Environmental Issues

[mindido]

Hey Duke,

Sorry it took a while to get back to this but I've had family things.

"I also hear that global warming preachers have switched over from complaining about smog and pollution in the atmosphere since the air is now cleaner and there is less reflection of the sun because of this. CFC's have lost focus to C02, and this will soon be replaced by the next factor."

As we all know, time marches on. Scientists, and regular people, recognize problems and either do something about them, or not. If you may remember, back in 1952, and then again in 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio actually was afire due to pollutants. That helped lead to the 1972 Clean Water Act. Water quality has gotten better (and is now generally potable but there are some nasty little secrets out there, I personally don't drink tap water without several layers of filtration).

CFC's (freon) were developed in the 1930's but by the 1970's scientists were able to demonstrate that freon was able to migrate to the stratosphere and help destroy ozone. The US banned its use by the late 70's and most of the rest of the world quit using it by 1996. This doesn't mean that the CFC's are not still up in the atmosphere doing their thing, it just means that we've quit contributing to the problem and that some day the CFC's will be gone.

Smog is still a problem in several areas around the world. Ever been to LA or Mexico City? Its better than it used to be (in LA) but its still a problem (and maybe more than we realize, asthma rates are still on the rise). California has done more to try and curb this problem than anyone, but as is very apparent to those that live there, they haven't done enough.

"and this will soon be replaced by the next factor."

Correct. Time marches on. We recognize a problem and we deal with it or we don't. Here's a bit about one of the next big things (I mentioned water quality a bit earlier).

Back in the early 80's I spent about a year working for an independent water quality lab. We tested ground water and effluents of all kinds for business, governments, landfills, etc. Shortly after I got there we bought a new technology called a GCMS (gas chromatography/mass spectrometer) which was able to precisely show us what chemicals, and what concentrations, were present in a given sample. What was found was pretty alarming to those in the lab that knew a heck of a lot more about the subject than I did. Just for fun they tested the tap water. All of them went out and bought home water treatment systems.

Back then, and even today, when a chemical is produced, it is tested for possible effects on biological organisms (that was not done prior to the 1970's). But the chemical is tested all by itself. What happens in the real world though is different (as became apparent to me when collecting samples at landfills and paint company waste storage facilities). Chemicals mix! And what happens to biological organisms when they do and then are injested by that organism?

Today, we know a little but not a lot. In fact it is only within the last year or so that a small group of scientists have started looking at the problem. What will they find? Too early to tell. Could this be the reason that industrialized countries have higher cancer rates? Maybe, time will tell.

Enough for now. Now my head hurts.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

The early 80's! I was playing pee-wee little league while you were out testing water samples!?! hehe Anyway the cycle is "fuck it up and fix it" all in the name of practicality. So it's great to have arguments from both sides for the balance of this cycle. Like this cycle: the population is growing so fast that the federal government is expected to step in for housing. Shit-loads of trees will be cut, i mean shitloads!! But there will be four times as many growed because of this. Folks will chain themselves to these trees before they're cut and their kids will play in and under the next batch. There will be bad times, there always is. But Mother Nature is a gangsta bitch, i seen her tatoo and it ain't pretty.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

"Anyway the cycle is "fuck it up and fix it" all in the name of practicality."

That is the cycle in this society. Is it smart? I would suggest not. Better to know what your doing before you do it.

Population growth? That is what is at the heart of all of this. Little of this would matter if human population was 1/2 or 1/4 of what it is now.

"But Mother Nature is a gangsta bitch, i seen her tatoo and it ain't pretty."

You bet. She's been pretty good so far to the human species but thats not saying that she couldn't swat us just like the dinosaurs.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, i have let you slide with this laughable fox news conspiracy thing for the last time... for your information, the last time i had fox news tuned in was the night dimebag darrell was killed... perhaps you should disabuse yourself of certain preconcieved notions and assumptions before casting aspersions on others... if you wish to accuse me of something, please do your homework and make sure the accusation is valid... on the other hand, with your sloppy research and disregard of fact in favor of sensation, you are now on a par with cbsnews and newsweek and the new york times... how does it feel to be compared to major "news" outlets???

finally, for this post, i reject all of your scientific research, because it is funded by people who benefit from global warming being a problem... there.. i have refuted everything you have said on the exact same grounds that you have complained about my side... what is it you have against oil companies??? are you also concerned about the tri-lateral commission and the knights templar?? life is not one big conspiracy... lighten up...

 

[mindido]

Cable,

"dimebag darrell"

Who's that? Never heard of him.

"perhaps you should disabuse yourself of certain preconcieved notions and assumptions before casting aspersions on others..."

