Global Warming and what you can do to against it
..
As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
planet. It will also affect us;
rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
due to droughts are some of the effects.
As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
1) Insulation: Do you know that you can save 50% of heating energy
(and money) by insulation ? Especially in
the times the financial crisis, you can make the insulation cheaper
and save the money when oil, natural gas and
coal prices are higher due to higher demand. What needs to be
insulated ? Firstly the Roof, since warmer air
goes up, then the windows (tripple glass or at least dual glass and
shutters for additional insulation at night,
and in summer time), then the outer walls. Also small cracks, leaks in
weatherstrips etc should be eliminated.
An infrared inspection of your house for heat losses would be the best
way to find out what else can be done.
A wintergarden will help heating your house additionally in winter
time.
2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
charge them during less demand ours like at night
will also save a lot of energy and money.
3) Lightning; the use of Compact fluorescent lamps instead of
traditioanl light bulbs will save 80% of energy, the
use of very new LED lamps will save even more.
4) Buying local. Most of the energy is spent for transportation of
imported goods, especially food. By buying local
made food you not only save a lot of energy, but also create more jobs
at home.
5) Heating; there are several way to save energy and money by changing
the heating method; you can use the free heat of the nature by adding
a solar thermal equipment to heat the water for taking showers and
also to heat your home. Additionally you can use a heating pump, which
funtions like a reverse fridge; it takes the heat of the outside and
transfers it to your home. You use much much less energy to do this
(electricity to pump a liquid).
6) Your car; by buying a hybrid car you save 30% of fuel, by
converting your car to CNG (compressed natural gas) you can save a lot
of CO2, since CNG has much less carbon but more hydrogen, which will
result in water (CH4 instead of C8H18). CNG will also result in much
more energy output per mass. The conversion is not very expensive. It
is totally save, since the storage has to resist a certain pressure.
Of course there are also other smaller things you have to consider:
- Each 60 pounds increases fuel consumption by 10%.
- Aggressive driving (speeding, rapid acceleration, and hard braking)
wastes gas. It can lower your highway gas
mileage 33% and city mileage 5%.
- Drive at lowest and constant rpms; 2000 rpm are enough; you can save
up to 30%. Even a Porsche can be driven
at the 4th gear at 20 mph and at the 6th gear at 50 mph with 2.5
times less fuel consumption.
- Avoid high speeds. Driving 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, could cut
your fuel economy by 15%.
- Use air conditioning only when necessary
- Keep tires properly inflated and aligned to improve your gasoline
mileage by around 3.3%.
- Replace clogged air filters to improve gas mileage by as much as 10%
and protect your engine
- Combine errands into one trip. Several short trips, each one taken
from a cold start, can use twice as much fuel
as one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm. Do
not forget that in the first mile your car uses
8 times more fuel, in the second mile 4 times and only after the
fourth mile it becomes normal
7) Buying A++ or A+++ equipments. The extra money you pay for this
will be back in 1-2 years. It will save a lot of
CO2.
8) Try to save also energy at your job; you can do it by insulation,
more efficient processes, heat recovery, more
efficient pumps/engines, low temperature processses, material
saving, water savings, optimization, automatic
turning off of unnecessary energy using processes, control if some
processes are really necessary (the change
of some processes makes other processes sometimes unnecesarry on
which nobody has thought about).
9) Solar cells for your own home; at the moment solar cells are very
cheap since there is an overproduction.
These cells can operate a fridge for example.
Regards.
DI
".." <sustainabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e2ac90f-f9f0-4300...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All,
> As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
> planet. It will also affect us;
> rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
> waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
> brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
> due to droughts are some of the effects.
> As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
> coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
> can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
>
>
Tell the folks around here about global warming as we dig out of the largest
snow storm on recorded history. This has been the coldest December on
record also.
Global Warming B.S,
Neil Brooks
> ".." <sustainable.future...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So ... when the DJIA drops on a single day, are you AS convinced that
the stock market is a stupid place to invest your money??
Our public schools .... wow .... :-(
Fritz
It will do no good to argue with the Gobal Warming Nutcases. This is
their religion and that is that.
What me must do is vote out any of these crazy global warming
alarmists so they cannot steal more money from the taxpayers.
DI
andre...@aol.com
Regardless of your position on global warming, do you know the
difference between weather and climate?
AMuzi
Yes. Actual data is suspect because it doesn't conform to
certain models. Anything else?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Sornson
> news:9e2ac90f-f9f0-4300...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
{Bunch of BS "facts" snipped}
>> As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
>> coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
>> can every single person do to reduce global warming?
For starters, not attend any more wacko fruitcake conferences:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD4D020091214
HTH! BS (documented...again)
Jay Beattie
> > ".." <sustainable.future...@gmail.com> was quoted as writing in
Get rid of your dog. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/23/Book-Dog-SUV-have-same-carbon-footprint/UPI-30131256332111
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010183212_dogcarbon02m.html
-- Jay Beattie.
Andre Jute
> On Dec 27, 1:03 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
> > > ".." <sustainable.future...@gmail.com> was quoted as writing in
> > >news:9e2ac90f-f9f0-4300...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > {Bunch of BS "facts" snipped}
>
> > >> As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
> > >> coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
> > >> can every single person do to reduce global warming?
>
> > For starters, not attend any more wacko fruitcake conferences:
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD4D020091214
>
> > HTH! BS (documented...again)
>
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Bloody hell! We all know RBT isn't an arena for the the delicate and
the sensitive, but it is really rough to tell a man to eat his dog,
even for an attorney. What next?
Andre Jute
Down with the spoilsport Telemachus!
Roger Shoaf
".." <sustainabl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e2ac90f-f9f0-4300...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Dear All,
> As you know global warming is endangering the future of life on the
> planet. It will also affect us;
> rising sea levels, dwindling water supplies, mass deaths due to heat
> waves, stoppage of the gulfstream, which
> brings milder climate to north of Europe, super hurricanes, less food
> due to droughts are some of the effects.
> As you also know global warming is produced due to CO2 emissions
> coming from burning of fossil fuels. So what
> can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
>
As I am one of "all" I am less convinced than you are of the dire threat,
and all of the doom and gloom.
Even if it would be prudent to reduce CO2 emissions, the first thing we
should do is to phase out coal burning power plants and replace them with
nuclear power.
While most of your suggestions seem prudent, the reason to save energy is
that you save money, not that you are going to save the planet.
--
Roger Shoaf
About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.
Chalo
>
> So what
> can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
> 2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
> charge them during less demand ours like at night
> will also save a lot of energy and money.
Why obsess about minutiae like this? If you want to dispense valuable
advice to people about how to reduce unsustainable levels of
consumption and pollution, just tell them the truth: The world is
already overfull of other people's retarded whelps. If you care about
the world you live in, don't add your own to it. One more retarded
whelp probably does at least as much harm as twenty million AA
alkalines.
