They Just Upped the Ante
don (Calgary)
are asking the richer nations to provide 1% of their national wealth
to the developing world..
The number they are asking for is 300 billion annually! That is more
than double the numbers that have been suggested before.
I only hope our leaders do not get wrapped up in the guilt and
ridicule that is being tossed at anyone that questions the IPCC and
the UN in this matter.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>I read in the evening paper, news from Copenhagen. The poorer nations
>are asking the richer nations to provide 1% of their national wealth
>to the developing world..
>
>The number they are asking for is 300 billion annually! That is more
>than double the numbers that have been suggested before.
I'm not sure that even includes all of them.
Freaking CHINA wants us to pay them as a 'developing nation',
too ! While they DOUBLE their CO2 output.
>I only hope our leaders do not get wrapped up in the guilt and
>ridicule that is being tossed at anyone that questions the IPCC and
>the UN in this matter.
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
S'mee
I hope they tell them to go get jobs instead of begging. Lazy
fuckers...
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:08:49 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I read in the evening paper, news from Copenhagen. The poorer nations
>>are asking the richer nations to provide 1% of their national wealth
>>to the developing world..
>>
>>The number they are asking for is 300 billion annually! That is more
>>than double the numbers that have been suggested before.
>
> I'm not sure that even includes all of them.
>
> Freaking CHINA wants us to pay them as a 'developing nation',
>too ! While they DOUBLE their CO2 output.
>
Aren't they already holding about a trillion dollars in US debt?
Whether you believe the GW and GHG theories or not, the movers and
shakers in the IPCC and the UN are way out of line on this one.
The problem is the first country that speaks out firmly against this
cash grab will be vilified internationally for being anti environment
or worse.
The same rhetoric that plays out in this forum will be repeated on the
international stage. The only question is will it gain an audience.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
It gets better :-)
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_politics0942_12_07.asp
"Ignoring the fallacies behind the �science� of man-made global
warming, a new U.N. report on �climate justice� says the U.S. and
other countries owe $24 trillion in �climate debt� to the rest of the
world. The report, �Climate Justice for a Changing Planet,� argues
that the United States is �historically the largest global emitter� of
greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest �debt� to pay.
But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 23:29:20 -0500, .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:08:49 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I read in the evening paper, news from Copenhagen. The poorer nations
>>>are asking the richer nations to provide 1% of their national wealth
>>>to the developing world..
>>>
>>>The number they are asking for is 300 billion annually! That is more
>>>than double the numbers that have been suggested before.
>>
>> I'm not sure that even includes all of them.
>>
>> Freaking CHINA wants us to pay them as a 'developing nation',
>>too ! While they DOUBLE their CO2 output.
>>
>Aren't they already holding about a trillion dollars in US debt?
>
>Whether you believe the GW and GHG theories or not, the movers and
>shakers in the IPCC and the UN are way out of line on this one.
>
>The problem is the first country that speaks out firmly against this
>cash grab will be vilified internationally for being anti environment
>or worse.
Like being called 'USA' ? :-)
>The same rhetoric that plays out in this forum will be repeated on the
>international stage. The only question is will it gain an audience.
Charles Krauthammer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html
J. Clarke
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:08:49 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> It gets better :-)
>
> http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_politics0942_12_07.asp
>
> "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had going
down the toilet.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > It gets better :-)
>
>
> > "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> > warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> > other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> > world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> > that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> > greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> > But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
>
> That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had going
> down the toilet.
I think we western nations should shut up and pay up.
Mark Olson
Why not? It's not like our money is going to be worth anything pretty
soon (already?) anyway. Joke'll be on them!
sleazy
<tomorrowat...@yahoo.com> said:
How about we just give them free and clear title to Washington DC,
provided they take it home with them?
--
sleazy
2001 BMW R1150GS
1988 Honda XR600R
1996 Triumph Daytona 1200
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Some conditions :
A ) Congress has to be in session, with all members present
B ) They have to stop by NYC on the way home and pick up the
UN to take, too.
C ) We will gladly pay the shipping.
S'mee
> .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > It gets better :-)
>
>
> > "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> > warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> > other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> > world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> > that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> > greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> > But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
>
> That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had going
> down the toilet.