I have no preconceived notions or assumptions. What knowledge I do have is based on SCIENCE. The SCIENCE is what I'm arguing. The aspersions part is simple, I DO watch Fox News and check their website so I KNOW the arguments they are making. When I see your arguments, I SEE EXACTLY where they are coming from. I CHECK their SOURCES and find they are BOGUS and not based on SCIENCE at all, only on people with an ECONOMIC motivation. So, you put two and two together and you get what? Someone that hasn't a clue of what they are talking about and just likes to hear themselves talk OR, a propagandist OR, a pawn that is just being duped.

Homework? What has become very clear since I've been in this thread is that you do not do your homework. Have you read the Pentagon report yet? I'm very familiar with homework and have been most of my life.

"you are now on a par with cbsnews and newsweek and the new york times... how does it feel to be compared to major "news" outlets???"

Jeez, thanks, I didn't realize this forum was that big or followed by that many (way to go CMan)! Where's my big contract?

"i reject all of your scientific research"

One thing you should remember, its not MY research. Its the research of thousands of scientists around the world from many different fields and many different nations. You can reject whatever you want, just don't expect me, or anyone else, to act like a lemming and follow you.

"because it is funded by people who benefit from global warming"

Just exactly who would that be? I know of no one that will benefit from global warming, exactly the opposite.

"there.. i have refuted everything you have said"

Ugggghhhh, refuted everything? Seems to me you've refuted nothing and only vented, there is a difference.

"what is it you have against oil companies???"

I could list lots of things. Pollution, graft, corruption, war to save their precious commodity, the needless death of our soldiers in Iraq, the death of 3000 people at the WTC are only a few. But I guess the real question is: Why do you like them so much? What have they done for you?

"are you also concerned about the tri-lateral commission and the knights templar??"

No, although I do know some interesting stories about the knights!

"life is not one big conspiracy... lighten up..."

Here you are correct. But that certainly doesn't rule out conspiracies. It is interesting to note how close the oil companies are to this administration. They're as close as you can possibly get and they get whatever they want.

 

[Iceberg]

Here it is. Business leaders condemning Bush for his appalling record on combatting climate change:

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/05/19/opinion/edwarm.php

Now, cableguy, Texan, et al., will you actually listen to these people? (These people meaning fiscal conservatives and, far more than likely, Republican voters.) If you won't listen to those on the supposed left, will you listen to people otherwise on the right, but who are actually championing this most urgent cause?

 

[Texan]

Tex,

"Now where does it say what is the cause of global warming."

Does every report have to say the cause of global warming? Jeez, if that were so, they'd all be longer than this thread.

"All reports I have read on the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere present mankind as responsible for all CO2"

This is completely asinine. NO credible scientist would ever make that assertion. They'd be laughed right out of the room! But since you bring it up, lets see at least one of those reports.

When you read these reports, they only mention man made CO2, they do not mention natural production of CO2. It is this misrepresentation of the facts that we are talking about.

Here it is. Business leaders condemning Bush for his appalling record on combatting climate change:

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.p...nion/edwarm.php

Now, cableguy, Texan, et al., will you actually listen to these people? (These people meaning fiscal conservatives and, far more than likely, Republican voters.) If you won't listen to those on the supposed left, will you listen to people otherwise on the right, but who are actually championing this most urgent cause?

I will not take anything seriously that has the involvement of the UN.

 

[Iceberg]

When you read these reports, they only mention man made CO2, they do not mention natural production of CO2. It is this misrepresentation of the facts that we are talking about.

The one thing is that the natural production of CO2 remains and has remained relatively constant since well prior to the Industrial Revolution. This method of production may have increased just a small amount (due to deforestation, overpopulation, and desertification, all because of human activities, mind you) but the increase is not statistically significant to matter in climate models and overall predictions. So therefore, scientists need not to concern themselves with such minute aspects.

I will not take anything seriously that has the involvement of the UN.

This shows your lack of concern for the rest of the world, and mankind in general. Rather than trying to improve the UN, you would rather ignore anything they say or do. Rather than agreeing with international co-operation, you would support unilateral action.

I agree that the UN has its flaws. Don't get me wrong. (Their record when it comes to Israel is pitiful and their anti-racist conferences are a complete farce.) However, when it comes to the state of the planet, their actions have been exceptional. The creation and maintenance of the World Meteorological Organisation and UNESCO has been a very large asset to the world.

Also, the creation of the IPCC was a thing of beauty. (No other body can make the claim that they united thousands of scientists to further the scientific knowledge of one area. It is a scientist's job to prove and disprove. Yet these 2500 scientists have yet to disprove one another, and it's not as if they aren't trying.)

