The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Your so funny Nehor. So this warming is really God's punishment on the right for their greed? .. Really that is your argument. It holds about as much water as Pat Robertson thinking that the hurricanes is a punishment against gays sent by God. Sad thing is that you turn a blind eye on your own party and their greed and crony capitalism. Greed transcends party lines. Time for you to wake up. BTW the GOP is not right wing.Note that I said I was playing a role. If the climate decides to justly kill us I expect there is plenty of blame to go around.I just insulted my own party. I usually vote Republican. If the GOP is not real right-wing then there has never been a real right-wing party (except for maybe fascists).
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 They sky is falling the sky is falling.Yup!
ERayR Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) I know of no factual data which negates the scientific conclusions of climate scientists that global warming is a fact and has been produced through industrial human activity. Even Exxon now admits the risk of climate change.* The only holdouts are non-scientists who want to continue polluting and making money by causing more global warming. And the whole matter is now going to court in a major libel suit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State:http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/01/30/defamation-suit-brought-michael-mann-may-sink-national-review/ . * http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/29/exxon-ceo-climate-change-poses-significant-risk-but-outcome-is-uncertain/ . Read something besides donation pleas from global warming fund raisers. One small volcano produces more pollution in one eruption than man does in years. El nino and La nina affects weather pattern extremes more than anything man can do and these determine by Pacific Ocean volcanism. Edited January 31, 2014 by ERayR
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 ..................................................... The Thames river in London is WAY better now than even in Shakespeare's time. ---------------------------------------------- Yeh, but London will be flooded by century end. So they won't be "changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, says Alice."And Alta and Park City won't see any snow under the ski lifts. One may have to go to Siberia or Alaska for Winter sports and the Winter Olympics.
ERayR Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 I gave you a rep point for the spirit of your statements.However, that doesn't really help anything. Why? Because we have already passed the point of no return. Such a load of greenhouse gasses has been put into our atmosphere already that nothing we do now (or don't do) makes any difference. Oceans are already rising slightly, and by end of century we will have ocean levels at around 1 meter higher than now. This inundates all ports worldwide (which must be rebuilt on higher ground), eliminates many South Sea islands, much of Florida, most of Bangladesh, all of Holland, and low coastlines worldwide. The great rivers coming from the Himalayas will run much lower, thus leading to Malthusian famine in India, Pakistan, China, and Indochina. The same will apply to the rivers of Europe which are dependent on Alpine snow-pack. Social and political dislocations will take place worldwide, quite aside from the deaths of millions. Had we sought to arrest this problem some 30 or 40 years ago, a difference might have been made. Now it is too late. Such a load of greenhouse gasses b__ has been put into airways that have proved nothing more than great fund raising scare tactics.
ERayR Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Yeh, but London will be flooded by century end. So they won't be "changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, says Alice."And Alta and Park City won't see any snow under the ski lifts. One may have to go to Siberia or Alaska for Winter sports and the Winter Olympics. And the polar ice caps were supposed to be melted by now.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 One small volcano produces more pollution in one eruption than man does in years. El nino and La nina affects weather pattern extremes more than anything man can do and these determine by Pacific Ocean volcanism. Nonsense. The El Nino cycle will have no such effect. And no small volcano will quite do it.So we must pin our hopes on the next Tambora or Krakatoa, but not the eruption of a supervolcano* (which would end life as we know it). * http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/yellowstone-super-eruptions.htm .
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 And the polar ice caps were supposed to be melted by now. False.The melting of the polar ice is actually taking place faster than scientists had predicted, and the same is true of glaciers and ice packs (such as Greenland) worldwide. Spring now comes earlier and Winter comes later and warmer temps are moving north, affecting plant and animal habitats.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Such a load of greenhouse gasses b__ has been put into airways that have proved nothing more than great fund raising scare tactics.I actually think that the worst thing for the planet is all those airplanes mucking about at 30,000 feet, filling the air with the products of kerosene combustion.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Such a load of greenhouse gasses b__ has been put into airways that have proved nothing more than great fund raising scare tactics.Climate scientists have known of this basic problem since the 1950s, and have not had the monetary motive for lying which has been the basis of corporate efforts to lobby for unfettered greenhouse gas releases (the fossil fuel industry). Do you actually trust corporate America? Do really believe that they care about anything other than the bottom line?
