There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious implications for almost every nation on Earth....Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climate change, or even to allay it's effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the polar ice cap by covering it with black soot, or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that the government leaders anywhere are prepared to take even the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climactic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies.The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climactic change once the results become grim reality.
WASHINGTON (AP) - When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.
Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
"The time for delay is over; the time for denial is over," he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. "We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way."
But there are powerful political and economic realities that must be quickly overcome for Obama to succeed. Despite the urgency he expresses, it's not at all clear that he and Congress will agree on an approach during a worldwide financial crisis in time to meet some of the more crucial deadlines.
Obama is pushing changes in the way Americans use energy, and produce greenhouse gases, as part of what will be a massive economic stimulus. He called it an opportunity "to re-power America."
"We need to start in January making significant changes," Gore said in a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press. "This year coming up is the most important opportunity the world has ever had to make progress in really solving the climate crisis."
Scientists are increasingly anxious, talking more often and more urgently about exceeding "tipping points."
"We're out of time," Stanford University biologist Terry Root said. "Things are going extinct.
"
MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS COMPLETE UTTER BULLSHIT.
The Left teaches our children this bullshit, and has been doing so for close to 40 years now.
The result is our children grow up with cognitive and moral dissonance. They are not convinced this world is even worth living in. It might all end tomorrow.
And then, we teach them to work hard and stay in school, so they can be successful.
What's the point, if the world is on the verge of a disaster.
This man-made Global Warming agenda is robbing our children of their childhood.
IT IS STEALING THEIR SENSE OF HOPE AND WONDER ABOUT THE BEAUTIFUL WORLD WE LIVE IN.
And, we wonder why most kids just want to sit around and play video games. Who would want to go outside? Global Warming is coming to kill all of us.
18 comments:
All of you frog killers who are also Gorbal Worming Deniers are banned for life!
Dear Chuck --
What do the French have to do with this and what makes you think I had anything to do with killing them?
As for the worms, well, who am I to deny a delicious rainbow trout his last meal?
Actually, my kids grew up learning to respect the natural world. They loving camping backpacking and fishing. And far and away prefer outside to inside.
And they don't, for a minute, buy the global wormening bullshit.
To base dire predicitions like that on what is, at best, 125-150 years of hard data is absolute lunacy.
If you want to protect the environment so that we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink, a happy healthy escape from the cities (what Teddy envisioned with the National parks and more directly what was intended for my beloved Appalachian Trail) that's one thing all well and good.
But if you want to scare people, sell them on this crap, get them buying curly light bulbs and carbon indulgences and bankrupt nations all in the name of Pope Albert and the First Church of Global Warming, well, you can go fuck yourselves.
Some of the staunchest environmentalists you'll find are the guys carrying shotguns and rifles into the woods every fall. They understand what a healthy forest looks like, what a properly funcitoning ecosystem is like.
Go ahead, try to tell them to give up their pickup trucks to save the earth.
Half the problems we have wit our forests have come from overmanagement. Too many deer protected now the populations are above what can be sustained and they are dying off. So now a bigger hunter harvest is needed.
Suppressing of forest fires. So stupid. The forest needs those little blazes to burn off the undergrowth and relsease the carbon and other nutrients locked up in the dead and down wood to feed itself.
Man is supremely arrogant to think he can have that kind of impact on the earth. That he can change the way earth itself goes through it's epoch cycles.
"A day will come when the earth will scratch herself and smile and rub off humanity" -- Robinson Jeffers
"Save the earth? The earh's not going anywhere. We are." George Carlin
Ok. Ranting and preaching over.
Pastorius,
I heard about this story before.
However, keep in mind that just like everyone else scientists can be wrong without being lairs. In fact it is quit common for scientists to be wrong, when a better explanation for a phenomenon comes along that better fits the data, good scientists abandon the old hypothesis.
Also just because some leftists are using the fear of man made climate change to ram socialism down our throats does not mean that it was invented by those leftists to ram socialism down our throats. They may have just decided that they could use it to support socialism, which says nothing about the reality of man made climate change. I oppose socialism, but I still think that there is ample evidence that man is having an effect on the climate. Still Global warming is not an argument for socialism. Even if socialism could stop man from having an effect on the climate, it would not be worth it.
Many people have used evolution to justify racism, but the theory of evolution is not racist, and the fact that racists have used it to justify racism, does not mean that it was invented by racists to justify racism. In fact modern evolutionary biology has debunked racism by showing that race is only a social construct with no biological basis.
As for what I am more concerned with, the threat of man made climate change or jihad terrorism, its the latter not the former. The Jihadists are a far more immediate threat.
Even many science programs that talk about the impact that man is having on the climate are more optimistic than you might think. Many of them clearly state that in the worst case scenario that is probable, man kind could survive. I haven't heard anyone in scientific community say that we are going to turn Earth into Venus. Despite the fact that Venus has been used as a terrifying real world example of a run away green house effect.