 

[cableguy]

the united nations is one big fraudulant, self-congratulatory cesspool of feelgood nothingness... the united nations has yet to succeed with anything, and has completely failed most of the time it has become involved with anything... not a single "peacekeeping" mission has been concluded... tin horn dictators have un ambassadors on things like the human rights commission... oil for palaces, r@p3 and prostitution... no, tex is completely right about this one...

mindido, i again urge you to not accuse me of things i have not done... yourself and iceberg treat everything that might poke a hole in your side as the left does... you instantly accuse the originator of bias and reject it accordingly... a case for global warming has not been made, simply because it cannot be made... there isnt enough data, nor is there any sort of verifyable baseline... sure, you can see what vegetation and animals were in a certain place at a certain time, and in some cases, you can probably get a decent idea of what the chemical composition of the air was at a certain location at a certain time... this is fine and dandy, neat even, but it prooves exactly nothing in relation to modern day temp and climate... once upon a time there was something called pangaea, now we have 7 continents--most of them distinctly seperated... the earth changes... if you and berg are going to reject everything that i or anyone else who doesnt agree with you as biased and from the evil oil companies who sole purpose in life is to destroy this planet, then i reserve the right to throw a similar tantrum at your arguments.... sadly, that is what has happened here...

every activist that has been published and/or has recieved any sort of grant to "study" this thing you call global warming benefits from it being seen as a problem... there is definitely money to be made here by pushing the panic button... neither of you are dumb, but i dont understand why you cant see that... i only hope that those who advocate a completely different way of life because of something that may not even be abnormal, much less a problem, are forced to live that very life before anyone else is...

oh, by the way, this has NEVER been about science... it is, and always has been, about politics and an attempt to hurt the US...

 

[mindido]

Jeez Cable,

Wondered what happened to you. OK, where to start, I guess at the beginning.

"the united nations is one big fraudulant, self-congratulatory cesspool of feelgood nothingness... the united nations has yet to succeed with anything, and has completely failed most of the time..."

Are there problems with the UN? You bet, this oil for food fiasco is disgraceful. But do you notice a common denominator here? Oil? Hmmmm... The UN has major problems, so does the federal govt., local governments, big corporations, little companies, mom and pop shops, etc. etc. What is the common denominator? People! Humans are flawed by their very nature, and always will be. And when big money get involved then those flaws are accentuated. I don't agree that the UN fails in everything. They probably keep more children from starvation than anyone and have managed to keep a lid on tensions in eastern Europe. When you think about it, its pretty amazing they have survived this long. They have, what, 180 some different countries with varying problems and their own self interests. Its amazing they get anything done at all. But they do. Are they perfect? No way. Do they need to clear up their mess? Definately! Will it happen? Time will tell. Are they any worse than other big organizations like the feds? I don't think so.

"not a single "peacekeeping" mission has been concluded..."

That is incorrect. The UN has been involved in hundreds of peacekeeping missions, on every continent except antarctica, since their inception in the 1950's. Some successful and some not. When you think about some of the things they are asked to get themselves in the middle of (and remember, they are asked, they don't just go off and attack someone like our president did), its amazing. I don't know if I could do what they do. Think about it. They are asked to go to a troublespot somewhere in the world and get right in the middle of it. They are then told not to use their weapons (and they are only allowed small arms) unless absolutely necessary and to try and get the parties talking. I don't know about you but I think thats pretty darn brave.

Why does it take so long? Take a look at what they've gotten themselves in the middle of. Most of this stuff today is RELIGIOUS. Christians vs. Muslims, an enmity that has been going on for several thousand years. You expect them to overcome that in a few months or years? I don't think so. In fact, how long do you think we're going to be involved in Iraq? Thats not going to be over for at least 10 years.

"tin horn dictators"

And we don't have those of our own? Remember the Shah of Iran? The Saudi's? Virtually every government in Central and South America at one time or another? If you really want to know something about this subject pick up a book called, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. You may be amazed.

"mindido, i again urge you to not accuse me of things i have not done..."

Cable, I haven't accused you of anything. I have said that you are a pawn. Your posts are what make that most evident. When one compares your posts with the right wing websites and Foxnews, one finds that they are virtually verbatim (if one didn't know that Fox could care less, one might think there could be cause for plaigerism).

"yourself and iceberg treat everything that might poke a hole in your side as the left does... you instantly accuse the originator of bias and reject it accordingly..."

Again, incorrect. First off, I don't consider myself a leftist, I'm a centrist. It just so happens that I've studied this particular subject for quite a while now (probably as long as you've been alive). I can remember some of the predictions from 25 to 30 years ago and those things are coming true. When you or Tex come up with a reference site I go visit it and investigate it. The problem with your sites is that they virtually always lead back to people or organiations that significantly benefit from keeping our head in the sand. For those of us that have been doing this a while, they're easy to recognize.

"a case for global warming has not been made, simply because it cannot be made... there isnt enough data, nor is there any sort of verifyable baseline... sure, you can see what vegetation and animals were in a certain place at a certain time, and in some cases, you can probably get a decent idea of what the chemical composition of the air was at a certain location at a certain time... this is fine and dandy, neat even, but it prooves exactly nothing in relation to modern day temp and climate..."