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 You missed the point entirely. Air and water pollution used to be much worse. Efforts to improve the environment are good and laudable providing they are reasonable. What is not reasonable IMNSHO is the large expenditures and restrictions on personal liberties engendered by the fashionable pseudoscience which does nothing but to funnel money to the Al Gores of the world. Yes the air is visibly better, and I applaud and appreciate that effort. I remember all to well Stage 4 Smog Alerts.http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-air-pollution-0428-pictures,0,2118217.photogallery#axzz2rzyePEl1 No large personal expenditures are needed. IE; When my old appliances wore out I simply replaced them with more energy efficient models. When my old tube style TV wore out I replaced it with a much larger flat panel one, and it still uses less electricity. When my cars wear out I simply replace them with more energy efficient models. So I achieve the same goals and save money doing it. Sounds like a win/win to me. As to large public expenditures. That is very relative. What restrictions on personal freedom would that be? My personal freedom to dump my sewage into your lunges? Yes that would be a restriction, but you might like it anyway. OTOH Does it really matter that much if our cars are powered by hydrogen, or electricity? If we get to where you need to be, when we need to be there. My sister takes the train every work day into L.A.. Does it really mean a lose of her personal freedoms that she take the train to work in speed, comfort, while reading the Newspaper, and with no hassles with L.A. traffic? I used to have to commute 3 hrs one way to work. Was that not a lose of my personal freedoms? What if we lived closer to our jobs, and could walk to work when we wanted to. Would that be a lose of personal freedoms? I light my home with mixed lighting largely through florescent lights. I get more light at less cost than with regular incandescent lights. Exactly how is that a loss of my personal freedom? The science is settled. CO2 is a pollutant. Try breathing just CO2 for a while. It traps heat. Not just us "Tree-huggers" say so. The only question is how much sewage do we pump into the air we breath before it becomes a big problem. 340 ppm is the maximum that allows for maintaining the ecosystem and our lifestyle without too many bad things happening. We've blown right past that, and are just starting to see the consequences. I never once mentioned Al Gore as a scientist. Like or hate his politics. The science is settled, clear, and straight forward. Mess with science and science has the power to really mess with you.
strappinglad Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Science is rarely settled, particularly when there are a multitude of variables and unknowns involved. The essence of science is debate. Science is constantly being " surprised " by observations in nature that contradict accepted theories. Major examples of this are the results from probes to the planets which turned many prognostications to dust. Rather than trying to change the world economy , why not focus efforts on the doable like restoring the Cod stocks which will improve the Seal population which will benefit the Polar bears. With every advance in efficiency comes a new problem to solve. Case in point, light bulbs. There is and will be for the foreseeable future , a problem with the disposal of all these fluorescent bulbs. Electric cars are great except the manufacture ,transport, and disposal of the high efficient batteries greatly offsets the energy benefit. We humans are an adaptable bunch. So are the Polar bears who seem to have survived mini ice ages and periods of warm times which actually made Greenland green. I am all for cleaning up our own mess. There is lots to be done. Little can be done without strong economies in each land.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Note that I said I was playing a role. If the climate decides to justly kill us I expect there is plenty of blame to go around.I just insulted my own party. I usually vote Republican. If the GOP is not real right-wing then there has never been a real right-wing party (except for maybe fascists).Ok just making sure. In the European sense Right wing meant fascist and left wing meant communist. Does that sum up your understanding of right and left wing? As I understand it that is typically what those in higher learning refer to as left and right wing.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) And the polar ice caps were supposed to be melted by now. Ray, Never mind that the ice caps in the south are at it thickest in recorded history. That has nothing to do with what you are saying. What you are saying is just hog wash (Rofl). Not only were the ice caps predicted (by some) to be melted they were predicted to be non existent right now in their respective summer climates. And last I had heard the ice in Greenland was thicker too. It might not be spread out as much as it used to but it was thicker. And you are correct that over all the pollution that the US put in to the atmosphere has been reduced because of newer technologies. We no longer burn coal to heat our houses like we used to. Most of the plants these days that produce electricity is run on natural gas. Edited January 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Ok just making sure. In the European sense Right wing meant fascist and left wing meant communist. Does that sum up your understanding of right and left wing? As I understand it that is typically what those in higher learning refer to as left and right wing.No, those are the extremes but you can be right wing without being a fascist (market conservative is an example) and left wing without being a communist (market socialism is an example).By global standards the Republicans are very right and the Democrats either lightly right or moderate depending on who you ask.My father is an old school Republican and my Mother a southern Democrat so I would be expected to be a moderate but I'm actually a Nazi. I was convinced mostly by their slogan: "Don't be a dummy; be a smartie. Come and join the Nazi party."