Rampant uncontrolled childbearing constitutes callous disregard for
the lives and welfare of others. It's really the only ecological
disaster of any consequence. As long as humanity displays the modus
operandi of a cancer, the results will be analogous.
Chalo
Lou Holtman
> sustainable.future...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> So what
>> can every single person do to reduce global warming ?
>> [...]
>> 2) Using rechargable batteries instead of alkaline batteries, and
>> charge them during less demand ours like at night
>> will also save a lot of energy and money.
>
> Why obsess about minutiae like this? If you want to dispense valuable
> advice to people about how to reduce unsustainable levels of
> consumption and pollution, just tell them the truth: The world is
> already overfull of other people's retarded whelps. If you care about
> the world you live in, don't add your own to it. One more retarded
> whelp probably does at least as much harm as twenty million AA
> alkalines.
Next problem is how to prevent all the people in China, India and Africa
to pursue the same standard of living and consumption level the
Americans and European already have. I'm not hopefull because we are in
a damn weak negotiation position. See Copenhagen.
Lou
Tom Sherman °_°
standards of everyone else in the country. Of course, flying around in a
private jet likely produces more CO2 than 100 proletariats driving to work.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
benefactors." - David Michael Green
andre...@aol.com
Nor sure what you are replying to. I was replying to DI statement
stating that global warming is BS because the weather in some place is
really cold. Whether or not there is a big snow storm in this or that
place is no proof that global warming is true or false.
Tom Sherman °_°
than 200 million by the end of century.
Ben C
Why? High standard of living is the only known effective and humane way
to control population growth.
Lou Holtman
Giving the current population, you think the environment and natural
resources can handle a situation where every Chinese, Indian and African
family has two cars, airconditioning etc etc.?
Lou
Ben C
I don't see why not. Oil may be running a bit low, but the total amount
of cheap, fairly clean energy available just from coal is still
enormous, before you even consider nuclear, solar, wind, etc.
China is already developing fast and it's mostly powered by coal. I hope
they all have two cars and air-conditioning soon.
As for other resources required to make cars, the basic one is steel,
and iron is the most abundant element on Earth, so I don't see a problem
there.
If we tripled or quadrupled the amount of coal burned what would be the
damage to the environment? I don't know but I suspect it's manageable--
you need SO2 scrubbers and to find a use for the ash. I doubt greenhouse
warming from CO2 would be a problem even at 3 or 4 times current levels,
although that does remain a theoretical possibility.
Lou Holtman
I'm more pessimistic. I agree with Chalo, there are already to many
people and no one is prepared to make any sacrifices (yet).
Lou
Peter Cole
Fortunately not true. That's an odious attitude also. We are not dogs,
nor are our children retarded. An illiterate peasant knows his children
are his future, we should have at least his common sense.
Longevity is the only reliable predictor of family size, and the inverse
relationship means that people generally have large families in a (quite
reasonable) attempt to have some survive to old age.
Of course if consumption and pollution are the meaningful capacity
metrics, there is generally an inverse relation between family size and
per capita consumption. The affluent West with (some) declining
populations is still growing in consumption and leads the rest of the
world. A fair basis resource-wise would be something like a family size
of 9 in China and 15 in India.
The only species to have beaten Malthus is Homo Sapiens. Whether we
continue to do so, and what the collateral damage to the planet may be
is debatable, but sustainable economics and a habitable planet (ideally
better than just habitable) will come from the creativity of our
combined human resources, if they come at all. The future remains
uncertain, but, unarguably, the past was no cakewalk. I'll roll the dice
on continued progress even with the risks. I'm betting on the kids being
born today to not only change my diaper, but also continuing to make
progress on all fronts of human development.
Since I was a child, the world population has more than doubled. It
likely will only see a peak of another 50% or so growth. In other words,
population-wise, I've experienced a bigger change already than we'll see
here to peak. The capacity problem isn't simple population, it's also
per capita consumption. The US has led the world in non-functional,
excess consumption, but perhaps we can be forgiven since there was no
real reason why not to.
I have little doubt that overall per capita impact can be reduced by a
factor of 10 or more in countries like the US with little net impact on
quality of life. The fact is we haven't really tried. Again, there was
no reason to try. After necessities are met, there's little or no gain
in happiness with additional wealth. Agriculture used to employ a large
fraction of American workers. What happens when productivity across the
board is 10x today's? Do we become 10x wealthier, or do we adopt a 4 hr
work week? In this economy, we have switched from physical work to
"information" work, but much of that will be also done by machines. The
Industrial Revolution is perhaps still only in its first chapter.
Science has been the most spectacularly beneficial enterprise mankind
has ever engaged in. The past century was defined by physics, the next
probably will be biology. We still don't have flying cars, but we do
have computers, and they have made a bigger difference by far. Given the
acceleration of technological progress it is very difficult to
extrapolate 50 years into the future. It is safe to predict that that
world will be much stranger than we can imagine today.
The really important thing to do to save the planet is to end war and
common diseases, assist people out of poverty and help them to realize
their (and our collective) potential. We need the human assets. A few
more mouths to feed won't be a problem if we have the brains to solve it.
The bigger problem is not physical. Once we solve the "freedom from"
(poverty, disease, war, etc.) we'll be left with the larger "freedom to"
problem. To a certain extent, we in the affluent West have had a
foretaste of it already. What do we do when the traditional human
afflictions are licked? It seems the answer so far is empty
over-consumption, self-inflicted disease, social isolation, epidemic
depression and neurotic obsession with imaginary threats. Not much of a
renaissance so far.
Frank Krygowski
Interesting thoughts, but I'm less optimistic.
I believe it's true that proven longevity leads to smaller family size
and, perhaps, ultimate cessation of population growth. But it seems
to me that there's a terrible lag in that system's response. If we
could immediately insert Western health care, nutrition and sanitation
into all of Africa, India, China and South and Central America, I
think we'd still see large family sizes and large population growth
for several generations. And in many of those places, environmental
consequences are already dire, and growing worse.
Certainly, science has been a tremendous success. But in resource-
rich America, it's been largely used to drive consumerism - which is
our _real_ religion. You're certainly right that accumulating crap
doesn't lead to happiness. And I think that we could decrease our
crap load by a factor of 10 and still increase happiness and quality
of life. But while the scientists, engineers and technicians have
done a stellar job for several hundred years, the philosophers,
sociologists, psychologists and religious figures haven't kept up.
They haven't convinced the public that the pursuit of mammon is a bad
idea. And American-style capitalism exports love of mammon as step
number one, before step number two - which is either Coca-Cola or
weaponry.
I won't choose between consumerism and overpopulation as one being
worse than another. I think they're neck and neck in the race, and
we're losing either way. But I must confess to skepticism about the
wisdom of ending common diseases. It's a terrible thing to say, but
ISTM that things like viruses, malaria, MRSA and its kin are part of
Gaia's immune system. I'm sure, for example, that if we wipe out
malaria we'll soon see the last of the other great apes.