Again, incorrect. The data is there IF someone cares to apply themselves and look at it. Can we say with 100% certainty? No, but I would say the certainty (scientific concensus) is now about 90%. Could 9 out of 10 concerned scientists be wrong? Possibly, but unlikely.

"if you and berg are going to reject everything that i or anyone else who doesnt agree with you as biased and from the evil oil companies who sole purpose in life is to destroy this planet, then i reserve the right to throw a similar tantrum at your arguments.... sadly, that is what has happened here...

As far as I remember we have never termed the oil companies "evil" and out to destroy the planet. I don't think they are "evil" but they are certainly greedy and primarily concerned with their bottom lines. And their bottom lines conflict with our health, security and future. And if you haven't noticed, check what they are now heavily investing in; renewable energy resources, even they can see the future.

As far as throwing a tantrum, you can do that whenever you want, it just doesn't help your argument.

"every activist that has been published and/or has recieved any sort of grant to "study" this thing you call global warming benefits from it being seen as a problem... there is definitely money to be made here by pushing the panic button... neither of you are dumb, but i dont understand why you cant see that..."

Well, I don't understand this. Nobody benefits from global warming except a few major corporations. If your thinking that all scientists that have studied the subject are getting rich off of it you are dead wrong. Virtually all of the scientists working on this are in the academic community. Academics make a decent wage (on average $50k to $70k annually, give or take) but that certainly doesn't make them rich. Very middle class. In fact, if your a geologist, the only place to make a lot of money is where??? You guessed it! The oil companies! Why does this argument seem to contunuously lead back to oil? Hmmmmmm......

"i only hope that those who advocate a completely different way of life because of something that may not even be abnormal, much less a problem, are forced to live that very life before anyone else is..."

Jeez Cable, study your history. People throughout history have had to face change. It is probably the only constant in the human condition. We recognize a problem and we deal with it, or we don't. If all of the data is correct, and it is voluminous now, and we do nothing, then we are dooming our children and grand children to significant problems that, when they look back at us and see the decisons we made, what will they say?

"oh, by the way, this has NEVER been about science... it is, and always has been, about politics and an attempt to hurt the US..."

Hate to say this, but that is asinine. You really need to study. It is about how long the oil companies can continue to make huge profits, and that is all. The US won't be hurt a bit, it will only change, the one human constant.

 

[Iceberg]

oh, by the way, this has NEVER been about science... it is, and always has been, about politics and an attempt to hurt the US...

Cable, don't you realise that the whole planet (which includes the US) will be hurt by global warming? Here are some examples of what will likely occur due to GW:

-Major (more extreme) droughts in the Midwest and Great Plains, especially near the Rocky Mountains.

-More frequent and intense hurricanes which will affect a greater part of the US than they do today (due to sea surface temperature increases), causing greater death and destruction.

-More frequent Nor'easters (the intense storms that affect New England and the rest of the east coast) which will cause delays in flights, road closures, business days lost (reducing productivity), and other unforeseen difficulties.

-Greater storms on the west coast.

-More frequent and intense tornadoes, which will affect an even greater area.

These examples show that the US is in danger of being far more negatively affected by the effects of global warming. Sure, there will be a few hardships in preventing an exacerbated global warming scenario, but as the axiom goes: "Short term pain for long term gain," meaning that the few moderately costly steps the US takes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will result in fewer major hardships in the future if global warming is brought under control.

not a single "peacekeeping" mission has been concluded

You can only look at the situation in the former Yugoslavia to realise that this statement is incorrect. UN peacekeepers are not present there any longer. Sure, there are Europeans doing the job now (including those from the region), but the UN monitoring has been scaled back.

Also, the peacekeeping in the Suez crisis of 1956 (I think that was the year it broke out) in which former Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson (who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this) sent peacekeepers to the region under the auspices of the UN to settle the situation down. I don't seem to hear of any peacekeepers remaining in Egypt any longer for this mission.

a case for global warming has not been made, simply because it cannot be made... there isnt enough data, nor is there any sort of verifyable baseline...

I cannot believe anyone would even say such BS. (Well, maybe dimwits like O'Reilly or Hannity.)

every activist that has been published and/or has recieved any sort of grant to "study" this thing you call global warming benefits from it being seen as a problem

This is an insult and is disrespectful of all the hard work of many dedicated people who are without bias. (If they were biased, nothing of theirs would ever be published.) They (myself included) are called SCIENTISTS, not activists. They RESEARCH and REVIEW, and do not spread propaganda (unlike NewsMax, Drudge, and FOX News).

 

[Texan]

Man yall cant see the forest because all those damn trees are in the way.

