Printable View
Of course, the president could have met them without making them part of a political stunt and they wouldn't have had to spend that extra day... But hey, we live in America; style over substance, irrespective of the costs.Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if there were not a good number of service men on there who thought the extra day was worth it for an opportunity to meet the president.
Let's bring this back on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by TacomaLuv
Freon has to do with the hole in the Ozone layer, not global warming. It is now much less of a problem thanks to regulation of the Freon and other CFCs. This was mentioned in the movie as an example of how large scale global problems can be addressed through united action.
Al Gore may not be a scientist, but I bet he knows a lot more about global warming than you do. What motivation do you think he has to lie? How will he make money through misrepresenting environmental science? Of course, given ML's point about the overall agreement in the scientific field, I doubt he's doing much misrepresentation.
Along the same point, you make accusations of scientific groupthink. But isn't there tremendous motivation for a scientist to prove everyone else wrong, to prove the contrarian position, to upset conventional wisdom; they don't get the recognition and grant money by confirming what everyone else thinks.
Any attempt to explain complex scientific information to the public demands a middleman, someone to compile information and present it in an easily digestible form. For example, a movie or slideshow. So who would you trust to do that fairly?
If anyone who believes in global warming is a liberal, and any liberal will misrepresent global warming information, therefore global warming does not exist.
That seems like poor reasoning.
One middleman who takes great pride in being a contrarian is Greg Easterbrook. He has long doubted global warming and has argued in favor of intelligent design. Now he's changed sides. Read his opinion piece here.
And finally, here are some charts with estimations of global temperature over the past 2000, 1000, and 150 years. Does the slope of the line in the last 150 years seem rather steep to anyone else?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ure_Record.png
Everybody listen up and listen good.....
The sky is falling!
:fuckyou: It may be a newsflash, but there are some things all the money in the world can't fix. So keep believing that cabals of scientists and journalists manipulate people daily, but capitalists never do because it's "the market", and keep up the stupid flippant dismisals of everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by CUBUCK
It is interesting how once again the doubters continue to use ZERO logic in their counter arguments.
Another point to add to the previous one I made about a lack of existence of peer reviewed arguments against global warming is that something like 52% of newspaper articles present the side of the argument that climate change is a farce. Henceforth the well thought out contributions of CUBUCK
I want to see something that shows the earth's temperature fluctuations over the last 500,000 years and then show me where we are today within that range.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
I don't deny that there is evidence that the planet has gotten warmer over the last 100 years. About 1 degree warmer or so. but what I would like to see is how this fits into a reasonable sample size of the earth's history.
What bothers me about it all is that people like Gore try to push the belief that one day in the next 50 years we will wake up and the earth's surface will be 90% covered in water.
I still wanna know what the hell we're supposed to do about Global Warming. Even going to pre-Industrial revolution carbon emission Levels would only cause stasis in the Greenhouse gases. Since that's not an option, and anything we do that's over that limit (meaning, anything "modern") will just increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, what the hell would all you doomsayers like us to fucking do about it?
Once again South Park summed it up nicely: "Look! It's Global Warming! RUN!"
Always the voice of reason:smile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Like most of the South Park summaries it's a trite means of avoiding the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
What to do? Well, admitting it is a problem is a start. Policies decoupling GDP growth and fossilfuel (oil) consumption would be another good step (it's been done before). Perhaps we can't 'fix' it. That doesn't mean limiting or reducing the effects would not be beneficial.
CUBUCK-
I'd like an exact model of all trading activity on the NYSE for the next year before I invest. I'll get back to you in a year with the money. That's a far easier system to model. Oh no! People exagerate! Gee, business, politicians, nobody else does that to make a point.
I don't understand why you buy into the "if we do something about climate change, it'll ruin the economy" line of bullshit tipp.
Our economy is attached to an Antiquated energy source, by developing the fuels and techs of the future we stand to gain a lot more than by sitting idly by.
We need a volunteer to go tell the Chinese all this if it is ever going to amount to anything.