In any case, I expect to see things get worse before they get better.
I hope it's not too much worse.
- Frank Krygowski
Ben C
> On Dec 29, 11:10�am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I believe it's true that proven longevity leads to smaller family size
> and, perhaps, ultimate cessation of population growth.
Another very simple factor is education. According to a recent TV
program, in the Indian state of Kerala the population is stable because
women go to university and get married at about 28. In Rajasthan they
marry at 18 and have far too many children.
This has been much more effective than any of the barbaric sterilization
programs they've tried in India.
Andre Jute
> Next problem is how to prevent all the people in China, India and Africa
> to pursue the same standard of living and consumption level the
> Americans and European already have.
You want to cut birthrates to below replacement, bring the poor up to
middleclass living standards. It is the only known way to succeed in
population control. Once everyone has a good standard of living,
within a generation the total burden on world resources will be less
than it is today. (Not that I believe there is a shortage of any
resource but I'm paying you the courtesy of putting the argument in
the terms you prefer.) A desirable by-product will be a more peaceful
world.
Andre Jute
I don't know why people call economics the dismal science. It brings
hope. -- Andre Jute, speech to the Media Association, 1970
Peter Cole
> Interesting thoughts, but I'm less optimistic.
>
> I believe it's true that proven longevity leads to smaller family size
> and, perhaps, ultimate cessation of population growth.
And almost certain decline.
> But it seems
> to me that there's a terrible lag in that system's response. If we
> could immediately insert Western health care, nutrition and sanitation
> into all of Africa, India, China and South and Central America, I
> think we'd still see large family sizes and large population growth
> for several generations.
That's not been the pattern, change has come much more swiftly than
that. The future is likely to change even faster, communication is much
better, and is the fundamental driving force.
> And in many of those places, environmental
> consequences are already dire, and growing worse.
There's extermination of species/ecologies due to habitat destruction,
long term pollution and loss of cropland from erosion. Those things may
be irrevocable, but the solution is increasing world health, education
and security as quickly as possible. Ironically, many of the world's
cultures are experts on sustainability, having done that successfully
for millennia. The deforestation and strip mining aren't local enterprises.
> Certainly, science has been a tremendous success. But in resource-
> rich America, it's been largely used to drive consumerism - which is
> our _real_ religion.
It's a complicated picture. "Taming" the West was our legacy. The work
ethic is strong in the US. Consumption has been seen as an unalloyed
good. If you don't consume, what do you do with the surplus
productivity? Just go to Detroit to see the US "solution".
The US turned from agriculture to manufacturing to technology to
financial services, but the problem of wealth and income disparity
continues to grow. We haven't solved the problem of poverty in the US,
never mind the world. Economics is a science, too.
> You're certainly right that accumulating crap
> doesn't lead to happiness. And I think that we could decrease our
> crap load by a factor of 10 and still increase happiness and quality
> of life. But while the scientists, engineers and technicians have
> done a stellar job for several hundred years, the philosophers,
> sociologists, psychologists and religious figures haven't kept up.
> They haven't convinced the public that the pursuit of mammon is a bad
> idea. And American-style capitalism exports love of mammon as step
> number one, before step number two - which is either Coca-Cola or
> weaponry.
There was no need to convince the public or the elite until fairly
recently, and that need is still a long way from being universally
acknowledged.
I disagree that science has done such a great job. There have been huge
advances in the physical sciences, but they were mostly an extension of
the activity that brought the West to colonial dominance and
subordination of the larger populations of Asia and Africa: warfare. The
US, almost singlehandedly now, is continuing that legacy. Our science
remains focused. Our economic dealings with the rest of the world remain
exploitive, science is the big stick we've wielded.
Science has figured how to bump up corn yields by a factor of 30 or so,
and how to convert all that starch and cellulose into a cornucopia of
cheap food, but the related sciences of nutrition, ecology and toxicity
have gone begging. Our public investments have been largely dictated by
narrow business interests.
> I won't choose between consumerism and overpopulation as one being
> worse than another. I think they're neck and neck in the race, and
> we're losing either way. But I must confess to skepticism about the
> wisdom of ending common diseases. It's a terrible thing to say, but
> ISTM that things like viruses, malaria, MRSA and its kin are part of
> Gaia's immune system. I'm sure, for example, that if we wipe out
> malaria we'll soon see the last of the other great apes.
We seem to have favorite myths about the vanity of science (Prometheus,
Daedalus, etc.). The Green movement always seems to tap a masochistic
streak. I always turn off the moralistic finales of the nature shows I'm
so fond of.
I don't believe in Gaia or any other deity. I don't mourn the loss of
smallpox or polio. I wouldn't miss malaria, AIDS, MRSA*, either, and I
think it's more than a terrible thing to say, I think it's a crazy thing
to say. I'd trade the great apes for malaria in a heartbeat.
*I'm not sure I'd miss it less than my daughter who lost a friend last year.
> In any case, I expect to see things get worse before they get better.
> I hope it's not too much worse.
Why? We may be on the brink of ending the greatest threat humanity has
ever known -- thermonuclear war. We may be within spitting distance of
eliminating the last of the great pandemic viruses and bacteria and the
parasites that have inflicted great misery since the dawn of time. I
can't think of a time I'd rather be living in except the future. If I
had a choice between being born when I was and today, I wouldn't hesitate.
Chalo
>
> The future remains
> uncertain, but, unarguably, the past was no cakewalk. I'll roll the dice
> on continued progress even with the risks. I'm betting on the kids being
> born today to not only change my diaper, but also continuing to make
> progress on all fronts of human development.
My wife Datri Bean wrote a pithy verse for her song "Green Onions",
which will be coming out with her new album this spring:
"You say, 'Baby, let's have a baby
or two, or three
and learn to love selflessly
and when we're old and incontinent
they'll take good care of us
Lord, I don't want to die alone'
Green onions are frying
and the coffee is cold
without even trying
love grows old
Oh, but it's comfortable
like a daily routine
eggs and toast
and an early morning shot of Jim Beam"
Chalo
Michael Press
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> As for other resources required to make cars, the basic one is steel,
> and iron is the most abundant element on Earth, so I don't see a problem
> there.
What do you mean by "on Earth?"
--
Michael Press
Ben C
I mean the rock we're sitting on is mostly made of iron. From Wikipedia:
"Iron is the sixth most abundant element in the Universe, formed as
the final act of nucleosynthesis, by silicon fusing in massive
stars. While it makes up about 5% of the Earth's crust, the Earth's
core is believed to consist largely of an iron-nickel alloy
constituting 35% of the mass of the Earth as a whole. Iron is
consequently the most abundant element on Earth, but only the fourth
most abundant element in the Earth's crust. Most of the iron in the
crust is found combined with oxygen as iron oxide minerals such as
hematite and magnetite."
So, I reckon there's plenty of iron around for making cars (although
it's unlikely we'll resort to mining it out of the Earth's core).