Iceberg, Minido, the point we are trying to make is that most of these "the Sky is Falling" reports are biased. The reports show an increase of CO2 in the atmoshpere, yet they do not explore the sources of the CO2. The reports show an increase of CO2 begining around the late 1800's. Over a century ago, on August 26,1883, the island volcano of Krakatau ("Krakatoa") in Indonesia, a virtually unknown volcanic island with a history of violent volcanic activity, exploded with devastating fury. The eruption was one of the most catastrophic natural disasters in recorded history. The effects were experienced on a global scale. Fine ashes from the eruption were carried by upper level winds as far away as New York City. The explosion was heard more than 3000 miles away. Volcanic dust blew into the upper atmosphere affecting incoming solar radiation and the earth's weather for several years. Hummm, interesting huh fellas. That would explain the "increase" in CO2 found in ice cores, huh.

 

[mindido]

Tex, Tex, Tex,

"most of these "the Sky is Falling" reports are biased"

OK. Specifics! Who, what, when, where, why. You keep referring to these but fail to produce them. I want to see specifics.

Krakatoa and volcanos! One of my favorite areas of study! Krakatoa is an excellent example of what we've been talking about. We have very specific info on that eruption. Names, places, dates, eyewitness', etc. We know pretty much exactly what happened not only to the people in Indonesia but around the world. And that eruption shows up in the glacial record. Scientists can see it and its effects precisely. What happened?

Big volcano (but not a super volcano, e.g. Yellowstone) blows its top and spews thousands of tons of earth into the upper atmosphere (just what we're doing today), things initially warm (just like today) but then something happens, a tipping point is reached, and the world is in a mini ice age (the same thing happened to the dinosaurs 65 million years ago although from the earth being hit by a comet or meteor). The sun is blocked out thus plants cannot grow thus animals and humans have no food (this was the cause of the Irish Potato famine as well as other famines across the world). We know the effects of this one event and we can also see the effects and demonstrate them in the lab.

And scientists can also see that, after a couple of years, the atmosphere cleaned itself and the climate stabilized. Its all available in human memory and the geologic record. The cores show it as well as many other eruptions. But they are short lived occurances (a couple of years) and don't last for decades (as we are now doing).

 

[Iceberg]

Texan, volcanism does not really change the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. What it does is spread ash throughout the atmosphere (into the stratosphere after really explosive eruptions), which is an aerosol, which blocks some of the Sun's rays from reaching the Earth's surface, cooling the atmosphere.

One thing you did not mention is that volcanism has never resulted in a warming of the atmosphere, only a cooling. Events such as Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau have resulted in far cooler than normal conditions for months and years to come. (The summer of 1816 was known as the "Year without a summer.")

Ice core records and lake sediment sources have yielded information on atmospheric composition and have failed to point out a bump in the CO2 concentration due to volcanic activity. Sure, there may be a local CO2 bump, but on a global scale, the effects are almost unnoticeable (i.e. there would have been a negligible change in the CO2 concentration as a result of volcanism, even in the most explosive eruptions).

 

[Iceberg]

A report that states increased temperatures and greenhouse gas emissions will increase smog, which will lead to the deaths of increasing numbers of people:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/06/06/smog050606.html

p.s. This is based on science and not politics.

 

[cableguy]

um, very much like gore making his frantic speech on global warming on a record cold day last winter, PLEASE, i beg of you, along with each and every farmer in much of the midwest, TAKE THE RAIN AWAY!!! there has simp[ly been far too much of it... drought conditions are actually needed at this point in time... fields have only recently been planted, some still are awaiting seeding...

as usual, your guys are unbiased and honest, with no agenda or axe to grind, and mine are evil/biased/out to destroy the world for the benefit of the bottom line... this is idiocy...

first, President Bush has asked for and been given over a billion dollars to further research hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline and who knows what all else...

second, follow the money on your side... where it comes from , who it goes to, and certain commonalities between that and other leftist causes...

if humanity suffers greatly, business, reciepts, and profits will tank... businesses, even the evil oil companies, are NOT suicidal... add to that the fact that beaurocracies exist to further themselves, and you have something known as a "global warming" beaurocracy that exists to stay in existance...

ONLY biased reports can get published when the publisher is biased... this is a key concept that you seem to conveniently ignore or overlook...

mindido... i must preface this by saying i am extremely pissed off... i demand you produce an example of anything i have said that is remotely close to verbatim of anything appearing on fox news, the fox news website, or by any of the contributors to said organization... this is not a request, you have made an accusation i know to be false, and you need to be held accountable for it... each and every quote or paraphrase i have EVER used on this site has been attributed... if i couldnt recall the source, i credited a disremembered source... no attribution=my words... period... your accusations were annoying, and now they have crossed from disrespectful to character defamation... i demand you justify your words...

next, there is no such thing as a centrist... on what position is it possible to hold a centrist view??? name a few extreme left wing views... bottom line, anyone who calls him/herself a centrist is either a lefty, has no opinion, is very very confused, or is suffering from a delusion of self importance... your lovely "center" is a mythical place that cannot exist... someone holding both left and right leaning views is not a centrist... i hold views from both camps, but each and every one of them is a choice between two things... there is no middle of the road...

