearing/reading this somewhere:
>
> "Conservatives believe liberals are wrong. Liberals believe
> conservatives are evil"
>
Because they do evil acts.
--
Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and
manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a
prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten
by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot
and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her
face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be
drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to
be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the
closets."
- Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148
Cheerful Charlie
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
That I am, but that is still no excuse for how much Reagan and Bush have
added to the national debt. It is still sending the bill to the next
generations, even if a Republican does it.
-- regards, Peter B. Perlsø - liberterran.org - antipartiet.dk "The
politicians don't just want your money. They want your soul. They want
you to be worn down by taxes until you are dependent and helpless." -
James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
raven1
<ton...@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>> On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>> <soundof...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
>>>is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
>>>this?
>>
>>
>> Because liberals actually give a shit about the planet?
>
>Why is it that liberals are so tolerant, except when it comes to
>different political philosophies?
Liberals are no more or less tolerant of other political philosophies
than anyone else, but we don't suffer fools gladly.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Str...@flashlight.net
>On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
><soundof...@fastmail.fm> in news message
><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives
>
>
>As a moderate and independent, I fear conservatives more than global
>warming.
Here's an opportunity to reinforce your point by citing key
presidents.
Which conservative was president during the Waco incident?
Which conservative was president during the Ruby Ridge fiasco?
Which conservative president lied about an attack on a US ship
and officially launched the war in Viet Nam? Hint: This was also a
president that despised the news media.
Which conservative was president at the beginning of the Korean war?
Which conservative was president at the beginning of WWII?
Which conservative was president at the beginning of WWI?
Which conservative was president during the Ruby Ridge fiasco?
Which conservative president was responsible for federal income
tax withholding?
Which conservative president promoted the Income Tax Act?
Which conservative president promoted the Federal Reserve Act?
Which conservative president confiscated the gold of all American
citizens?
>Liz #658 BAAWA
>
>Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
>belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
>-- Bertrand Russell
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Gordon Hill
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal
> is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is
> this?
Conservatives have more money and can afford air conditioning is my
guess.
Howard Brazee
Bjørn Perlsø) wrote:
>That I am, but that is still no excuse for how much Reagan and Bush have
>added to the national debt. It is still sending the bill to the next
>generations, even if a Republican does it.
The only real difference is when the party of Goldwater does it, it's
a travesty of what they have stood for whenever they were out of
power.
The Borrow and Spend party.
Mike Schilling
news:a6cj92dn9le9ukcmm...@4ax.com...
>
> Which conservative was president during the Ruby Ridge fiasco?
George H. W. Bush
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>>Because liberals tend to be self-loathing, whether towards their
>>>country or their species.
>>
>>Some are. But in general, I see more Liberals who act as though they
>>care about others than I see Conservatives acting as though they care
>>about others.
>>
>>Whether their acts help others is a different issue.
>
>Remove your blinders
What didn't I see?
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
Fester
>
>
> Human activity is contributing to climate change, that is simple enough to
> understand.
No it isn't nearly so simple as advocacy groups and some pols would like
to make it seem. In fact, the claim is quite dubious.
> Our industrial and domestic activity is contributing large amounts of heat
> into our atmosphere.
Another undemonstrated claim. What we know is that human activity is
contributing to elevated levels of CO2. We do not know whether these
CO2 levels are contributing to climate change.
> Our activities contribute large amounts of chemicals
> and gases, in varying quantities into our atmosphere. Our agricultural and
> urban developments affect watersheds, coastlines, rivers and plains, we
> de-forest by the square mile, and we slash and burn more again.
> It would take an enormous leap of optimism to assume all of this activity
> over the last century or two has had no effect whatsoever or is somehow made
> inconsequnetial by comparison to the flatulance of the global beef herd.
>
> The global climate system is affected on a local level by various processes
> and consequently this interacts with other localities. This interaction may
> be temporary ( such as the effects of the Mt St Helens eruption, or
> Krakatoa). Clear-felling large tracts of forest has immediate effects on our
> environment, from increased erosion, reduced carbon take-up
>
> 'Least well understood' is putting it mildly, we are playing with a giant
> chemistry set and relying on good luck that we havent yet added the wrong
> concentration of innocent gas A to unknown element B and produced toxic
> hazard C. The problem is that the chemistry set is the planet we have to
> live on and if we fuck up, we can't just put it all back in the box and
> pretend to our parents it was some passing anarcho-pixies that blew up the
> kitchen.