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > It's a terrible thing to say, but
> > ISTM that things like viruses, malaria, MRSA and its kin are part of
> > Gaia's immune system. I'm sure, for example, that if we wipe out
> > malaria we'll soon see the last of the other great apes.
>
You don't need to regard the earth as divine to consider it as an
entity with an immune system. Come to think of it, why would a real
deity need an immune system?
> I don't mourn the loss of
> smallpox or polio. I wouldn't miss malaria, AIDS, MRSA*, either, and I
> think it's more than a terrible thing to say, I think it's a crazy thing
> to say. I'd trade the great apes for malaria in a heartbeat.
Not surprising. Our species has a powerful desire to help others
survive, to cure diseases, etc. (At least, as long as the survivors
don't try to take our territory; then we kill them.)
But if we did make the trade - we cure malaria, but the increased
pressure for food exterminates the great apes - what next? Do we
trade the elephants for a sleeping sickness cure? Do we give up the
rain forests for a dengue fever cure?
> > In any case, I expect to see things get worse before they get better.
> > I hope it's not too much worse.
>
> Why? We may be on the brink of ending the greatest threat humanity has
> ever known -- thermonuclear war. We may be within spitting distance of
> eliminating the last of the great pandemic viruses and bacteria and the
> parasites that have inflicted great misery since the dawn of time.
Hmm. For some value of "may."
We've had a glorious century or so with antibiotics and vaccinations.
But there are strong signals that the little buggers are getting
smarter, and it's easily understood given natural selection. For
example, MRSA and AIDS weren't a problem 40 years ago. Certainly,
increased population density and easier travel give an advantage to
the pathogens.
They (and other factors) also cause increased problems from
environmental effects, from chemical (or hormonal, or pharmaceutical)
pollution to climate changes. That's true whether the head-in-the-
sand right-wingers can understand glacier photos or not.
I'm not totally pessimistic. But I am worried.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
Spelling it out. Earth by mass is 1/3 Fe, 3/10 O.
But you cannot get at the mantle or core, sooooo
we go by abundance in the crust which is 47% O, 5% Fe.
As you spoke of Fe for making steel, your statement
that Fe is them most abundant on Earth is false.
--
Michael Press
Peter Cole
It's impossible to predict the changes technology will bring -- positive
or negative. Malthusian predictions have never come to pass, the world
has not ended on schedule. That said, life, individual and collective,
remains precarious. Hunger, disease and war are a long way from
elimination, and technology in many ways has made us more vulnerable,
particularly on a large scale. Scientific American just ran an article
describing a study that predicted that even a "small" nuclear war
between India and Pakistan could trigger a global "nuclear winter".
Crops are ever more reliant on exotic chemicals and now GM seed, with
rapidly shrinking diversity in almost all primary food plants. A
pandemic with high mortality is entirely possible, and we wouldn't be
much better at stopping it than we were the Spanish flu pandemic 100
years ago.
It may be that wide scale extinctions are inevitable. It may also be
that technology will save the day. Whales were on the verge of
extinction before technology reduced demand. While it's true that
vaccines and antibiotics have their limits against evolving/mutating
organisms, biology has only recently moved beyond those mature
techniques to genetics. This is kind of obvious to me as I live in one
of the global centers of biotech (Boston).
It may sound a little over-convenient, perhaps deus ex machina, to
confidently assume technology will avert all the looming catastrophes,
but the track record of science and engineering is hopeful. One way of
thinking about it is that the past century brought huge advances in the
physical sciences, which, when coupled with abundant energy, enabled us
to modify our environment significantly, but rather crudely. If the next
century brings the advances in biology that seem to be on the horizon,
our ability to modify the environment will get exponentially more
sophisticated. The brute force approach to grow more food is to clear
and irrigate land, with gross inefficiencies in water, topsoil,
hydrocarbons and persistent organic pollutants. More subtle approaches
are coming online with genetic modification, which will allow us to
dramatically accelerate and steer evolution itself. As with any
technology, the dangers are proportionate to the power, so this is very
dangerous stuff indeed.
As the saying goes, the Stone Age didn't end because humans ran out of
rocks. All of the estimates of the carrying capacities of the planet
presume current technology or a relatively linear extrapolation of
advancement. Advanced biotech may be like flying cars -- always just
around the corner, or like nuclear power -- too expensive and dangerous
for widespread use, but I don't think so. It has only been a few decades
since the recognition of DNA, and the ability to decode and manipulate
the genome has just barely emerged. Computer technology will allow us to
accelerate this biological information technology, putting biological
science and engineering on the same Moore's Law curve that chips and
computers have followed. This will almost certainly be the most
transformative technology in the history of mankind, for the first time
we are literally getting under the hood of the engine of life. If the
Gaia hypothesis is true, even in its most radical speculations
(planetary "immune system", etc.), this new science will be critical to
understanding and interacting with it.
On an abstract level, science has made huge progress in modeling systems
with a small number of variables (e.g classical physics), and those with
a vast number (e.g. statistical mechanics), but has lacked the tools for
the huge domain in between. The ability to understand and predict
complex or "emergent" systems has made little progress over the decades,
and many of the biological/ecological challenges fall in that world. The
future looks bleak if thinking remains within the box of historical
limitations, as bleak as extrapolations of whale oil lighting looked in
the mid-19th century, or urban horse manure 50 years later. The thing
that will take us out of that box will be the computer, that's no
pie-in-the-sky, the process has been underway for decades now and
continues to track the astonishing curve. We've blithely switched
prefixes from kilo to mega to giga to tera without really appreciating,
it seems, the absolute uniqueness of the scale of these transitions in
human history.
The fossil record and genomic analysis seems to indicate that our
species came close to extinction before. Future extinction remains a
possibility, self-abetted or not, but the odds seem much better. Homo
Sapiens has been winning the survival game for millennia, it seems to be
counter-intuitive that our big brains would turn from asset to liability
overnight.
Personally, I view the Gaia hypothesis as just a new age reworking of
the old superstition that seems to drive all the traditional religions,
that man is sinful and proud and pride goeth before a fall. I don't
think it coincidental that these "modern" religions are more or less the
same and arose with civilization. I am deeply cynical on man's need to
dominate man. I don't think divine, cosmic, or even planetary forces
have anything to do with it.
Bill Sornson
> Tell the folks around here about global warming as we dig out of the
> largest snow storm on recorded history. This has been the coldest
> December on record also.
>
> Global Warming B.S,
And the beat goes on:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14096723
Bill "it's getting uncanny" S.
Jay Beattie
It snowed on Tuesday in PDX but we got warm rain on Wednesday, which,
IMO, proves an oscillating ice-age and global warming pattern. But our
snow pack is only 65% of normal, and the Palmer glacier is melting.