Plus I see many positive signs, many of which are occurring with out government intervention. There was an entire episode of the show "Modern Marvels," that talked about green technology, and almost all of it was invented by private companies hoping to make a profit. I see plenty of evidence that we are starting to do what is necessary to solve this problem, and market forces and our free market economy will play a huge role.
There is evidence to back it up and we should be worried about man made global warming, but its not an argument for radically changing our economic system, or abandoning the fight against the global jihad.
Damien,
I composed a very long point by point response to your points.
It has passed down the memory hole somehow.
I'm taking care of a sick kid today, so perhaps I clicked cancel when I should have clicked post.
Anyway, suffice it to say, the difference between Darwinism and AGW is this:
Darwinism is a Descriptive Scientific Theory. The people who used it as a Prescriptive Philosophy were doing an entirely different discipline, not science but Philosophy.
AGW on the other hand is Descriptive Science in which the Prescription is built into the Description. That, in my opinion, betrays that it is agenda-driven.
I disagree with you also about the idea that there is no genetic basis for race. In fact, geneticists will not tell you there is no difference. That's actually another Leftist meme infecting pure science. Genetics are like math. They are hard science. They can read the genetic structure of Jews and tell where they lived. There are Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. They have totally different genetic traits. Sephardic Jews are more European looking and Askenazi Jews are more dark-skinned and ME looking.
My family is another example. I am married to a Filipino woman who has very dark-skin. Filipino people often have wide flat noses. My family has a more Romanesque or Mediterranean type nose.
I am a very white skinned guy with curly red hair. Their skin is in between mine and my wives, and one of my daughters has something closer to the wide, flat nose of her Grandfather.
Those are racial traits.
Additionally, Filipinos are like Mexicans in that the "indigenous" people mixed with Spaniards. So many Filipinos look more "European" than "indigenous."
Those are racial traits.
I honestly don't know how you could say, for instance, that black skin or kinky black hair is not a racial trait.
Please explain that labyrinthine logic to me.
As for the market fixing some of these problems. CO2 increase in the air might be a problem. Certainly it would be if we were like Venus.
However, if you had read my links, I have pretty conclusively proven that increases in CO2 by the market boom of 1998-2008 corresponded to consecutive years of DROPPING TEMPERATURES.
The market, however, is going to provide a solution to CO2. We will, very likely have Hydrogen powered automobiles.
I have a friend who works in R&D for Toyota. He says they already have and drive Hydrogen powered cars all the time. However, he says it will take 5-15 years before they are on the market, because there are kinks to work out on both the car side and the delivery side (gas stations) of Hydrogen fuel.
Additionally, the most likely way in which Hydrogen fuel will be produced is large facilities along the ocean coasts which will use massive amounts of electricity to separate the Hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms in sea water.
Now, doesn't that sound like another alarmist environmental theory waiting around the corner.
Add to that, this: Imagine 15 million hydrogen burning cars driving around Los Angeles.
What is the by-product of Hydrogen fuel burning? Water.
What will happen to the climate in Los Angeles with all that water added to the atmosphere.
I used to work out in Palm Desert alot between 1992-2008. During those 16 years I saw massive changes in the environment of Palm Desert because of the building and maintenance of Golf courses.
Palm Desert went from being a dry desert to a humid desert much of the time.
How will that type of change effect the Los Angeles basin?
What will environmentalists say when the chaparral ecosystem is damaged and species start dying off?
One thing to remember is that for every solution man creates, he also creates a set of problems which are of variable import.
What are you gonna do? That's life.
Pastorius,
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I composed a very long point by point response to your points.
It has passed down the memory hole somehow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad, I would like to read it.
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm taking care of a sick kid today, so perhaps I clicked cancel when I should have clicked post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope they get well soon.
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, suffice it to say, the difference between Darwinism and AGW is this:
Darwinism is a Descriptive Scientific Theory. The people who used it as a Prescriptive Philosophy were doing an entirely different discipline, not science but Philosophy.
AGW on the other hand is Descriptive Science in which the Prescription is built into the Description. That, in my opinion, betrays that it is agenda-driven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? That doesn't make any sense. Aren't all sciences to a large degree descriptive in nature? And how is the Prescription built into AGW as you call it?
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with you also about the idea that there is no genetic basis for race. In fact, geneticists will not tell you there is no difference. That's actually another Leftist meme infecting pure science. Genetics are like math. They are hard science. They can read the genetic structure of Jews and tell where they lived. There are Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. They have totally different genetic traits. Sephardic Jews are more European looking and Askenazi Jews are more dark-skinned and ME looking.
My family is another example. I am married to a Filipino woman who has very dark-skin. Filipino people often have wide flat noses. My family has a more Romanesque or Mediterranean type nose.