We are playing with an extremely complex system that has proven to be
quite robust in many ways, and fragile in others. We know that CFC's
for example are a very destructive substance when introduced into
atmosphere. The same cannot be said of CO2. I say that introducing CO2
into our environment is not a good thing, and that we should concern
ourselves with reducing our so-called carbon footprints. But, we should
do so in a reasonable manner that is not destructive to our way of life.
Not based on what we know or can reasonably expect. We should *not*
abandon our skepticism of outrageous claims and turn Luddite over
cherry-picked computer simulations with large known sources of error.
>>>What is easily understood is that climatic change 'appears' to be
>
> occuring
>
>>>with an 'apparent' increased intensity and the changes are moving beyond
>
> the
>
>>>'range' under which our current civilisation has grown and adapted
>
> itself.
>
>>Not at all true. The extreme changes you are talking about occur only
>>in simulations that are based on unsubstantiated runaway feedback
>>mechanisms (CO2->Warming->more CO2). As Lindzen points out, this
>>feedback and the claims based on it are most likely bogus.
>
>
> If so, it is only one aspect of the situation and it would be as easy to
> produce a dozen or so scientists who would claim the opposite. That is why I
> qualified my comment with the terms 'appears' and 'apparrent' for the simple
> reason that more scientists seem to be supporting that premise than are
> opposing it. It is entirely *possible* that Lindzen is right, but it is more
> *probable* that the many scientists producing research which rebuts his
> claim are right.
You choose to measure probability by counting informed noses on each
side of the argument. I don't find that to be an intelligent guide to
decision-making. Especially when so man of the scientists you hear
speaking up (such as the infamous Union of Concerned Scientists) do not
work in a field relevant to climate.
>>>Is this merely a cyclical chift which will revert in a couple of hundred
>>>years or so? It's possible, the changes any meaningful climatic change
>
> will
>
>>>inevitably force upon humanity may alleviate some of the forces
>
> promoting
>
>>>that shift. They may have no effect whatsoever. None of us really know.
>
> The
>
>>>shift may be more permanent, lasting in the thousands of years rather
>
> than
>
>>>hundreds. But that will be a problem for our descendents to find the
>
> answer
>
>>>to.
>>
>>The best that we can do is apply *real* science and skeptical inquiry of
>>catastrophic claims that lack substance. We should know when, for
>>example, we are being presented with cherry-picked data from advocates
>>and when caveats in scientific studies are dropped so as to convey much
>>more certainty than the science provides.
>
>
> Such an admonition applies to both sides of the debate, from the extremes at
> both ends of the scale, from the 'we are all going to die tomorrow' brigade
> to the 'Problem? What problem?' brigade.
> Otherwise we fall into the trap of dismissing all 'bad news' as being
> extremistic propaganda and accepting all 'good news' as mere confirmation
> that nothing bad is going to happen anyway. The reverse also applies,
> healthy skepticism looks in both directions.
Yes, it does apply to both sides. However, when one is asking people to
make great sacrifices through public policy, it behooves one to
demonstrate that it is necessary to do so.
Ocean temperature *gradients* cause hurricanes, not simply average
temperature. Ocean temperature gradients are decreasing as the result
of the warming that we have observed.
>>>>>All of this should be of concern to any reasonably intelligent person.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, the effects of the global warming zealots on our way of life is
>>>>something to be vigilant against.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is it unconstitutional or just plain un-american to have to listen to
>
> bad
>
>>>news?
>>
>>It is irrational to dismantle our society in response to dubious, highly
>>speculative and inflated claims of disaster.
>
>
> Why do you assume your society would have to be 'dis-mantled' ? Your
> micro-wave ovens, dryers and TV's will work just as well on electricity
> from renewable sources.
Which sources would those be? And what is the cost per kWh of the
alternatives? The problem would disappear tomorrow if the economics
favored clean renewable sources at present. I'm all in favor trying to
bring this about, both through research and incentives. I see a much
worse problem from our petrol consumption that misguided climate fears.
that is the implications on our national security. It is for this
reason that I would actually be in favor of *higher* taxes on gasoline.
This runs counter to economic better sense, but I find it a reasonable
measure to remove our reliance on unstable and unsavory foreign sources
of oil.