My summer ski season is getting shorter an shorter, which proves the
existence of global warming. OTOH, it is snowing like crazy on the
mountain today (my son just called to let me know this -- he is
practicing with his HS ski team), so I guess there is no global
warming up there today -- at least not at Ski Bowl.-- Jay Beattie.
Bill Sornson
Spring is almost guaranteed to revive the kooks' faith (literal meaning) in
global warming.
Bill "climate change: four seasons" S.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Spring is almost guaranteed to revive the kooks' faith (literal meaning) in
> global warming.
As well as their "faith" in oddball, obviously-wrong heliocentricism.
In fact, I think it's largely the same crowd that believes both!
Go figure.
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
> And the beat goes on:
>
> http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14096723
And on:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
andre...@aol.com
What do this to articles prove?
Bill Sornson
That it's cold as shit outside and atmospheric CO2 isn't rising.
HTH!
Tom Sherman °_°
Please pay attention to the elephant in the room. Per Henry Kissinger, a
"crisis" that eliminated a few billion "worthless eaters" while the
elite are safe in their high-tech refuges would be a good thing. Just
enough serfs need to survive to serve the new world ruling class, who
will eventually be genetically engineered to make them a "superior"
species, finally achieving the dream of permanent class separation and
dominance.
AMuzi
>> "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>>> And on:
>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
> andre...@aol.com wrote:
>> What do this to articles prove?
Bill Sornson wrote:
> That it's cold as shit outside and atmospheric CO2 isn't rising.
If it were 12 instead of 10 on New Year's Day I would not
complain:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/nyx.html
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
andre...@aol.com
Actually, my question proves that I am illiterate and can't spell or
write worth shit. .
The article about CO2 proves that the author could not find evidence
of it rising in that particular study. Yours is an unscientific and
incorrect conclusion.
The first article proves that it is very cold in a specific place but
this has nothing to do with global warming.
Peter Cole
I think this exchange proves that both of you guys have reading
comprehension issues.
It does not claim that atmospheric CO2 isn't rising. It says that no
evidence was found of a change in the *fraction* of the increase that
stayed in the atmosphere (rather than was absorbed). This observation,
if verified, might overturn the opinion that the natural "sinks" for CO2
are prone to saturation. That opinion predicted an acceleration of the
atmospheric buildup. If the opinion was wrong, it just means the buildup
will be slower, not that it won't continue, or hasn't happened.
andre...@aol.com
As I have stated earlier, I am illiterate.
Bill Sornson
Bill Sornson
Bill Sornson
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> And on:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
And yet the melting continues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/global-warming-opens-up-a_0_n_433489.html
- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
Chalo
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > And on:
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
>
> AND ON!:
>
Well done, Sorni! You've graduated from American right-wing
propaganda and crackpot blogs, to UK trash tabloids, to UK right-wing
propaganda. Next thing you know, you'll be citing corporate agenda
claptrap from "reputable" centrist dailies like the NYT. And one day,
if you live long enough and try hard enough, you'll begin to evaluate
information based on the messenger's incentives!
I can't wait until you earn your "Sentient Human Being" merit badge!
Chalo
Bill Sornson
Gee, how shocking. You excuse blatant fraud and attack the source. Glad
the world is still spinning. (Hint, moron: even some left-wing news
outlets have reported this criminal scandal. Sorry 'bout that!)
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And on:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
> >>
> >> AND ON!:
> >>
> >> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN...
> >
> > Well done, Sorni! You've graduated from American right-wing
> > propaganda and crackpot blogs, to UK trash tabloids, to UK right-wing
> > propaganda. Next thing you know, you'll be citing corporate agenda
> > claptrap from "reputable" centrist dailies like the NYT. And one day,
> > if you live long enough and try hard enough, you'll begin to evaluate
> > information based on the messenger's incentives!
> >
> > I can't wait until you earn your "Sentient Human Being" merit badge!
>
> the world is still spinning. (Hint, moron: even some left-wing news
> outlets have reported this criminal scandal. Sorry 'bout that!)
I suggest that the portrayal of this episode as a "criminal scandal"
rather than the academic faux pas that it is, is itself part of a much
larger and more pervasive fraud perpetrated by the deregulated
corporate media since Saint Ronnie let them off the leash. All you
will hear from corporate news industry now is what they think you
should hear, framed according to terms that benefit them and their
corporate ownership.
But to really understand what I just said, first you have to be a
Sentient Human Being with some powers of synthesis and
discrimination. I do harbor a fragment of hope for your illumination
one day... but not today.
Chalo
Frank Krygowski
> All you
> will hear from corporate news industry now is what they think you
> should hear, framed according to terms that benefit them and their
> corporate ownership.
Well, not quite. Some corporations are also saying "Hey! The arctic
ice is melting like crazy! Now we can lay some cable and make some
money!"
But Sorni doesn't acknowledge that this is corporate proof of the
melting he denies.
Maybe it's because Rush Limbaugh hasn't talked about it?
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
a shot of DeKuyper
and of to work we go'
out the second floor window
going with the flow
the tide's running in
and tho a bit thin
the air is warm and moist
and so to France
best choise.
Bill Sornson
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And on:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
>>>>
>>>> AND ON!:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN...
>>>
>>> Well done, Sorni! You've graduated from American right-wing
>>> propaganda and crackpot blogs, to UK trash tabloids, to UK
>>> right-wing propaganda. Next thing you know, you'll be citing
>>> corporate agenda claptrap from "reputable" centrist dailies like
>>> the NYT. And one day, if you live long enough and try hard enough,
>>> you'll begin to evaluate information based on the messenger's
>>> incentives!
>>>
>>> I can't wait until you earn your "Sentient Human Being" merit badge!
>>
>> Gee, how shocking. You excuse blatant fraud and attack the source.
>> Glad the world is still spinning. (Hint, moron: even some left-wing
>> news outlets have reported this criminal scandal. Sorry 'bout that!)
>
> I suggest that the portrayal of this episode as a "criminal scandal"
> rather than the academic faux pas that it is
Bzzt. It's only criminal when it works against your twisted world view,
apparently. Knowingly using false data and information to gain hundreds of
thousands of dollars in "research grants" is fraud, pure and simple. Read
this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
and attack the source/messenger like the pathetic, lying ideologue you've
shown yourself to be. Maybe Andre or flipper can explain it to you more
effectively.
BS (up to your lard ass in it)
AMuzi
Dan O
Oh, well, in that case, carry on - burn, baby, burn.
datakoll
Bill Sornson
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 10:26 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All you
>>> will hear from corporate news industry now is what they think you
>>> should hear, framed according to terms that benefit them and their
>>> corporate ownership.
>>
>> Well, not quite. Some corporations are also saying "Hey! The arctic
>> ice is melting like crazy! Now we can lay some cable and make some
>> money!"
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yaa4me4
>>
>> But Sorni doesn't acknowledge that this is corporate proof of the
>> melting he denies.