It wont be me, I am still bloody from my last encounter with them.
Define "Something." Make it meaningful - i.e. reverse Global warming. Crying "wolf" gets old, especially since nobody has suggested a means of improving the situation, merely trying to decrfease the increase in annual emissions. THIS is why Kyoto wasn't ratified. All the scientific models showed it would have no effect whatsoever on the warming trend of the planet.
Keep your eye on the ball, folks. Unless we find a way of scrubbing all that carbon OUT of the atmosphere it really doesn't matter if our emissions increase at only 5% per annum vs 8%.
I've said it before - When a panel of Scientists at the last Global Warming Summit was asked by a group of journalists what the most effective action we as individuals can take to combat global warming was, the answer was "plant a tree."
Comeon Tipp, don't truck out that bullshit. Most people don't believe it's a problem, or don't want to believe it's a problem, so how is it crying wolf? And the "we've got to cure it 100% crap?" :nonono2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
It's just the same old stall, delay, obfuscate tactics.
"it doesn't exist"
"maybe it exists"
"it exists but it's not our fault"
"it's our fault but we can't do anything to fix it"
"we can't do much to fix it, and even that would be really expensive"
blah, blah, same bullshit different subject.
Same fucking stupid Americans. Same fucking stupid American politicians. Same fucking stupid debate.
Put actual resources behind developing alternative fuels. Increase Cafe standards so they are at least on par with that of China's for christ sake. Give incentives to people to switch to more energy efficient building materials. We have the ability to drastically curb this.
Sitting idly by and saying "it's too hard" is simply not the american way, and is a cop put of the grandest proportions
How about mandating that all new Powerplants GLOBALLY be Nuclear or non-fossil fuel based? Would that make you happy? How about mandating that ALL cars sold as of tomorrow need to be electric?
That still would do nothing to stop the Planet Earth from getting warmer.
THIS is what you are up against. People would certainly be more willing to change their routine IF IT WOULD FUCKING MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
"We need to do "something?" That's what the conservatives are doing with lowering the abortion rate - they say "don't talk about sex because that will lead people to have sex." Not very effective, is it?
Why not start with doing a rain dance.
Edit: damn, I hit the wrong button. I wasn't finished with my thought.
So if we (the educated) agree that Global Warming is real and, more importantly, a problem that needs to be resolved - then why not get together and figure out a way to actually FIX it? Fix the problem rather than merely delay it, which is what the Kyoto Protocol would have done at best. This way you can confront the Philistines who either don't believe or don't want to and say, "Look: Here's what we know. Global Warming is happening at ____ rate. This is bad because ___ . It will affect all of us in _____ years in ____ way, and it's fixable if we do ____."
The average Joe, Juan, Chung, or M'bula needs more than "please give up your internal combustion machines, cheap source of electricity, etc. because it would be a nice start."
I would rather stay at the present course while concentrating our resources at a solution than tying up those resources by implementing a "Band-Aid" that's dubious at best.
Tipp, in all honesty, fuck the phillipines, they aren't the ones who are emitting more that a 1/3 of the worlds CO2. If we actually took the lead in grappling with an issue of world wide importance, maybe we could once again get our entire nation back on the right track.
The entire debate here is that the US isn't doing ANYTHING to deal with the problem, and that by sticking our head in the sand we are letting opportunity pass us by. The whole point of the Gore movie isn't solely to convince people to switch their lightbulbs or drive more fuel efficient cars, but to motivate people to question why our leaders have been turning a blind eye to this problem for so long, and to force them to act.
Ugh. I give up. Philipines indeed.
Tipp,
Have you seen Gore's movie? Most of it is dedicated to convincing people that "Yes virginia, there is a problem." But there's a bit at the end where he talks addresses the very issue you're complaining about. Simply put, no there isn't a magic wand. But there are a collection of measures which we can take which could reduce our production of CO2 to (I believe) 1970 levels. It's a start.
And if that's what we could do today, what could we do 20 years from now once we've put our minds to it?