They had credit (well besides at their local brothel anyway)?
S'mee
> On 2009-12-12 02:52:00 -0500, "tomor...@erols.com"
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 1:03 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:08:49 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> It gets better :-)
>
> >>>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_politics0942_1...
>
> >>> "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> >>> warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> >>> other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> >>> world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> >>> that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> >>> greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> >>> But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
>
> >> That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had goin
> > g
> >> down the toilet.
>
> > I think we western nations should shut up and pay up.
>
> How about we just give them free and clear title to Washington DC,
> provided they take it home with them?
Well everything but the museums...I'm kinda fond of the Smithsonian
museums.
Vito
|I read in the evening paper, news from Copenhagen. The poorer nations
| are asking the richer nations to provide 1% of their national wealth
| to the developing world..
|
| The number they are asking for is 300 billion annually! That is more
| than double the numbers that have been suggested before.
|
To put that in perspective, JFK's first US budget caused a stink because it
was just over $100 billion.
J. Clarke
I think we western nations should tell the rest of the world that the next
fossil fueled power plant to go online eats a nuke.
sleazy
Works for me. Maybe we can get Air Mobility Command to deliver in 30
minutes or less. They can just push it out the back door less the
parachutes as they pass overhead. We'll keep the museums for Keef (and
the Memorials for the rest of us).
Toss in the FBI and all the other three letter agencies for dessert.
J. Clarke
Give 'em Los Angeles while you're about it.
Dean Hoffman
> I think we western nations should tell the rest of the world that the next
> fossil fueled power plant to go online eats a nuke.
>
We'd be picking a fight with China. They are firing up a coal
powered generating plant every few days. Where would Walmart get all
its goods?
don (Calgary)
The push for reparations is being made by the UN and IPCC. The IPCC is
of course made up of the scientists who are warning us of the dangers
of man made GHG and GW.
By extension would it be fair to say their credibility should also
suffer?
>
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
OK, let's nuke Walmart !
J. Clarke
Since they are a subsidiary of the UN their credibility went down the tubes
with the UN.
Copenhagen was supposed to be about fixing a problem, not about assigning
blame and redistributing wealth.
If the First World is to be punished for things that happened before anybody
knew that there was a problem, then any nation whose emissions became the
largest in the world _after_ Kyoto should be fined 10 times as much don't
you agree?
don (Calgary)
Depends. Would "after Kyoto" refer to the date it was adopted or
ratified? After defining "after Kyoto" would the fine be applied to
countries that failed to meet their Kyoto target, or actual emission
increases or emission increases per capita (intensities).
The 1990 date established as the benchmark for Kyoto reduction targets
was totally arbitrary. It is a date that benefited some countries and
penalized others.
Along with the collapse of the Soviet Union, their economy, and the
economy of their satellites also collapsed, providing them with a
reduction of GHG, post 1990. They have benefitted from that collapse.
As their economies have ramped up, their antiquated energy technology
has been replaced with similar, cleaner, systems to those already in
place in the "Developed" countries. Are they now producing more or
less GHG per capita than we are in North America? I would guess
probably more. But since we were using cleaner technology prior to
1990 we will have to pay the penalty, while they will reap the
benefit.
The same could be said for the UK. Was the UK "Dash for Gas" driven by
the need to reduce GHG emissions or was it Maggie finally getting
pissed off at the destructive coal mining strikes. Either way the UK's
switch from coal to gas provided them the opportunity to meet their
Kyoto targets.
Now had the benchmark date for Kyoto been, say the date it was
adopted, 1997 or the date it was ratified, 2005, would the old Soviet
Union countries and the UK fare so well in a comparison to Canada and
the US? Probably not.
So the long answer is, before deciding who to penalize, it would be
nice to start with a level playing field.
The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
tomorrowat...@yahoo.com
> On 2009-12-12 02:52:00 -0500, "tomor...@erols.com"
> <tomorrowaterolsdot...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 1:03 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:08:49 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> It gets better :-)
>
> >>>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2009/ss_politics0942_1...
>
> >>> "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> >>> warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> >>> other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> >>> world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> >>> that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> >>> greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> >>> But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
>
> >> That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had goin
> > g
> >> down the toilet.