Of course, polar bears are thriving; the total ice mass is growing (prior
Arctic loss more than negated by Antarctic gains); AND the earth has been
cooling since 1998. Otherwise, Crank makes excellent points. LOL
(By the way, is man or evil "Corporate" responsible for ice mass losses...ON
MARS?!? Or is it just possible that sun spot activity is directly
involved?)
>>
>> Maybe it's because Rush Limbaugh hasn't talked about it?
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-41757.html
> http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/01/more-dodgy-ipcc-claims/
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8488395.stm
You're such a hater, Andrew! LOL But thanks for reminding me WHY I plonked
ol' Crank years ago...
BS (known when sniffed)
Bill Sornson
http://www.gocomics.com/reynoldsunwrapped/2010/01/17/
Bill "step up in credibility" S.
Bill Sornson
> Chalo wrote:
>> I suggest that the portrayal of this episode as a "criminal scandal"
>> rather than the academic faux pas that it is
>
> Bzzt. It's only criminal when it works against your twisted world
> view, apparently. Knowingly using false data and information to gain
> hundreds of thousands of dollars in "research grants" is fraud, pure
> and simple. Read this:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
Today's entry:
http://biggovernment.com/2010/02/01/leake-and-the-london-times-climate-scientists-thwarted-foia/
Bill "address the /content/, not source" S.
Chalo
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> >>
> >> I suggest that the portrayal of this episode as a "criminal scandal"
> >> rather than the academic faux pas that it is
>
> > Bzzt. It's only criminal when it works against your twisted world
> > view, apparently. Knowingly using false data and information to gain
> > hundreds of thousands of dollars in "research grants" is fraud, pure
> > and simple. Read this:
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
>
> Today's entry:
>
>
> Bill "address the /content/, not source" S.
Funny that you haven't taken a similar stand against the outright
lies, falsification, suppression of evidence, and treachery against
those who aired facts during the runup to the Iraq war. The
consequences since then have included the deaths of more or less a
million people, at least a trillion dollars of public debt, and the
permanent loss of American soft power-- as opposed to few hundred
grand in research grant money.
Corporate-controlled sources and right-wing crackpot blogs are
untrustworthy. The so-called "content" they bring must be presumed
corrupt, deluded and/or misleading until proven otherwise. You have
done nothing to shore up their pitiful credibility (unless it's to
worsen it further by adding your own reputation to it).
Chalo
Frank Krygowski
And yet the melting continues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
A few years ago, we hiked to the Valley of Six Glaciers in Bannf. The
difference with the historic photos was pretty stunning.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
AMuzi
Bill Sornson
I literally was going to answer, "Read what Tony Blair just said". (And of
course both Clintons, John Kerry, Joe Biden, etc. etc. etc. etc...)
Bill "poor Chalo...just so wrong" S.
Ben C
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >
>> > Chalo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I suggest that the portrayal of this episode as a "criminal scandal"
>> >> rather than the academic faux pas that it is
>>
>> > Bzzt. �It's only criminal when it works against your twisted world
>> > view, apparently. �Knowingly using false data and information to gain
>> > hundreds of thousands of dollars in "research grants" is fraud, pure
>> > and simple. �Read this:
>>
>> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece
>>
>> Today's entry:
>>
>> http://biggovernment.com/2010/02/01/leake-and-the-london-times-climat...
>>
>> Bill "address the /content/, not source" S.
>
> Funny that you haven't taken a similar stand against the outright
> lies, falsification, suppression of evidence, and treachery against
> those who aired facts during the runup to the Iraq war. The
> consequences since then have included the deaths of more or less a
> million people, at least a trillion dollars of public debt, and the
> permanent loss of American soft power-- as opposed to few hundred
> grand in research grant money.
>
> Corporate-controlled sources and right-wing crackpot blogs are
> untrustworthy.
So are government-controlled sources.
You had a change of government, but over here, it's the same bunch of
people (who by the way are what passes for the "left-wing") going on
about global warming who were trying to convince us about Iraqi WMD a
few years ago. Why should we believe them now?
> The so-called "content" they bring must be presumed
> corrupt, deluded and/or misleading until proven otherwise. You have
> done nothing to shore up their pitiful credibility (unless it's to
> worsen it further by adding your own reputation to it).
The Times is a warmist mainstream newspaper, not a right-wing crackpot
blog. Just about everybody agrees the Himalayan glaciers won't really
melt by 2035 (even Pachauri has grudgingly admitted it).
Andre Jute
Sorni doesn't have to prove anything at all. He merely has to say that
he doesn't believe in cooked statistics, peer review by intimidation,
destruction of raw data, outright lies, and all the rest of the crap
accompanying the belief in manmade global warming.
It is entirely up to you, Chalo, to provide scientific proof of these
matters, none of which are proven:
1. That there is unnatural global warming.
2. Even if there is unnatural global warming, that CO2 emissions cause
it.
3. Even if there is unnatural global warming, and it is caused by CO2,
that manmade CO2 makes a difference.
4. Even if there is manmade global warming, that it isn't beneficial,
as it was before during the medieval warm period when the earth's
temperature for many centuries was much higher than it is now.
5. If there is harmful global warming by the agency of manmade CO2,
that the part of manmade CO2 we can control will make a difference.
6. That forecasts based on this knowledge will be robust, first by
accurately mapping the past.
7. None of that necessarily indicates action. Cost benefit analysis
must next prove that controlling the planet's temperature offers a
higher return than other ways of spending our money.
***
Of course, none of this necessary work can start until all the data
the global warmies corrupted and debased has been thrown out, and new
data has been generated from the original sources, if they still
exist, and this data has been proven honest, because on it will depend
the trust we invest in the science based on the data. I imagine by the
time this is done, the mass hysteria of global warming will have
passed and be regarded as a quaint historical comedy, a South Sea
Bubble of Science, and no one will be interested because the trendies
will have moved on to another fad, probably heating the oceans to
avoid an imminent ice age.
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
Bill Sornson
{snip}
Gee, that sounds like so much work! Isn't it a lot more /convenient/ to
just drink the GW "Cool"-aid?!?
Peter Cole
All governments?
> You had a change of government,
Just president.
but over here, it's the same bunch of
> people (who by the way are what passes for the "left-wing") going on
> about global warming who were trying to convince us about Iraqi WMD a
> few years ago. Why should we believe them now?
Because they're not relying on US "intelligence"?
>
>> The so-called "content" they bring must be presumed
>> corrupt, deluded and/or misleading until proven otherwise. You have
>> done nothing to shore up their pitiful credibility (unless it's to
>> worsen it further by adding your own reputation to it).
>
> The Times is a warmist mainstream newspaper, not a right-wing crackpot
> blog.
No, slightly right of center, like much of the US press, and thus not in
denial.
> Just about everybody agrees the Himalayan glaciers won't really
> melt by 2035 (even Pachauri has grudgingly admitted it).
Make that everybody. It was a mistake, quickly corrected.