Will this be a drag on the economy? Will we have to resort to living in mud huts? Well, ask yourself this: do you really believe that developing new technology and then selling it to people is a drag on the economy?
As for Cono Este's point about the Chinese: See the movie. It's got a few shots of Gore giving his slide show in China.
I understand what you are saying with the "something" thing. But the fact of the matter is that we already have many of the resources we need to be able to start making an impact on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is a pretty delicate thing, given the amount of CO2 we've already pumped into, I really don't think we can take the risk of waiting to implement a cure-all technology when it emerges.
Tipp you just made the list.
I am not suggesting that we dont try, but the rest of the world is relatively poor, and will remain so quite for along time. Convincing them to join us and pay up for a prius is not gonna fly until they can feed themselves first. It does not mean that we, the west shoudl give up, but it will be relatively in effective as long the thrid world is burning car tires for warmth. Simply put, they have higher priorities than us fat westerners.
Let me know how Al Gores movie plays in China and India.
edit. Steven Colbert nailed it tonight. so funny.
yeah, unlike a draft dodger standing on an aircraft carrier in full flight suit proclaiming "mission accomplished!". i mean, how dare Gore play politics with his role in assisting the enablment of basic infrastructure that is the "internet" as we know it today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
A couple issues that might be of use to enter into the discussion.
The magnitude of any temperature increase that we've observed so far is insignificant in the long term.
Note that I said "in the long term" an average increase of 1C doesn't seem like much but think of how much mass (water, land, atmosphere) is now averaging ~1C warmer. That's a lot of energy in a stochastic system. And when you increase the net energy in a system subject to fluctuations, you increase the severity of major events and the frequency of events worth of note will also increase.
Should the rate as calculated over the past 3 decades of average global temperature increase continue through to 2100, we'll have experienced almost a 5C temperature increase. This brings us to approximately the temperature predicted to have been reached during the Permian-Triassic extinction event. This extinction event has been credited to many causes, but one that is increasingly supported within the scientific community is that the 5C increase caused methane hydrate to be releaset from solid form within the ocean beds. The rapid release of Methane then forced another ~5C increase in global temperatures resulting in the extinction of 95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species.
It's also worth noting that increased water temperatures could lead to increased hydrogen Sulfide levels (another minor greenhouse gas and very effective toxin).
But really, it's not the magnitude of the increase, it's the very high rate that concerns many scientists. Given enough time, species and climate systems can adapt in a non-catastrophic manner to the change. The problem is that the change is happening so fast that species will get squeezed out of their ranges without having time to colonize new ranges.
Re: Peer reviewed journals.
Unfortunatly, Biases of peer reviewers definitely color the ability of someone to get articles published. Fewer reviewers than should, would give their blessing to an article that attempts to disprove their life's work and contradicts their personal beliefs. It's a shame, but it's a fact of life, and has probably kept some very valid publications out of print.
I don't like how aggressive China has been in trying to find and rely on oil refineries (for example, trying to buy that Canadian co. in tajikastan) My problem with it is that they're a newly industrialized nation. Shanghai, for example, is a brand new city- all these auto plants going in are brand new. The Chinese aren't stupid- they've seen all of the problems the US has because of oil, and yet are STILL are creating an oil-based economy. It makes no sense.
Why aren't they basing their economy on an alternative fuel source? I understand that they have leftover steel plants and that the "Iron Rice Bowl" forced them to use oil in the past, but for all the industry that they're creating now... why are they still using oil? They definately have enough resources where they could create a wind, hydro electric, or even nuclear based grid, however they aren't. The only explanation I've ever heard is that it is based on how they used to do it- basically looking for the easiest and cheapest.
Anyways, we have bigger concerns with China than changing their energy policies. This admin is much more concerned with the trade deficit with China than promoting China's currency is based on holding US foreign reserves, so the second they switch to a market basket, our dollar will be driven down further. (But... this administration can't figure that out) :confused: .