>
> > I think we western nations should shut up and pay up.
>
> How about we just give them free and clear title to Washington DC,
> provided they take it home with them?
Unfortunately, they're probably too smart to fall for that!
The Older Gentleman
> The same could be said for the UK. Was the UK "Dash for Gas" driven by
> the need to reduce GHG emissions or was it Maggie finally getting
> pissed off at the destructive coal mining strikes.
Neither.
More research and knowledge needed ;-)
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> The same could be said for the UK. Was the UK "Dash for Gas" driven by
>> the need to reduce GHG emissions or was it Maggie finally getting
>> pissed off at the destructive coal mining strikes.
>
>Neither.
>
>More research and knowledge needed ;-)
I was going to suggest you could enlighten us, but then I realized
that was just plain silly.
sleazy
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:57:43 -0600, Dean Hoffman
> <dh0496@in#&ebr^as^#ka.com> wrote:
>
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> I think we western nations should tell the rest of the world that the next
>>> fossil fueled power plant to go online eats a nuke.
>>>
>>
>> We'd be picking a fight with China. They are firing up a coal
>> powered generating plant every few days. Where would Walmart get all
>> its goods?
>
> OK, let's nuke Walmart !
'bout time we put them MIRVs to use!
The Older Gentleman
OK, if you insist. Bear with me.
The 'Dash for gas" (It's not a phrase used much here, but never mind)
started in the early 1980s.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nte23465.htm
The first paragraph of that article (dated 2002) refers to "more than
two decades after the UK decided on a "dash for gas".
The phrase is also used to refer to the expansion of the gas power
generation programme in the late 1980s/1990s. It's also used to refer to
the present run, started in the late 1990s. You don't say which era
you're referring to, so let's take all three.
Dash One:-
North Sea Gas started flowing into Britain in the 1960s, and huge
efforts were made to persuade industry (and consumers) to use it. It was
cheap and clean.
Clean doesn't mean GHGs - nobody had really heard of greenhouse gases
back then, and in the early 1980s we were still eagerly awaiting those
new catalytic convertors on cars which would turn those nasty CO
emissions into 'harmless' CO2. For most people, coal smoke meant acid
rain and other nasties. So that rules out your GHG hypothesis.
Secondly, the Miners' Strike that Maggie dealt with started in 1984. So
that rules out Maggie getting pissed off by the miners strikes.
Right: Dash Two
The reason why the coal pits were closed was because they were
uneconomic. It's that simple. Oil and gas prices were low, and gas was
clean (again, in the older sense of the term: again, in the late 1980s,
few really talked or cared much about GHGs. We were more worried wbout
the ozone layer and CFCs. So that rules out your hypothesis there.
OK, Maggie pissed off about the miners in the late 1980s? No. The miners
were a busted flush. Dead. Buried. Gone. So that rules out your
hypothesis there. True, some people like to say that the miners were the
cause of it, but anyone who thinks that Maggie would embark on a
gigantic programme like this just to keep a broken union in its place is
the sort of dork who thinks that Bush deliberately demolished the Twin
Towers.
Finally, the Dash that started in the late 1990s:- GHGs? Not really, but
a minor contributory factor. The problem here is that demand for gas is
now so great that the North Sea won't be able to supply it all. So we
need to import. Pipelines from Russia for natural gas, and LPG from
overseas. Trouble with the latter is it means building storage
facilities, which we haven't had since the days of coal gas, because we
didn't need them: the gas was just piped directly from the North Sea to
wherever it went.
And Maggie, here? Er, no: she'd been out of power for years.
And finally - the gas industry was privatised in the 1980s, and this
coincided with Dash Two. In other words, the decisions to 'go gas' were
made by corporates, and not by the government at all.
There you go.
The interesting thing is that with the rise of oil prices, coal is now
becoming economic again, and the experimental carbon capture technology
may (or not) prove a winner. We may see coal-fired power generation on a
large scale again.
Oh, and finally - do you know how Maggie managed to defeat the miners?
Among other things, she'd stockpiled huge quantities of coal by the
power stations. Coal.
J. Clarke
So you're saying that after due consideration you've come around to the
viewpoint that punishing the First World to the tune of 45 trillion dollars
is _not_ a sensible thing to do?
don (Calgary)
Well if you want the short answer. <g>
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>OK, if you insist. Bear with me
I told you it would be silly.