> Invest a little in improved insulation, or home generation systems like
> heat-pumps, solar panels, windmill generators, grey-water systems and you
> get to save on your utility bills as well making your home a more valuable
> asset. One home built here as a research project ended up making money for
> the owner, it is so energy-efficeint it contributes surplus power into the
> grid and the utility company pays him.
All good things to do if you can afford the up front investments.
> If you are on a natural gas supply, buy a compressor, convert your car to
> run on it and you get a tankful of gasoline equivalent for a fraction of the
> pump price.
And natural gas is renewable and safe in motor vehicles?
> Oh, and you also get to reduce demand for petroleum products, helping keep
> raw material prices down so benefiting when you purchase goods made from
> petro-chems.
> What's not to like about that?
I'm a big fan of bio fuels for vehicles as well. I would love to see us
following Brazil's example.
>>>>>We
>>>>>should be seriously looking at alternative energy sources, and ways to
<snip>
>>>As for nuclear power, lower initial environmental concerns, maybe, but a
>>>massive future one when the stations need dismantling. Still, we wont be
>>>alive to worry about that so, who gives a fuck, eh?
>>
>>You really should learn about what you're talking about before
>>broadcasting it.
>
>
> You suggest dismantling decommisioned nuclear power stations is cost free?
> So, why is it when the Uk sold its government built nuclear power stations
> into the private sector, it had to underwrite the de-commisioning costs
> before any private sector investors would buy them?
Now you know perfectly well that I said nothing of the kind. I simply
dismissed this suggestion that nuclear power is not advantageous simply
because of this issue.
Fester
According to some studies, the surface are is decreasing, but the depth
of the ice packs are increasing. I will have to say that science that I
have seen is rather uncertain in this area about the net gain or loss.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
>>I now, dramatic video of ice calving along the
>>continental shelf looks scary, but it's been going on for billions of
>>years! If anything, the global warming (whatever the causes) is
>>reducing sea levels.
>
>
> Physical impossibility, warmer oceans occupy more space than a comparable
> cold amount of water, or maybe an oceanographer should explain:
>
> ""Global sea level can rise for one of two reasons," says JPL oceanographer
> Dr. Josh Willis. "One is when water gets hotter, it expands. The other is
> when water is added to the ocean, which changes its mass. That happens, for
> example, when glaciers melt."
>
> So, for your lower sea levels and increased ice-fields, what is required is
> global cooling, and nobody seems to have noticed that happening.
>
> >Furthermore, the difference in temperatures across
>
>>high and mid latitudes is falling as a result of the higher latitudes
>>warming up, resulting in *less* fuel for tropical storms (the
>>temperature gradients are what fuels them).
The arctic ice packs exist partially in the water, but mostly it is
grounded. But to address your point (which isn't a very good one, since
the volumetric comparison is not a very significant factor) ice occupies
more space than liquid H2O. That is why it floats. What matters most
is how much H2O is locked up in ice outside of the ocean (on top of the
sea ice pack and on land).
> Incorrect, hurricanes are not formed by such temperature differences,
> hurricanes (or typhoons, or cyclones) occur thus:
>
> "Hurricanes form over tropical waters (between 8° and 20° latitude) in areas
> of high humidity, light winds, and warm sea surface temperatures (typically
> 26.5°C [80°F] or greater). These conditions usually prevail in the summer
> and early fall months of the tropical North Atlantic and North Pacific
> Oceans and for this reason, hurricane "season" in the northern hemisphere
> runs from June through November."
>
> next: "The first sign of hurricane genesis (development) is the appearance
> of a cluster of thunderstorms over the tropical oceans, called a tropical
> disturbance. Tropical disturbances most commonly form in one of three
> different ways, all of which involve the convergence of surface winds. Near
> the equator, the easterly trade winds converge (come together) to trigger
> numerous thunderstorms in a region called the Intertropical Convergence Zone
> (ITCZ). Occasionally, a cluster of thunderstorms will break away from the
> ITCZ and become better organized. Another mechanism is the convergence of
> air that occurs along a mid-latitude frontal boundary that has made its way
> into the Gulf of Mexico or off the East Coast of Florida. The last mechanism
> is the easterly wave, a tropical disturbance that travels from east to west
> in the region of the tropical easterlies. Converging winds on the east side
> of the easterly wave trigger the development of thunderstorms. In fact, most
> Atlantic hurricanes can be traced to easterly waves that form over Western
> Africa."
The above paragraph is most relevant to this discussion. These trade
winds and currents are driven by corialus effects (which are not
by-products of climate) and by temperature gradients (which are)!