oremites Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 The science is settled. CO2 is a pollutant. Painting CO2 as a pollutant when it very clearly is not was one of the two main things that opened my eyes to the non-science of Global Warming. Your video fails to mention that there are several means other than ice cores to measure historical levels of CO2 and the picture they paint is far more complex than the video tries to make it out to be. Here's something from co2science.org:In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life, comprising the major "food" of nearly all plants on earth. With more CO2 in the air, literally thousands of experiments have proven, beyond any doubt, that plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and they do it more efficiently, with respect to the availability of important natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of various environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals that depend upon them for their sustenance, including us humans. Without question, therefore, CO2 is the elixir of life, the rock-bottom foundation of nearly all that lives on the planet, be it in the ground, in the oceans, or in the air. 2
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 No, those are the extremes but you can be right wing without being a fascist (market conservative is an example) and left wing without being a communist (market socialism is an example).By global standards the Republicans are very right and the Democrats either lightly right or moderate depending on who you ask.My father is an old school Republican and my Mother a southern Democrat so I would be expected to be a moderate but I'm actually a Nazi. I was convinced mostly by their slogan: "Don't be a dummy; be a smartie. Come and join the Nazi party."Ok so what I want to get is what does the right wing represent and what does the left wing represent?My line of thinking is that right wing is less government left wing is more government. So anarchy on the total right and Totalitarianism on the total left. Under the European model total Right wing meant Fascist and total Left wing meant communist. That is why history labels that Nazi's as Right Wing. The problem I have with those definitions that both of them represent a governmental system were the state controls much of what goes on and the difference from a private citizens perspective is almost the same in terms of the freedom or lack there of that they enjoy. Or I should say that they don't enjoy. Does that make sense? So I am not for the GOP or the Dems as I see that they want virtually the same thing. Its just that one of them is doing it on a bullet train and the other ones are doing it in a wagon. One takes longer to get there but the destination is the same. I thought it might be useful for you to understand were I am coming from when I say what I do.
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Painting CO2 as a pollutant when it very clearly is not was one of the two main things that opened my eyes to the non-science of Global Warming. Your video fails to mention that there are several means other than ice cores to measure historical levels of CO2 and the picture they paint is far more complex than the video tries to make it out to be. Here's something from co2science.org:In the case of the biospheric benefits of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is one of the basic building blocks of life, comprising the major "food" of nearly all plants on earth. With more CO2 in the air, literally thousands of experiments have proven, beyond any doubt, that plants grow bigger and better in almost every conceivable way, and they do it more efficiently, with respect to the availability of important natural resources, and more effectively, in the face of various environmental constraints. And when plants benefit, so do all of the animals that depend upon them for their sustenance, including us humans. Without question, therefore, CO2 is the elixir of life, the rock-bottom foundation of nearly all that lives on the planet, be it in the ground, in the oceans, or in the air.co2science.org is a collection of writings by industry shills whose quotations are carefully cut from real scientific papers whose writers were trying to say the opposite. To call it pseudoscience is charitable.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Science is rarely settled, particularly when there are a multitude of variables and unknowns involved. The essence of science is debate. Science is constantly being " surprised " by observations in nature that contradict accepted theories. Major examples of this are the results from probes to the planets which turned many prognostications to dust.Rather than trying to change the world economy , why not focus efforts on the doable like restoring the Cod stocks which will improve the Seal population which will benefit the Polar bears. With every advance in efficiency comes a new problem to solve. Case in point, light bulbs. There is and will be for the foreseeable future , a problem with the disposal of all these fluorescent bulbs. Electric cars are great except the manufacture ,transport, and disposal of the high efficient batteries greatly offsets the energy benefit.We humans are an adaptable bunch. So are the Polar bears who seem to have survived mini ice ages and periods of warm times which actually made Greenland green. I am all for cleaning up our own mess. There is lots to be done. Little can be done without strong economies in each land. We supposed to be open to new more accurate information. Otherwise science becomes religion(God said it was so). The essence of science not debate per say. Its essence is demonstrable conclusions based on a series of accurate observations open to confirmation or destruction by disinterested(not uninterested) observers. I wouldn't use the word surprised. Though we certainly are pleased when we do discovery something new. or understand it in a new way. We make predictions about our natural universe and look for confirming evidences for them. If we don't find them we may be personally disappointed but we change those predictions to more accurate reflect what we actually observe. What is wrong with changing the world economy? It wasn't all that long ago that the world economy was based on slavery. Do you really mourn that change to world economy? It wasn't all that long ago that we lit our homes with burning whale oil. Do you really mourn that we no longer do that? The examples of things/ideas that changed the world economy is endless. Some of the earliest cars were powered by electricity. Does it really matter that much to you how your car is powered. Every technology is going to have side effects. Yes florescent bulbs need to be disposed of properly, and not just thrown in the trash can. So every several years or so I take my old worn out florescent bulbs to an approved waste recycler. I live in a redneck hick town, and even our town recycles. Restoring the Cod stock is a fine idea. The best way to do that is to eliminate their overfishing, maybe even eliminating Cod fishing altogether for a while. Now of course that will in the short term have the Cod fishers up in arms about changing their economic livelihood. No it doesn't. Properly maintained and recycled batteries are virtually forever. It is our throw away society that is the problem.. Just five plastic milk cartons can be recycled to make a mans suit. Yet we throw them into the trash can without another thought about it. Paper, food scraps, and most other organic materials can be put into a Methane Digester and decomposed into Methane(Natural gas) without any net increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. Is it really that important to you that you get your natural gas out of the ground instead of from on top of the ground. To put it kindly you have no idea as to what the heck you are talking about. Greenland was never green. Today we'd call it a PR stunt to get people to move there. There never was a mini Ice Age that had any effect on the Polar Bears.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 co2science.org is a collection of writings by industry shills whose quotations are carefully cut from real scientific papers whose writers were trying to say the opposite. To call it pseudoscience is charitable.Funny thing is that I often hear the same thing when describing the opposite view. But I am curious just for the argument, what in what he linked was false? Is it not true that plants need CO2? When there is more CO2 are plants not bigger and do they not produce more?