 

[mindido]

Cable, cable, cable,

I take it you've been drinking again and just need to rant.

"PLEASE, i beg of you, along with each and every farmer in much of the midwest, TAKE THE RAIN AWAY!!! there has simp[ly been far too much of it... drought conditions are actually needed at this point in time... fields have only recently been planted, some still are awaiting seeding..."

This may be true where you live but certainly not nationwide or worldwide. A nationwide drought monitor is:

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html

or here:

http://www.drought.noaa.gov/

And don't tell people in large portions of Africa that they're getting too much rain. Desertification is a significant problem worldwide:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Drought/

And just FYI, south central Wisconsin is currently about 3.5 in. below our normal rainfall. 60 miles south of us in N. Illinois they're about 5.5 in. below normal.

"as usual, your guys are unbiased and honest, with no agenda or axe to grind, and mine are evil/biased/out to destroy the world for the benefit of the bottom line... this is idiocy..."

Why?????? What are our motives vs. yours?

"first, President Bush has asked for and been given over a billion dollars to further research hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline and who knows what all else..."

This is whats known as a delaying tactic. The costs and benefits of hydrogen have been known for at least 30 years and little has changed in that time. We don't need research in hydrogen, we need implementation.

"second, follow the money on your side... where it comes from , who it goes to, and certain commonalities between that and other leftist causes..."

What money? As I pointed out in my previous post, very few scientists (especially in the earth sciences) make a lot of money from their research. They are primarily paid by us. We pay their salaries at colleges and universities or with government institiutions. These are certainly institutions that are well known for making millionaires out of their employees. NOT!

"if humanity suffers greatly, business, reciepts, and profits will tank..."

No doubt. That is precisely what we are trying to avoid.

"businesses, even the evil oil companies, are NOT suicidal... "

No they are not, but they also don't give a darn about our health, welfare or security.

"add to that the fact that beaurocracies exist to further themselves, and you have something known as a "global warming" beaurocracy that exists to stay in existance..."

No doubt about that except I am unaware of any current "global warming bureaucracy"

"ONLY biased reports can get published when the publisher is biased... this is a key concept that you seem to conveniently ignore or overlook..."

So, your calling all scientists everywhere liars? Cable, I feel really sorry for you. I don't know what else to say about that.

"i demand you produce an example of anything i have said that is remotely close to verbatim of anything appearing on fox news, the fox news website, or by any of the contributors to said organization..."

OK, heres just one that I found within five minutes from Brit Hume, "global warming alarm is about environmental movement’s needs to keep people worried, so they’ll get money and pass their bill."

Sound familiar? How many hundreds more do you want?

"if i couldnt recall the source, i credited a disremembered source... "

Uuuggghhhh. How exactly do you do that?

"next, there is no such thing as a centrist... on what position is it possible to hold a centrist view???"

Oh, really. Where do I begin? I agreed with going after Afganistan, we were attacked, but totally disagree with Iraq. Is that left or right? I voted twice for Perot. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, I don't think either the Dems or Reps have our interests in mind. I think big money has bought them all. Is that left or right? I think there needs to be a federal govt that is only concerned with the basics; security, health, environment, justice and probably a few more. What we have today is a bloated behemoth that needs to be cut by about 3/4. Is that left or right? I would have voted for John McCain but not GW. Is that left or right? I could go on and on.

"bottom line, anyone who calls him/herself a centrist is either a lefty, has no opinion, is very very confused, or is suffering from a delusion of self importance... your lovely "center" is a mythical place that cannot exist... someone holding both left and right leaning views is not a centrist... i hold views from both camps, but each and every one of them is a choice between two things... there is no middle of the road..."

Really? Until the last few years, most people thought of themselves as centrists. I think its a pretty LOGICAL place to be. There are good and bad points about virtually every issue. The trick is to sift and winnow the good from the bad. And that is why I see the US as being in severe trouble if things don't change and start looking at things LOGICALLY again. The parallels with the Roman Empire (and others) are really striking.

"mindido... i must preface this by saying i am extremely pissed off... "

I hope so. That was my plan for a while now. Maybe, if you get pissed off enough, you'll actually do some research, start using that brain of yours and quit listening to your beloved propaganda. If the US is going to survive, it will need people that can think clearly and without prejudice.