Tom Ace
> http://www.pri.org/world/tony-blair-to-iraq-inquiry-no-regrets1859.html
Nothing Tony Blair said changes the fact that the US
had Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi tortured until he spewed
garbage "information" about a Saddam-al Qaeda
connection, which the US presented (e.g., Colin
Powell at the UN, Feb. 5, 2003) despite knowing
how unreliable it was.
Nothing Tony Blair said changes how smug
the Bush administration was:
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
-Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002
"We know where they (WMDs) are. They're in the area
around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and
north somewhat." -Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass
destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming.
We're just getting it just now." -Colin Powell, May 4, 2003
Tom Ace
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> http://www.pri.org/world/tony-blair-to-iraq-inquiry-no-regrets1859.html
>
Yep. And I'm sure George W. Bush also still thinks invading and
conquering Iraq was the right thing to do. So does Rush Limbaugh, and
perhaps a few other folks.
But those I know personally have completely shifted on their
justification. They gave up on WMDs, because (almost) everyone now
admits there were none. They gave up on the 9/11 connection, because
everyone now admits those guys were Saudis, not Iraqis.
The ones I know personally are down to a vague, defensive snarl of "It
was just the right thing to do, that's all."
I'm just glad there's no oil under my property!
- Frank Krygowski
datakoll
Bill Sornson
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
HTH!
datakoll
Is BS deliberately obfuscating positions against nuts developing nukes
and nuts invading countries and killing US service personel like
Swanson and Tomatilla on the pretext there are nuts with nukes ?
i hope nut !
Chalo
>
> AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > http://www.pri.org/world/tony-blair-to-iraq-inquiry-no-regrets1859.html
>
> Yep. And I'm sure George W. Bush also still thinks invading and
> conquering Iraq was the right thing to do. So does Rush Limbaugh, and
> perhaps a few other folks.
>
> But those I know personally have completely shifted on their
> justification. They gave up on WMDs, because (almost) everyone now
> admits there were none. They gave up on the 9/11 connection, because
> everyone now admits those guys were Saudis, not Iraqis.
>
> The ones I know personally are down to a vague, defensive snarl of "It
> was just the right thing to do, that's all."
That seems to be what Blair is saying too-- that it was all worth it
to remove Saddam. (Remember that: a million people killed, a million
times a million bucks squandered, the international credibility of the
US and the UK destroyed-- all worth it to remove Saddam.)
But that's not the case that was made to the public at the time. The
American people didn't give a shit about Saddam. If that had been the
sole justification for the invasion, I doubt the public would have
accepted it.
I certainly hope that Tony Blair faces at least a million miserable
lifetimes as a mistreated and untimely killed commoner to atone for
his staggering hubris.
Chalo
Chalo
>
> Gee, that sounds like so much work! Isn't it a lot more /convenient/ to
> just drink the GW "Cool"-aid?!?
Ha! This coming from a guy who sucked GW's "Kool-Aid" straight from
the spout!
Chalo
Bill Sornson
Nope. I believed Hillary, Bill, John, the U.N., British Intelligence,
French Intelligence, U.S. Intelligence, Kurdish and Iranian victims of
Saddam's WMDs, etc. etc. etc.
HTH.
Bill "want the quotes again?" S.
Tom Sherman °_°
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> AMuzi wrote:
>>> http://www.pri.org/world/tony-blair-to-iraq-inquiry-no-regrets1859.html
>> Yep. And I'm sure George W. Bush also still thinks invading and
>> conquering Iraq was the right thing to do. So does Rush Limbaugh, and
>> perhaps a few other folks.
>>
>> But those I know personally have completely shifted on their
>> justification. They gave up on WMDs, because (almost) everyone now
>> admits there were none. They gave up on the 9/11 connection, because
>> everyone now admits those guys were Saudis, not Iraqis.
>>
>> The ones I know personally are down to a vague, defensive snarl of "It
>> was just the right thing to do, that's all."
>
> That seems to be what Blair is saying too-- that it was all worth it
> to remove Saddam. (Remember that: a million people killed, a million
> times a million bucks squandered, the international credibility of the
> US and the UK destroyed-- all worth it to remove Saddam.)
The ultimate financial cost has been estimated to be two to three times
that amount. Most to be paid by the USian working classes.
Please do not forget the 4-5 million internal and external Iraqi refugees.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"After all, people in the Middle East already know how
Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington
has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked
away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has
killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S.
mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents."
- Retired CIA Intelligence Officer Ray McGovern
Ben C
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
>>> Corporate-controlled sources and right-wing crackpot blogs are
>>> untrustworthy.
>>
>> So are government-controlled sources.
>
> All governments?
Everybody's biased, particularly on AGW. I recommend reading stuff from
both sides and trying to get a clear view of the scientific case
actually being made. Don't take anyone's word for it.
>> You had a change of government,
>
> Just president.
>
> but over here, it's the same bunch of
>> people (who by the way are what passes for the "left-wing") going on
>> about global warming who were trying to convince us about Iraqi WMD a
>> few years ago. Why should we believe them now?
>
> Because they're not relying on US "intelligence"?
My impression is they are not evidence-driven. They make up their minds
what they want to do for various political reasons and then produce
"intelligence" or "science" to justify it.
>>> The so-called "content" they bring must be presumed
>>> corrupt, deluded and/or misleading until proven otherwise. You have
>>> done nothing to shore up their pitiful credibility (unless it's to
>>> worsen it further by adding your own reputation to it).
>>
>> The Times is a warmist mainstream newspaper, not a right-wing crackpot
>> blog.
>
> No, slightly right of center, like much of the US press, and thus not in
> denial.
It is right of centre it's true, but it is also consistently warmist.
The only UK broadsheet that isn't is the Daily Telegraph (also right of
centre).
So when I see warmism questioned in the Times, the Independent or on the
BBC, it's a sign that the mood is changing.
>> Just about everybody agrees the Himalayan glaciers won't really
>> melt by 2035 (even Pachauri has grudgingly admitted it).
>
> Make that everybody. It was a mistake, quickly corrected.
Well, after some spluttering about "voodoo science".
Peter Cole
> On 2010-02-02, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Corporate-controlled sources and right-wing crackpot blogs are
>>>> untrustworthy.
>>> So are government-controlled sources.
>> All governments?
>
> Everybody's biased, particularly on AGW. I recommend reading stuff from
> both sides and trying to get a clear view of the scientific case
> actually being made. Don't take anyone's word for it.
I do that with any issue.
I don't understand why "everybody" would be biased. I don't see the
universal motive.
>>> You had a change of government,
>> Just president.
>>
>> but over here, it's the same bunch of
>>> people (who by the way are what passes for the "left-wing") going on
>>> about global warming who were trying to convince us about Iraqi WMD a
>>> few years ago. Why should we believe them now?
>> Because they're not relying on US "intelligence"?
>
> My impression is they are not evidence-driven. They make up their minds
> what they want to do for various political reasons and then produce
> "intelligence" or "science" to justify it.