Vito
| I think we western nations should tell the rest of the world that the next
| fossil fueled power plant to go online eats a nuke.
|
Colombus contacted them in 1492. A century later some 90% of the
inhabitants were dead according to current theory. How would a 90%
population reduction in current 3rd world countries affect global warming?
The Older Gentleman
Your snappy little sound-bite being destroyed? Well, yes, but you did
ask for details, and you got them.
Of course, if you want to argue on any of the dates and facts, feel
free.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> >
>> >OK, if you insist. Bear with me
>>
>> I told you it would be silly.
>
>Your snappy little sound-bite being destroyed? Well, yes, but you did
>ask for details, and you got them.
If you go back and read my post you will find I didn't ask for
details, but please do not let a little fact get in the way of your
ankle biting. Clearly it is what you are best at.
>
>Of course, if you want to argue on any of the dates and facts, feel
>free.
I was thinking about pointing out a few flaws in your message but then
realized your response would be just plain silly
S'mee
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:03:22 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> >.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >> It gets better :-)
>
>
> >> "Ignoring the fallacies behind the "science" of man-made global
> >> warming, a new U.N. report on "climate justice" says the U.S. and
> >> other countries owe $24 trillion in "climate debt" to the rest of the
> >> world. The report, "Climate Justice for a Changing Planet," argues
> >> that the United States is "historically the largest global emitter" of
> >> greenhouse gas emissions and therefore has the biggest "debt" to pay.
>
> >> But another U.N. report puts the figure at $45 trillion.
>
> >That giant flushing sound is the little credibility the UN still had going
> >down the toilet.
>
> The push for reparations is being made by the UN and IPCC. The IPCC is
> of course made up of the scientists who are warning us of the dangers
> of man made GHG and GW.
>
> By extension would it be fair to say their credibility should also
> suffer?
What credibility? When I was a wee lad of 13 or 14 I sussed what a
bunch of self righteous thieves they were and thus have given them the
credibility they deserve...absolutly NONE. How any intelligent or semi-
intelligent person could EVER give the UN credability for anything
except skillful thievery is beyond me. The irony being that I can't
read people (low EQ)
Fuck 'em I hope they starve.
S'mee
SNIP
> The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
> catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
The problem there is it's ego-centric and self agrandizing to ASSUME
that it was caused by humans. Note I didn't say we didn't make it
worse by some miniscule amount that frankly doesn't means squat. IIRC
our current output is on a a fraction of a percent of what Mt.
Pinatubo (did I spell that corrcetly?) But hey, what would I know I
just read what's published.
Fuck the poor if they wont work to raise themselves.
don (Calgary)
<steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 11:27�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>SNIP
>> The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
>> catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
>
>The problem there is it's ego-centric and self agrandizing to ASSUME
>that it was caused by humans.
I tend to agree with you. I often wonder, if, and that is a big if, we
had a procedure that would guarantee a reduction in the earth's
temperature, would I want to see it implemented. There are a hundred
ways doing something like that could bite us in the butt. I am just
not so arrogant to think we understand everything there is to
understand regarding the climate. Absent of that knowledge my sense is
we shouldn't be fucking about with it.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:16:57 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
><steven...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 12, 11:27�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>>SNIP
>>> The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
>>> catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
>>
>>The problem there is it's ego-centric and self agrandizing to ASSUME
>>that it was caused by humans.
>
>I tend to agree with you. I often wonder, if, and that is a big if, we
>had a procedure that would guarantee a reduction in the earth's
>temperature, would I want to see it implemented. There are a hundred
>ways doing something like that could bite us in the butt. I am just
>not so arrogant to think we understand everything there is to
>understand regarding the climate. Absent of that knowledge my sense is
>we shouldn't be fucking about with it.
Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
Little localized things, yes - we can fuck up a river, a lake,
slice off a small bit of mountain top, whatever. But anything that is
truly GLOBAL in scope, and permanent ?
Pick one ocean - a nice small one - can we, with all of
mankind's supposed 'power and knowledge' change its temperature by 1/2
of a degree ?
Pick a mountain - can we move it one inch ?