As for the Phillipines- essentially these countries that are mining and producing raw materials are more concerned with keeping their wages down than the environment. If their wages go up, prices here would blow up astronomically, and here in the US we'd be hit with a huge inflation. From an economic standpoint, it's essential for them to maintain a cheap way to produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshies
Maybe they are all douche bags? Could it be possible?
KERRY: Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money.
And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.
Is Kerry a douchebag? Check
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
Is Al Gore a Douchebag? Check.
Is George Bush a douchebag? Check.
Now if you can, repeat after me. All these men are douchebags. None of them deserve a free pass.
Comparing Gore to Bush is just bogus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Bush loses massively on both the IQ and the ethics scales. Examples abound every day.
Gore does not. If you think he does, how about concrete examples?
They already have Tacoma. After we stiff armed them on the Unocal deal, they announced that they were shifting to a basket of currencies. They are also the single largest buyer of US debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by TacomaLuv
I say we should have let them have Unocal. Let them pay a premium for all these assets now that their value has risen so much. Let them continue to buy our treasuries and have a vested interest in our economy. The politicians really screwed the pooch on that one.
I rememeber Japans bubble. They bought the top accross the board and the top won. No need to worry.
China is filthiest country I have ever visited. I lived in the smog of Santiago Chile for 7yrs, and Shanghai blows that away. Its like a big greenhouse.
I didnt compare Bush to anyone, check with tip and freshies. How that screw made it in here I dont know.Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift
By the way, you failed the test.
Just out of curiosity, what test might that be? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Did you just contradict yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
If you let them grow to a market basket, it's decreasing their vested interest in a US economy. Think of it as a portfolio- right now, 100% in US treasuries... if they go to a market basket, only 70% will be in US.
I'd be interested to know if you think China should have an overall international market basket, or strictly an asian pacific rim market basket?
Right now, the only place China trades with with a stronger currency than themselves is us- They're not a strong trader with Europe- and it makes more sense for them to hold US dollar right now. I'm much more bearish on China than most people, because if you look at it- they have a banking system that is going to implode on itself and a massive population problem. The only reason we don't hear about mass riots is because the income from their export revenues are given to the millions of northeast provences who are starving, or throw $$ at crazy ass generals who then rule with an iron fist. It's so much worse than the press realizes... all this not to mention the fact that they have no stock market.
And by the way, right now, the largest holders of US foreign debt right now are private investors- oil sheiks. China has flattened out.
Re: the Japanese bubble- that was obvious and twofold- One- Japan couldn't support the ASian currency with the mass devaluations- Second- Japan's real estate market increased something like 5000% times, so once the currency devalued.
Basically, Japan had the same issue with their real estate that the US had with their stock market in the 1927. They've had a depression, which is why they've had 0% interest rate for the past 13 years. Japanese Central Bank STILL isn't positive that it's the right time to start charging interest.
PS- I am with you on Shanghai being disgusting. I was over there for work three weeks ago and just walking outside of my hotel for 2 seconds I felt like smoked two packs. :eek:
Everyone's giving you a pass, but in my humble opinion you are a fucking moron. You don't understand politics, you don't understand the environment, you don't understand global trade and you also sound like a fucking racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by TacomaLuv
Go back to Tacoma where you'll fit right in, lady.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
Oh geez. :rolleyes2 Obviously I AM I fucking moron, I wouldn't be on TGR otherwise... :D So, Ice... is this the part where you come after me in a black helicopter?
Was this guy one of the peers? If so, he's my sister's Father-in-Law. Really interesting guy to talk to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Telenater
The methane deposits you speak of are called Clathrates.
No helicopters.Quote:
Originally Posted by TacomaLuv
Look, I'm sorry, I don't hate you or anything, but I've been listening to a lot of people today talking about shit they don't know about and I took it out on you I guess. My bad.
Still, you are a Kook for real, you need to read more.
Peace and love and all
I like the new old iceman.
The dudgeon is back. Bring on the vitriol!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by iceman
I'm guessing Iceman didn't make "the list"Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Its not my list. And I was only guessing she did for speaking her mind. I think it was a good guess.