Yes, that's just the "bias" argument, restated. I don't find the motives
for bias typically put forward to be the least bit persuasive.
Global warming is pretty much bad news for everybody, developed or
developing countries, energy exporters or consumers. Strong denial is a
perfectly predictable reaction given entrenched, diverse economic interests.
There is an obvious ideological issue for deniers: a global problem
would require a global solution and a global infrastructure (legal,
regulatory and enforcement) to carry that out. For people who have
paranoia about a "new world order", that's the stuff of nightmares.
The bigger problem being exposed by the climate change debate is that,
at an exponential rate, economies are being interlinked, making issues
like pollution, labor practices and sustainable resource extraction
international to an extent never before seen. Failure to address those
issues in that context makes all EU and American progress in those areas
over the past century or so increasingly irrelevant. This is welcomed by
those who have opposed that progress for a century or more -- a
reactionary minority. A world refashioned in their vision won't be a
pretty (or healthy, or fair, or prosperous) sight. The rollbacks brought
by conservative ideology and globalization in the past couple of decades
and the havoc and misery they've wreaked should provide ample proof to
those who can step outside the propaganda. The global financial meltdown
we're all suffering under is just one dimension of that new reality.
>>>> The so-called "content" they bring must be presumed
>>>> corrupt, deluded and/or misleading until proven otherwise. You have
>>>> done nothing to shore up their pitiful credibility (unless it's to
>>>> worsen it further by adding your own reputation to it).
>>> The Times is a warmist mainstream newspaper, not a right-wing crackpot
>>> blog.
>> No, slightly right of center, like much of the US press, and thus not in
>> denial.
>
> It is right of centre it's true, but it is also consistently warmist.
> The only UK broadsheet that isn't is the Daily Telegraph (also right of
> centre).
>
> So when I see warmism questioned in the Times, the Independent or on the
> BBC, it's a sign that the mood is changing.
It is proper and laudable for the press to be skeptical and reveal any
misinformation or covert agendas. "Climategate" and IPCC overstatements
are fair fodder, but they're relatively minor and peripheral sideshows.
Given the enormity of the challenge of controlling CO2 emissions and the
staggering costs and economic disruptions, climate change is terrible
news for almost everyone. If it turned out to not be true, or
substantially overestimated, the world would breathe a collective sigh
of relief. As time passes and evidence accumulates, the chances of that
happening appear ever more remote, no matter what we would all wish for.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2009/0923/p06s05-woap.html
Out of curiosity, would you call the Chinese "left of center" for
supporting CO2 reductions? What possible motives could they have? It's a
great irony that after the "triumph" of capitalism and democracy, the
Chinese are skating through to current recession, while the dinosaurs in
the West still argue about Adam Smith.
>>> Just about everybody agrees the Himalayan glaciers won't really
>>> melt by 2035 (even Pachauri has grudgingly admitted it).
>> Make that everybody. It was a mistake, quickly corrected.
>
> Well, after some spluttering about "voodoo science".
Sure, bureaucracies don't turn on a dime, but peer review identified the
problem pretty quickly and the claim was retracted. My reaction is that
the process was more validated than invalidated. I have a really hard
time believing that the entire world-wide scientific community can be
manipulated or intimidated, that goes against centuries of historical
experience.
AMuzi
> the Bush Administration was spewing about Iraq having WMD's (while
> anyone with a clue who looked at the evidence concluded otherwise)
> just shows that you were a dumbass - it doesn't justify the invasion.
>
> The fact that you refuse to admit even now that Saddam did not have
> any WMD's just raises your dumbass rating beyond the levels previously
> thought humanly possible.
ClintonNewsNetwork:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/
MS-LSD:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp
Bill Sornson
LOL I literally had just posted a bunch of quotes from NON Bush sources --
then asked if Shallow wants 'em again -- and Cluless chimes in with "anyone
with a clue who looked at the evidence concluded otherwise".
Here they are again; and note that the last ones are well AFTER 9/11 and
subsequent actions.
Bill "Clueless wouldn't grab a clue if it was covered in smack 'n honey" S.
Ben C
> developing countries, energy exporters or consumers. Strong denial is a
> perfectly predictable reaction given entrenched, diverse economic interests.
>
> There is an obvious ideological issue for deniers: a global problem
> would require a global solution and a global infrastructure (legal,
> regulatory and enforcement) to carry that out. For people who have
> paranoia about a "new world order", that's the stuff of nightmares.
Indeed, and I wonder if the UN would be able to organize people to do
anything much about it even if everybody really did agree about the
"science" the way they say they do.
If I believed in AGW, I would be very worried.
[...]
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2009/0923/p06s05-woap.html
>
> Out of curiosity, would you call the Chinese "left of center" for
> supporting CO2 reductions?
They were just being diplomatic. I don't believe they do support CO2
reductions (at least not on their part) for three reasons.
First, I'm sure they have had their own people look at the science
rather than just taking the IPCC's word for it. You don't have to look
far to conclude that global warming and CO2 are nothing to be concerned
about for the foreseeable future.
Second, if they had really believed in it, they wouldn't have gutted the
Copenhagen agreement the way they did.
And finally, they've recently come out and said so, which is an
indicator of the changing political climate. Hard to imagine them saying
that 6 months ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/china-climate-change-adviser
China's most senior negotiator on climate change said today
[2010-01-24] he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming
was man-made or the result of natural cycles.
Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place,
but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the
causes.
> What possible motives could they have?
I don't think they have any objection to the US and Europe reducing
their CO2 emissions. Kyoto was a good deal for them because it
classified them as a developing country, so no reason to piss on the
bonfire.
Jay Beattie
International Atomic Energy Agency before the invasion -- since the
end of the first Gulf War in 1992. The UN was all over those
containers a decade before we attacked.
And as you can tell from the news coverage, the stuff was/is useless
without about a zillion dollars worth of sophisticated centrifuges and
decades of work. Building an A-bomb is not like putting together an
Ikea night stand. Even if they built the centrifuges, you just knock
them out with a Tomahawk, like the Sudan aspirin factory. No need to
go take over a country and all its problems. -- Jay Beattie.
Tom Ace
> HTH!
The US is governed by the tweedledum and tweedledee parties.
What else is new?
Tom Ace
Tom Sherman °_°
Tom Sherman °_°
> wrote:
>
>> "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass
>> destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming.
>> We're just getting it just now." -Colin Powell, May 4, 2003
>>
>> Tom Ace
>
> go before the UN and the public with those lies. Since he was
> (normally) a man of integrity, he couldn't live with himself and
> resigned right after that. He should have resigned before he let
> himself make that speech at the UN.[...]
And resigning before the Conquest of Iraq might have saved the US from a
second stolen Bush II term.
AMuzi
Bill Sornson
Certainly not a liberal deleting all content when his argument is refuted.
Bill "and next comes the personal attack" S.