Pick a tectonic plate - can we slow it's movement by the
tiniest fraction ?
Can we change our rotation, or orbit ? Make or stop a
hurricane ? How about a little local tornado, can we influence even
that ? Maybe stop the rain, or the wind ? or create either one ?
S'mee
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:16:57 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
>
> >On Dec 12, 11:27 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> >SNIP
> >> The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
> >> catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
>
> >The problem there is it's ego-centric and self agrandizing to ASSUME
> >that it was caused by humans.
>
> I tend to agree with you. I often wonder, if, and that is a big if, we
> had a procedure that would guarantee a reduction in the earth's
> temperature, would I want to see it implemented. There are a hundred
> ways doing something like that could bite us in the butt. I am just
> not so arrogant to think we understand everything there is to
> understand regarding the climate. Absent of that knowledge my sense is
> we shouldn't be fucking about with it.
Well if one goes by an examination of the human physiology...We are
evolved for a hot wet climate. Ergo a cooler enviroment is not to our
benefit imho. <shrug> But hey, WTF do I know I doan' 'ave no steenkin'
PH fracking DEE or tenure. I'm not part of the ivory tower clique and
as such I ain't got no brains and them folks shoo'd be dooin' dey
t'inkink four me.
S'mee
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:34:22 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:16:57 -0800 (PST), "S'mee"
> ><stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 12, 11:27 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>SNIP
> >>> The short answer is no. If GW is man made, and if the results will be
> >>> catastrophic, we need remedies, not penalties.
>
> >>The problem there is it's ego-centric and self agrandizing to ASSUME
> >>that it was caused by humans.
>
> >I tend to agree with you. I often wonder, if, and that is a big if, we
> >had a procedure that would guarantee a reduction in the earth's
> >temperature, would I want to see it implemented. There are a hundred
> >ways doing something like that could bite us in the butt. I am just
> >not so arrogant to think we understand everything there is to
> >understand regarding the climate. Absent of that knowledge my sense is
> >we shouldn't be fucking about with it.
>
> Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
> small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
>
> Little localized things, yes - we can fuck up a river, a lake,
> slice off a small bit of mountain top, whatever. But anything that is
> truly GLOBAL in scope, and permanent ?
>
> Pick one ocean - a nice small one - can we, with all of
> mankind's supposed 'power and knowledge' change its temperature by 1/2
> of a degree
AAMOF we sure as fuck can...but it might take a millenium. But we can
damn sure crank it up a notch.
> Pick a mountain - can we move it one inch ?
One inch? Don't be a picker! We'll move it across the whole fucking
planet and make a gawddamned disney world outta the damned thing. Mind
you it will take a millenium.
> Pick a tectonic plate - can we slow it's movement by the
> tiniest fraction ?
Yes, but it'll take a bit. Have to factor in how it affects the OTHER
plates. Remember we only want to slow ONE and ONLY one god damned
tetonic plate. That'll take a while...mostly dealing with the fucking
unions. But yeah it's doable give or take a millentium...it can be
done.
> Can we change our rotation, or orbit ?
Yes, give it a 250,000 years and we fo' shizzle can do it. It does
require accounting for how the other planatary orbits are effected.
Otherwise the whole damned solar system ends up in the sun.
> Make or stop a
> hurricane ?
Sure but first you have to justify the effects around the globe. Give
it 50 years and it'll be doable but the math to figure to effect on
the rest of the planet will take another 250.
>How about a little local tornado, can we influence even that ?
Yes, yes we can and in less than 50 years.
> Maybe stop the rain, or the wind ? or create either one ?
We already make and stop rain. See above for your fantasy about the
wind...
You stupidly ask for things that are GOING to happen... ask for
something HARD why don't you. You tadpoles are so funny with your
questions that are easy. Answer the HARD questions.
The Older Gentleman
> >Your snappy little sound-bite being destroyed? Well, yes, but you did
> >ask for details, and you got them.
>
> If you go back and read my post you will find I didn't ask for
> details, but please do not let a little fact get in the way of your
> ankle biting.
No, you wondered which event had prompted the rush for gas, I said
neither, and you snapped back saying you'd hoped for enlightenment and
hadn't got it, so you got it.