I am a very white skinned guy with curly red hair. Their skin is in between mine and my wives, and one of my daughters has something closer to the wide, flat nose of her Grandfather.
Those are racial traits.
Additionally, Filipinos are like Mexicans in that the "indigenous" people mixed with Spaniards. So many Filipinos look more "European" than "indigenous."
Those are racial traits.
I honestly don't know how you could say, for instance, that black skin or kinky black hair is not a racial trait.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does any of that prove that race exists? They are not "racial traits," they are human variation. None of those things prove that race exists! There is often greater genetic variation between two people of the same "race" than there is between two people of different "races."
Here's more on the subject of race.
No Biological Basis For Race, Scientists Say: Distinctions Prove Skin Deep
Pastorius,
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain that labyrinthine logic to me.
As for the market fixing some of these problems. CO2 increase in the air might be a problem. Certainly it would be if we were like Venus.
However, if you had read my links, I have pretty conclusively proven that increases in CO2 by the market boom of 1998-2008 corresponded to consecutive years of DROPPING TEMPERATURES.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I'll explain my thinking.
People are realizing that we have a problem, as they do the demand for things that are not causing the problem are increasing. Even If the extra CO2 in the atmosphere does not make the Earth anything like Venus, it is already making it slightly hotter, Even a slight increase in temperature could cause problems. Also is it dropping over all or is it just dropping in the short term? Is something negating the effects of the rise in CO2? Also according Nasa's Rob Gutro of the
Goddard Space Flight Center, 2005 was warmest year in over a Century!
you wrote,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The market, however, is going to provide a solution to CO2. We will, very likely have Hydrogen powered automobiles.
I have a friend who works in R&D for Toyota. He says they already have and drive Hydrogen powered cars all the time. However, he says it will take 5-15 years before they are on the market, because there are kinks to work out on both the car side and the delivery side (gas stations) of Hydrogen fuel.
Additionally, the most likely way in which Hydrogen fuel will be produced is large facilities along the ocean coasts which will use massive amounts of electricity to separate the Hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms in sea water.
Now, doesn't that sound like another alarmist environmental theory waiting around the corner.
Add to that, this: Imagine 15 million hydrogen burning cars driving around Los Angeles.
What is the by-product of Hydrogen fuel burning? Water.
What will happen to the climate in Los Angeles with all that water added to the atmosphere.
I used to work out in Palm Desert alot between 1992-2008. During those 16 years I saw massive changes in the environment of Palm Desert because of the building and maintenance of Golf courses.
Palm Desert went from being a dry desert to a humid desert much of the time.
How will that type of change effect the Los Angeles basin?
What will environmentalists say when the chaparral ecosystem is damaged and species start dying off?
One thing to remember is that for every solution man creates, he also creates a set of problems which are of variable import.
What are you gonna do? That's life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well it will be much better than nothing, and hopefully whatever fears people have about hydrogen fuel powered cars will just flat out wrong.
Sorry let me fix that last sentence.
"Well it will be much better than nothing, and hopefully whatever fears people have about hydrogen fuel powered cars will just be flat out wrong"
Damien -- we don't get into the global warming debate alot here. I'm with Pastorius -- it's a bunch of shit. There is no hard evidence that man is having any impact on the environment either way but instead it is more likely the earth going through her cycles. In fact what Pasto stated is correct -- there has been no global increase in temperatures in the last ten yeas or so and, in fact, there may be a decrease recently.
Now, like I said, it isn't covered alot here but one place it is is A J Strata's blog:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/category/uncategorized/global-warming
There are others, too, of course, but this is the one I am most familiar with.
Damien,
I want to point something out to you. You have not responded to the content of my post, nor have you responded to the links provided in the post. You are merely continuing our previous argument. And, you have now added racial traits to the list of things we're talking about.
First, races are not different species. They are, by definition, groups of people who can be observed to have different physical traits.
Just like there are many breeds of dogs, and you have no trouble telling the difference between a Rottweiler and a Chihuahua.
The difference is certainly genetic in origin. You could argue with that until the cows come home, but for God's sake, where do you think it comes from?
You said: What? That doesn't make any sense. Aren't all sciences to a large degree descriptive in nature? And how is the Prescription built into AGW as you call it?
I say: Yes, exactly, all science is by definition Descriptive. When Prescriptions are derived from Descriptions, it is not Science, it is art. Even Medicine is an art. It's not a science. Medicine will not become a hard science until we understand DNA better, and can actually cure diseases at the genetic level, rather than merely treat symptoms or kills cells as we do with antibiotics and chemotherapy.
The Prescription for AGW is written into the Description in that the description is man causes Global Warming by burning fossil fuels.
Therefore, the only possible solution is for man to stop burning fossil fuels.