The Nehor Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Ok so what I want to get is what does the right wing represent and what does the left wing represent?My line of thinking is that right wing is less government left wing is more government. So anarchy on the total right and Totalitarianism on the total left. Under the European model total Right wing meant Fascist and total Left wing meant communist. That is why history labels that Nazi's as Right Wing. The problem I have with those definitions that both of them represent a governmental system were the state controls much of what goes on and the difference from a private citizens perspective is almost the same in terms of the freedom or lack there of that they enjoy. Or I should say that they don't enjoy. Does that make sense? So I am not for the GOP or the Dems as I see that they want virtually the same thing. Its just that one of them is doing it on a bullet train and the other ones are doing it in a wagon. One takes longer to get there but the destination is the same. I thought it might be useful for you to understand were I am coming from when I say what I do.Then I have to say you are wrong. The terms originated in the French Revolution and the Right meant order (monarchists) and the Left meant change (revolt) at the time.Both sides can be authoritarian or not. Fascism is the most authoritarian on the extreme right while libertarianism would be the non-authoritarian version. The authoritarian extreme left would be Stalinist communism while the non-authoritarian would be more like Marxist communism in its ideal form.Generalization:Fascism and most of the Right-wing looks to the past (conservativism) and wants to preserve or reclaim what they have. The Left is progressive and changes things to something new (good or bad depending on where you are going).
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 Ok just making sure. In the European sense Right wing meant fascist and left wing meant communist. Does that sum up your understanding of right and left wing? As I understand it that is typically what those in higher learning refer to as left and right wing. That is idiocentric to the US. Republicans sit on the right hand of the isle in Congress. While Democrats sit on the left hand side of the isle in Congress. Ideally we're neither Fascists nor Communists in this country. It makes for interesting politics to see the debates as to which party is closer to which extreme.
oremites Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 co2science.org is a collection of writings by industry shills whose quotations are carefully cut from real scientific papers whose writers were trying to say the opposite. To call it pseudoscience is charitable. That may be true, I don't really follow them but I do like that quote. Please point out the "pseudoscience" in that quote. Since they're just a buch of industry shills misrepresenting science, it should be pretty easy.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Then I have to say you are wrong. The terms originated in the French Revolution and the Right meant order (monarchists) and the Left meant change (revolt) at the time.Both sides can be authoritarian or not. Fascism is the most authoritarian on the extreme right while libertarianism would be the non-authoritarian version. The authoritarian extreme left would be Stalinist communism while the non-authoritarian would be more like Marxist communism in its ideal form.Generalization:Fascism and most of the Right-wing looks to the past (conservativism) and wants to preserve or reclaim what they have. The Left is progressive and changes things to something new (good or bad depending on where you are going).Right, from a historic European out look that is exactly what I was describing. When conservatives speak of being a conservative or libertarian it is under the lens of less government, less spending etc. More Government would be on the opposite side of the spectrum or liberal more taxes more regulation more government. Under the classic European outlook you essential end up at the same spot. You might just get there differently. Like I said what really is the difference from a private citizens perspective from being under rule by Nazi Germany or by Communist Russia? They look very similar in many respects. IOW it is not much a difference in the spectrum, right vs left. I need a scale were there is a clear difference in choice. That is why I view it the way I do. And you can say I am wrong all you want. It won't change a thing. Edited January 31, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2014 Posted January 31, 2014 That is idiocentric to the US. Republicans sit on the right hand of the isle in Congress. While Democrats sit on the left hand side of the isle in Congress. Ideally we're neither Fascists nor Communists in this country. It makes for interesting politics to see the debates as to which party is closer to which extreme.Well in a literal sense that is funny and I never noticed that.
Recommended Posts