Not technically a request for details, but it amounts to the same thing.
Of course, if you think your original posting was accurate and my
explanation of events incorrect, I'm ready to be corrected.
don (Calgary)
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >Your snappy little sound-bite being destroyed? Well, yes, but you did
>> >ask for details, and you got them.
>>
>> If you go back and read my post you will find I didn't ask for
>> details, but please do not let a little fact get in the way of your
>> ankle biting.
>
>No, you wondered which event had prompted the rush for gas, I said
>neither, and you snapped back saying you'd hoped for enlightenment and
>hadn't got it, so you got it.
No, I said I was going to suggest you could enlighten us, but then I
realized that was just plain silly.
>
>Not technically a request for details, but it amounts to the same thing.
Ummm no it doesn't amount to the same thing.
>
>Of course, if you think your original posting was accurate and my
>explanation of events incorrect, I'm ready to be corrected.
You may stand corrected.
Chuck Rhode
> Pick a tectonic plate - can we slow it's movement by the
> tiniest fraction ?
Reunite Pangea!
o http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 28° — Wind NNE 3 mph — Sky overcast.
S'mee
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:22:43 -0500, .p.jm. wrote:
> > Pick a tectonic plate - can we slow it's movement by the
> > tiniest fraction ?
>
> Reunite Pangea!
>
> ohttp://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668
>
Nice idea but I think he just wanted a demonstration NOT a total
remodel. <shrug> can't hurt, much.
Stephen Cowell
<.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
> Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
> small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
There goes that gut feeling again... tell this to the giant
plastic trash gyres in the oceans.
__
Steve
.
Bob Myers
>
> Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
> small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
>
> Little localized things, yes - we can fuck up a river, a lake,
> slice off a small bit of mountain top, whatever. But anything that is
> truly GLOBAL in scope, and permanent ?
Actually - yes, we can do that. And citing any number of specific
examples of things that we *can't* do doesn't change that. I can think
of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
effect. I think that you could to, if you put your mind to it. Some
are quite simple, in fact; it would just take a (very unlikely, to be
sure) commitment to actually do them.
Bob M.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Making my point for me - on the palenetary scale, that is both
local and temporary.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
<nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>
>> Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
>> small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
>>
>> Little localized things, yes - we can fuck up a river, a lake,
>> slice off a small bit of mountain top, whatever. But anything that is
>> truly GLOBAL in scope, and permanent ?
>
>Actually - yes, we can do that. And citing any number of specific
>examples of things that we *can't* do doesn't change that. I can think
>of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
>and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
Such as ?
>effect. I think that you could to, if you put your mind to it. Some
>are quite simple, in fact; it would just take a (very unlikely, to be
>sure) commitment to actually do them.
>
>Bob M.
>
--
Stephen Cowell
<.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:42 -0700, "Bob Myers" wrote:
...
>>I can think
>>of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
>>and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
>
> Such as ?
Atmospheric atomic bomb testing, for one.
Will be plain as day in the geologic record for
hundreds of millions of years.
And, after all, aren't *we* a temporary global
phenomenon?
__
Steve
.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
<stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:42 -0700, "Bob Myers" wrote:
>
>...
>
>>>I can think
>>>of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
>>>and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
>>
>> Such as ?
>
>Atmospheric atomic bomb testing, for one.
A ) Localized temporary phenomina. Meaningless in global /
planetary terms. WItness Hiroshima / Nagasaki / Bikini Islands /
Chernobyl / etc.
B ) 'Great big stinking deal' to the little humans in the
neighborhood, yes. Not even a good sneeze in planetary terms.
>Will be plain as day in the geologic record for
>hundreds of millions of years.
A ) You exagerate the timeframe, and the effect
B ) Merely 'measurable' does not make it 'signifigant', nor
'planet changing'.
>And, after all, aren't *we* a temporary global
>phenomenon?
Exactly correct. A superficial one, localized in various tiny
little micro-ecologies, from the viewpoint of the planet. Plankton is
more important and wide-spread than we are. We are merely another
species, one among many millions, that wasn't here yesterday, happens
to be here today, and very likely won't be here tomorrow ( speaking in
planetary 'days', which are millions of years in our puny little
terms. )
Stephen Cowell
<.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
news:ilkci5t1n9n9ij6th...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:50:51 -0600, "Stephen Cowell"
> <stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:42 -0700, "Bob Myers" wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>>I can think
>>>>of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
>>>>and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
>>>
>>> Such as ?