Isn't that convenient. And, it's all coming from the Left. How many people do you see on the right who subscribe to this idea.
Scientists vary on the issue. You don't seem to be aware of that. There are tens of thousands of Scientists who do not believe Global Warming is man-made.
And, as I pointed out several times already, we've had an economic boom from 1998-2008 and during that time Global temperatures dropped despite the fact that the boom included huge increases in the amount of oil consumed.
I'll answer your other comment later.
Damien,
You wrote: People are realizing that we have a problem, as they do the demand for things that are not causing the problem are increasing. Even If the extra CO2 in the atmosphere does not make the Earth anything like Venus, it is already making it slightly hotter, Even a slight increase in temperature could cause problems.
I say: So, how do you explain the fact that temperatures have gone down for the last decade?
My comment: How will that type of change effect the Los Angeles basin?
What will environmentalists say when the chaparral ecosystem is damaged and species start dying off?
One thing to remember is that for every solution man creates, he also creates a set of problems which are of variable import.
What are you gonna do? That's life.
Your answer: Well it will be much better than nothing, and hopefully whatever fears people have about hydrogen fuel powered cars will just flat out wrong.
My response: Is it? If Los Angeles turns into an extremely hot tropical swampy encironment like Florida, and every animal and plant that thrives in the Chaparral ecosystems starts dying, you want to swear on your children to me that environmentalists are not going to tell the next generation of children that the world is going to end if we don't do something about it right now?
That's what this post is about, remember?
You have a very non-chalant response to a very real potential problem I bring up.
Why are you so non-chalant about it, when you're so concerned with man-made Global Warming?
Because I don't have the "AUTHORITY" of Al Gore?
LOL
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/9730
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/9105
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8677
(the Sun has more to do with our climate change than we ever could) http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8507
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/8422
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/7483
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/7469
Ok, I'm done.
Wait, you're saying the sun is what makes it hot outside? Gee, whoever woulda thunk it?
MR,
Did you watch the South park video? Hilarious isn't it?
@Damien,
Race, or a genetically distinct population group or whatever else you want to call it, exists. A race is just a large, partly inbred extended family. Steve Sailer explains it here.
As for global warming, would you be willing to bet your own money that your city or state will be warmer ten years from now than it is today? You've got a 50% chance of winning, better than any odds you'll ever get in Vegas. But if you would have made that bet ten years ago you would have lost.
The truth is that no one can accurately predict the long term future of weather or climate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just yanking your chain.
Pastorius,
I'm sorry, but, I don't have time to do much more debating with you. However I must clear a few things up. What am getting at when it comes to race is that there is no clear cut boundaries between races and therefor no way to prove that it exists in any objective sense. If scientists can not determine when one race ends and another begins, what scientific justification for classifying people by race is there?
Also, the differences between a Rottweiler and a Chihuahua are greater than the differences between a white man and a black man.
You wrote,
----------------------------------------------------
The Prescription for AGW is written into the Description in that the description is man causes Global Warming by burning fossil fuels.
Therefore, the only possible solution is for man to stop burning fossil fuels.
Isn't that convenient. And, it's all coming from the Left. How many people do you see on the right who subscribe to this idea.
Scientists vary on the issue. You don't seem to be aware of that. There are tens of thousands of Scientists who do not believe Global Warming is man-made.
----------------------------------------------------
No, for one thing, Micheal Shermer, who I mentioned earlier commenting on another post about this, accepts it and he is a free market loving libertarian. That's the last political group that would want to accept it, and yet he regards man made climate change as a fact. Also although, few if any of them are or have ever been scientists, some conservative commentators and politicians have been concerned about man made climate change. For one thing, Newt Gingrich has been concerned about it. The Gingrich-Pelosi Climate Change Ad: Why I Took Part Gingrich is hardly a rabid leftist. He's the one who wrote the original republican contract with America.
Also I'm well aware that there are some scientists who don't believe that man is having an effect on the climate. However based on what I know, I think that they are wrong.
And as I pointed out earlier according to Nasa, 2005 was the warmest year in over a century and the temperature has not been going down since 1998.
Damien said: If scientists can not determine when one race ends and another begins, what scientific justification for classifying people by race is there?
That is a lame argument from incessant nuance. This really ought to become a class of Logical Fallacy.
For instance,
Gradations exist.
On an scale of gradients, it is hard to distinguish where one class ends and the next begins. For instance, where does blue actually become purple on the gradient color line?
Therefore, because it is difficult to scientifically establish the precise place on the line of gradients, there are no distinctions at all in the world, and knowledge is impossible.
How's that for logic?
Damien,
You say; Michael Shermer, Newt Gingrich, etc.
I say: Yes, but neither one of them is absolutely sure man is the cause of Global Warming. They think it might be true. And, neither one of them makes the unscientific leap from Description to Prescription.
Post a Comment