> then: "Given favorable conditions, the tropical disturbance can become
> better organized, indicated by falling surface pressures in the area around
> the storm and the development of a cyclonic circulation (counter-clockwise
> in the Northern Hemisphere). Surface pressures fall as water vapor condenses
> and releases latent heat into areas within the tropical disturbance. (Latent
> heat is the heat energy released or absorbed during the phase change of a
> substance-in this case, water vapor.) In response to the atmospheric
> heating, the surrounding air becomes less dense and begins to rise. As the
> warm air rises, it expands and cools triggering more condensation, the
> release of more latent heat, and a further increase in buoyancy, thus
> allowing more air to rise. A chain reaction (or feedback mechanism) is now
> in progress, as the rising temperatures in the center of the storm cause
> surface pressures to lower even more. Lower surface pressures encourage a
> more rapid inflow of air at the surface, more thunderstorms, more heat,
> lower surface pressure, stronger winds, and so on. If the storm is far
> enough from the equator (generally at least 8° of latitude), the Coriolis
> force will induce the converging winds into a counterclockwise circulation
> about the storm's area of lowest surface pressure."
>
> and so on.... nothing there about temperature difference between the north
> and south.
>
> BTW: If the higher latitudes are warming up, how is your increased
> precipitation and ice-fields formation occuring?
Higher temps yield increased atmospheric water vapor.
>>If anything, the effects of
>>global warming are a *reduction* of hurricanes, like Katrina!
>
>
> Incorrect, warmer oceans increase the likelihood of conditions occuring in
> which a tropical storm can transform into a hurricane.
The distribution of the warmth is what matters here.
> Transit across warm
> oceans will increase the intensity of the storm. What will decrease the
> intensity is transit across cooler water or a land mass, which is why such
> storms tend to peter out once they hit the shoreline or 'veer' along the
> coast itself until they hit the colder northern water.
>
> But, back to your theory, So what is causing the increase in the number of
> higher category storms like Katrina then? Global cooling?
The earth's climate is well-known to produce cyclical variations in
storm intensity that *nobody* understands very well. We experienced
very quiet conditions in the 1970's. Now we are seeing heavier
activity, that is predicted to last a decade or 2 until it subsides.
Meteorologist also predict that hurricane landfalls should work there
way further North along the US' Atlantic coast over this period of high
intensity.
>>NO suffered from a sinking of the land and from diversion of money from
>>levees to the pockets of their corrupt pols (Does the name William
>>Jefferson ring a bell? How about Nagin or Landrieu?)
>
>
> Lousiana as a whole is sinking at a considerable rate, this is not any great
> secret nor a recent event. Reclaimed marshland does sink as water is pumped
> out, the Dutch have known this for centuries, and it is known about in the
> Fenland area of the UK which has also been reclaimed from sea-marshes.
> Sinking can also occur because of geological causes, such as the tilting of
> the landmass of Great Britain, which is causing Scotland to rise and
> Southern England to sink.
> One would assume therefore that the threat of sea-level changes or increased
> intensity of storms would be amplified and would warrant a greater degree of
> consideration that appears to have been the case. This would apply to local,
> state and federal government and politicians.
> It is plain that the prime defence for NO against a category 5 storm was
> wishful thinking on all levels coupled with a cavalier, 'It hasn't happened
> yet, it may never happen anyway so instead let's spend the money on
> something the voters will like at the next election' attitude.
> And the laugh of it is, those voters will probably re-elect the same guys,
> local, state and federal, next election on promises of better protection in
> future which will be diluted down and siphoned off into more pleasing
> initiatives and when the next Cat5 hits, they will all blame each other
> again.
Sad, but true.
Robert Sturgeon
You'll get an argument from some conservatives about that.
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Liz
<rst...@inreach.com> in news message
<40ni921pldj9rd57u...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:17:34 GMT, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 20 Jun 2006 09:13:04 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>><soundof...@fastmail.fm> in news message
>><1150819983.9...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More The Conservatives
>>
>>
>>As a moderate and independent, I fear conservatives more than global
>>warming.
>
>You have no reason to fear either. You may have good
>reasons to oppose "conservatives," but not to fear them --
>anymore than I have reasons to fear "liberals."
I think that neocons do not have a sense of humor. When someone can
neither laugh at themselves nor admit mistakes, they are dangerous.
I liked Barry Goldwater.