>>
>>Atmospheric atomic bomb testing, for one.
>
> A ) Localized temporary phenomina. Meaningless in global /
> planetary terms. WItness Hiroshima / Nagasaki / Bikini Islands /
> Chernobyl / etc.
Isotope ratios had to be recalibrated... there is 'before testing'
and 'after testing'.
> B ) 'Great big stinking deal' to the little humans in the
> neighborhood, yes. Not even a good sneeze in planetary terms.
>
>>Will be plain as day in the geologic record for
>>hundreds of millions of years.
>
> A ) You exagerate the timeframe, and the effect
It will be as plain as the iridium layer from C/T.
> B ) Merely 'measurable' does not make it 'signifigant', nor
> 'planet changing'.
Below, we find out what you mean by 'significant'...
>>And, after all, aren't *we* a temporary global
>>phenomenon?
>
> Exactly correct. A superficial one, localized in various tiny
> little micro-ecologies,
So, burn it up, baby... we're going to hell anyway?
Are you secretly a cockroach?
__
Steve
.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
<stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote in message
>news:ilkci5t1n9n9ij6th...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:50:51 -0600, "Stephen Cowell"
>> <stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:42 -0700, "Bob Myers" wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>I can think
>>>>>of several things that are well within our technological capabilities
>>>>>and which would, if implemented, would have long-lasting global
>>>>
>>>> Such as ?
>>>
>>>Atmospheric atomic bomb testing, for one.
>>
>> A ) Localized temporary phenomina. Meaningless in global /
>> planetary terms. WItness Hiroshima / Nagasaki / Bikini Islands /
>> Chernobyl / etc.
>
>Isotope ratios had to be recalibrated... there is 'before testing'
>and 'after testing'.
You think the planet cares what we do with our little
measuring devices ?
>
>> B ) 'Great big stinking deal' to the little humans in the
>> neighborhood, yes. Not even a good sneeze in planetary terms.
>>
>>>Will be plain as day in the geologic record for
>>>hundreds of millions of years.
>>
>> A ) You exagerate the timeframe, and the effect
>
>It will be as plain as the iridium layer from C/T.
And the planet will care .... why ?
>
>> B ) Merely 'measurable' does not make it 'signifigant', nor
>> 'planet changing'.
>
>Below, we find out what you mean by 'significant'...
>
>>>And, after all, aren't *we* a temporary global
>>>phenomenon?
>>
>> Exactly correct. A superficial one, localized in various tiny
>> little micro-ecologies,
>
>So, burn it up, baby... we're going to hell anyway?
There is no hell.
>Are you secretly a cockroach?
If it were a secret, would I tell you ?
Chuck Rhode
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:21:11 -0600, "Stephen Cowell"
> <stephenleeN...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Are you secretly a cockroach?
> If it were a secret, would I tell you ?
Are you channeling Ovid or Kafka?
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 4° — Wind W 10 mph
Bob Myers
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:47:42 -0700, "Bob Myers"
> <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> .p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Working to our advantage is the fact that we're entirely too
>>> small, powerless, and insignifigant to have any global effects.
>>>
>>> Little localized things, yes - we can fuck up a river, a lake,
>>> slice off a small bit of mountain top, whatever. But anything that
>>> is truly GLOBAL in scope, and permanent ?
>>
>> Actually - yes, we can do that. And citing any number of specific
>> examples of things that we *can't* do doesn't change that. I can
>> think of several things that are well within our technological
>> capabilities and which would, if implemented, would have
>> long-lasting global
>
> Such as ?
What, you're not even going to TRY to think of a few on your
own? It's not that hard.
Bob M.
Rob Kleinschmidt
We went through very similar exercises a couple
decades ago with use of DDT and CFCs. Both
came complete with skeptic movements that
are probably still alive and well. Oddly enough,
civilization as we know it survived.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
Have you noticed what has happened to the malaria death rates
in Africa since we stopped using DDT ?
S'mee
Who cares? I sure as fuck don't.