 

[cableguy]

congratulations... i made a point that i have been making for years, brit hume makes the same point, but using decidedly different words, and you somehow deem this to be plagiarism... you, sir, are guilty of that same crime any time you agree with a point that has been made elsewhere... agreement isnt plagiarism, unless the words are used verbatim, or altered minimally... this is clearly NOT the case, so kindly drop any and all references of that nature...

if i type something that i read somewhere, but cannot remember where, it will go something like this: "i do not recall where i read this, but..." or "this isnt mine originally, and i dont recall the exact words, but here is a paraphrase..." that is how you make clear that something you say isnt yours originally...

the global warming beaurocracy isnt named that... it functions in the same way, however... your activist scientists are a part of it, like it or not... i never called all scientists liars... i referred to yours as wanting to perpetuate an idea that may not have merit for the purpose of continuing research funds and publicity from publications... this is elementary, simple, and basic... not at all a difficult concept to grasp... what would these chicken little wannabes do if global warming wasnt the problem they say it is?? what happens to their reputations if they are wrong?? this is beaurocratic self preservation, plain and simple...

the duplicity in favoring the war in afghanistan and opposing the one in iraq puzzles me... it is the same war, fought on multiple fronts, against enemies that share a common goal, using a VERY public criteria... deny facts if you will, but at the end of the day, this is the only line of reasoning that can stand...

to some extent, i agree that neither of the major parties have the best interests of America and Americans in mind, but both believe they do... the federal government has a legal obligation to stay within the bounds of the Constitution... where we differ is the 75% that should be cut... our founders made many comments about the potential of illegal, amoral, and otherwise wrongheaded notion of transfer payments... for ANY reason... there is a minimum 2/3 of the budget... we have a spending problem and an overtaxation problem... neither party, especially the dems, want to offer truly fair and functional alterations to the tax code...

most people call themselves centrists in order to feel better about themselves and not offend anyone... when you ask them about issues, they break one way or the other, generally a small portion one way, and a much larger portion the other... again, not a centrist position to be found... simply a person who refuses to accept the proper term, and holds both right and left views...

there is no parallel to be had with the roman empire... aside from being a world power, there are few, if any, similarities... i am curious about your line of thought, though... perhaps i have overlooked something... care to enlighten??

i still firmly believe that you and iceberg are the victims of propaganda, not myself... the thing is, i can and do think for myself... i am not a good republican, i am not a good libertarian, but i am somewhere in between... i can and do think clearly and without prejudice... when i reach the point of taking a position, it is because all sides have been considered... if new information comes to light, it will be assimilated, and either accepted or rejected based on merit, not preconcieved notions... when the greenies stop with the nonsensical garbage about my weed whip OR my mower OR my leaf blower producing, by themselves, enough pollution to be measured in tons, i might take what they say a bit more seriously... weight-wise, i go through about 10-15 pounds of gasoline and gasoline/oil mixture in a year... no one has been able to tell me how this can create more pollution than the weight of the fuel itself, much less THAT MUCH more... i refuse to believe that the 2 gallons of fuel/oil mix i use in a summer of trimming, blowing, and whatever miscellaneous chainsaw use can create more pollution than my car, which generally can be counted on to burn about 900 gallons of gas in a year (miles driven/rough average miles per tank*tank capacity)... the math simply doesnt work... it cant work... if it can, i would welcome an explaination...

 

[Iceberg]

congratulations... i made a point that i have been making for years, brit hume makes the same point, but using decidedly different words, and you somehow deem this to be plagiarism... you, sir, are guilty of that same crime any time you agree with a point that has been made elsewhere... agreement isnt plagiarism, unless the words are used verbatim, or altered minimally... this is clearly NOT the case, so kindly drop any and all references of that nature...

Mindido wasn't saying you were guilty of plagiarism. He said that you are mimicking the FOX News propaganda trap, which is based on fatally-flawed "science" that can never get into peer-reviewed scientific journals due to these flaws in the research.

the global warming beaurocracy isnt named that... it functions in the same way, however... your activist scientists are a part of it, like it or not... i never called all scientists liars... i referred to yours as wanting to perpetuate an idea that may not have merit for the purpose of continuing research funds and publicity from publications... this is elementary, simple, and basic... not at all a difficult concept to grasp... what would these chicken little wannabes do if global warming wasnt the problem they say it is?? what happens to their reputations if they are wrong?? this is beaurocratic self preservation, plain and simple...

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Scientists are not activists in nature. They do their research, present it in journals and conferences, and then reporters (such as Ross Gelbspan, Elizabeth Kolbert, etc.) make it understandable to the lay person. Some scientists who can speak to the general public (such as Michael Mann) go on radio shows and TV spots to discuss their work in ways that everyone can understand.

What scientists in the IPCC are doing is advancing the scientific knowledge of the subject so politicians can get motivated to do something about it (that is, if their campaigns aren't financed by the fossil fuel industry like Bush's is). The Bush Administration is scared that if they actually move to fight climate change, their "base" (as Bush has called them), the fossil fuel lobby, will reduce their funding. So, in essence, the Bush Administration (and the whole Republican Party in general, sans John McCain and a couple of other respectable members) is being dictated to by the fossil fuel industry.

the duplicity in favoring the war in afghanistan and opposing the one in iraq puzzles me... it is the same war, fought on multiple fronts, against enemies that share a common goal, using a VERY public criteria... deny facts if you will, but at the end of the day, this is the only line of reasoning that can stand...

Nope. There was no connection with Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. How many hijackers were Iraqi? ZERO!!! How much money did Saddam put into Al'Qaeda? Little if any. Osama and Saddam were in direct opposition, since Osama wanted Islamic fundamentalism and Saddam was completely secular and communistic. THERE IS NO CONNECTION!!! Get it through your head and read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies."

i still firmly believe that you and iceberg are the victims of propaganda, not myself... the thing is, i can and do think for myself... i am not a good republican, i am not a good libertarian, but i am somewhere in between... i can and do think clearly and without prejudice... when i reach the point of taking a position, it is because all sides have been considered... if new information comes to light, it will be assimilated, and either accepted or rejected based on merit, not preconcieved notions... when the greenies stop with the nonsensical garbage about my weed whip OR my mower OR my leaf blower producing, by themselves, enough pollution to be measured in tons, i might take what they say a bit more seriously... weight-wise, i go through about 10-15 pounds of gasoline and gasoline/oil mixture in a year... no one has been able to tell me how this can create more pollution than the weight of the fuel itself, much less THAT MUCH more... i refuse to believe that the 2 gallons of fuel/oil mix i use in a summer of trimming, blowing, and whatever miscellaneous chainsaw use can create more pollution than my car, which generally can be counted on to burn about 900 gallons of gas in a year (miles driven/rough average miles per tank*tank capacity)... the math simply doesnt work... it cant work... if it can, i would welcome an explaination...

All bullshit, except for the chainsaw emitting more pollution than your car.

Mindido and I are not "victims of propaganda." We are people who understand the science of climatology and have actually read articles on the subject. (Have you ever read a peer-reviewed climate journal article in your life? I doubt it, with all the falsehoods you iterate.)

Oh yeah, and is there such thing as a "good Libertarian?" All Libertarians want is anarchy, which will end up in a breakdown of law and order. (Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols are "fine" examples of Libertarians.) Libertarians don't want impoverished people to receive government-funded health care and welfare. They just want to see a Social Darwinist way of existence, an everyone versus everyone battle royal where only the strongest survive. They just don't care about anyone other than themselves.

 

[cableguy]

iceberg--actually, he was...

i am sorry to see that your small mindedness has blinded you to reality... the cleanest, most efficient, and least environmentally intrusive way of generating power is nuclear... why are the anti-oil folks also anti-nuclear?? your pro-global-warming-as-a-problem bias has prevented you from seeing the same in those folks you so admire... i will cast my lot with capitalism, as that is a far better bet than government intervention... always has been, and always will be...

i have a challenge for you... how many government programs have solved the problems they were created to fight?? how many government programs have been so successful they no longer are needed, and thusly no longer exist?? the war on poverty, war on drugs, welfare, and social security have done so poorly, i would hope any rational person would be loath to leave anything of real importance to the federal government to solve... in this case, you have a solution for a problem that doesnt exist...

explain to me how something that might burn a half gallon of gas/oil mixture can come even close to polluting as much as my car... then explain how it is that my chainsaw is capable of producing thousands of pounds of pollutants in a single year from that half gallon... on this one, the science matters... prove it, or abandon it...

good libertarians do not blow things up and kill innocent people... they wish the government to intervene ONLY when harm has been done, and never--under any circumstance--to do so with "good intentions"... a good libertarian believes that taxes should be low, distributed evenly, and used only to fund Constitutionally granted government functions... a good libertarian believes in a small military and a complete isolationist foreign policy... most of all, a good libertarian believes in personal responsibility, that actions have consequences, and private property is just that--private... i agree with 95% of the libertarian platform, but they completely lose me on foreign policy...

nichols and mcveigh are nowhere near good libertarians... they are nowhere near good anything, except terrorists... and there may be a middle eastern connection there as well...

speaking of terrorism, in the 2002 state of the union address, President Bush made it very clear, in no uncertain terms, that terrorism would be fought, that terrorists would be hunted down, that nations that harbor terrorists will be considered enemies, and that national borders do not constitute a barrier the US will not cross to get the bad guys... iraq fits that model, like it or not... the common goal i was referring to is the downfall of the USA... your garden variety terrorist hates America, and wants to hurt and kill Americans more than anything... saddam shared that vision... the war was valid, and remains so today...

dont fret, you will likely have a new despotic regime that starves its own people and kills innocents by the thousands that you can support in the near future... US involvement in iraq will continue to decline as that nation becomes better and better equipped to take care of its internal problems (terrorists)... that frees up a good portion of the military... care to place any bets on who will roll over in fear and who will exercise a futile last stand?? terrorism will be defeated, and should you live out your life expectancy, you will see the end of this nightmare... i anticipate it will happen far sooner than anyone is saying... you can support the terrorists all you want, i will cast my lot with the innocents, on the side of good...