Martin123, Publius and Cormack, Bob. Anthropogenic Climate Change denial, climate lies
Martin123, Publius and Cormack, Bob. Anthropogenic Climate Change denial, climate lies
Martin123, Bob Cormack, and Publius --
If I'd had the "call," I might have been a preacher, a fundamentalist preacher. Trouble is, at 7, the "age" of reason for kids -- I was already finding fault with organized religions.
This is a venue change, trying to get the subject more light, but you need to see Publius' posting, "Climate Change Stupidity: The Earth also shines" for what comes before this.
http://www.xomba.com/climate_change_stupidity_the_earth_also_shines
Martin123,
It seems like you are stuck on the concept of "pollutants," confusing them with the way the planet is kept temperate by a life-dominated proportional balance of CO2 as part of the climate balance. Web of life, one strand damaged affects all others, that kind of grasp -- would aid your understanding.
Cormack and Publius -- go for it. You continue to outline what you are, and I hope you are able to turn a buck at it. Cormack -- Inhofe? Schwartz's paper?
(I think Schwartz will live to regret offering that proof of an assumed identity - paper touted as the deathknell of AGW. In fact he probably regrets it now. The folks at Journal of Geophysical Research surely would rather have a series of meaningful publications to their credit than the Schwartz proof that an "assumption" is an "assumption," offering.
The only "debate" is what to do about it. In my religiously fundamentalist view -- one of the things is better "thought-police" training; that is 1 + 1 = 2 and there is no debate. Get it?
Bob -- The website of Inhofe's is one of the finest Denier Websites in existence. For science it is useless and for politics -- it isn't much more than a con job. Look for a post with your subject later.
Pollution and Poison
I may allude to CO2 as Pollution, but it is a thermal poison.
As Venus is, Earth will become. Maybe you do not understand what Venus is? Man has nothing to do with Venus' situation and likely never will -- pending man's survival of the CO2 challenge before us now. Meaning, we tiny humans will not survive to possibly deal with the resources of Venus for our species benefit, unless we solve the key to the survival of ourselves and the rest of the life on Earth -- endangered by this man-made warming from the burning of fossil carbon.
If mankind can survive itself, one of the most difficult challenges in the solar system, beyond the intense magnetic field of Jupiter and its radiation "belts" (these are "real" "Van Allen Belts" on a Jovian scale) -- is the mining of the planet Venus. It is just "too" hot -- for water solution carbon based life.
Earth will become like Venus, heading that way in roughly a billion years -- as our Sun warms. Water Vapor will be forcing. The temperature will rise as the oceans boil into the air and space. Much Oxygen in the water will remain in the air for a while, but the H2 will largely escape to space, although plenty will be available for H2SO4, which, like on Venus, will reside high in the atmosphere, buoyed by the CO2, which will form from the high temperature release of the rock's carbonates with hot water, (steam) and will last for at least a couple of billion years... Eventually, as the Sun evolves further, the envelope of Earth's air will be "stripped" by our red giant Sun's wind, and will be blown away. The "mass" fraction of the Earth's atmosphere before the red giant wind sweeps it away will be predominated mostly by CO2, and the total "weight" of the air, and the surface pressure will be ~100 times what it is now. Sure, the Nitrogen (N2) will still be a proportion of the air; but instead of 78%, will then be ~4% of the total. Little free Oxygen will exist; since it is so reactive with the temperature and available elements to react with.
But in the immediate future. . .
Anthropogenic Global Warming if allowed to become the dominant characteristic of the earth's atmosphere will severely constrain life -- fostering extinctions and for humans, large scale deaths as a result of dramatic changes to food, rain water and ocean levels. (Because -- if we allow large continued CO2 emissions, we raise the Temperature of the planet, and can't bring it down, and neither can nature restore it in our presence with Business as usual. Nature's balance is being upset by man and no natural working mechanisms can restore the consistency of air to pre-mankind industrial revolution proportions of CO2. That is, as long as man continues to burn fossil C, Nature can't handle the amount.)
So you don't do Science, which is the Latin for "knowledge." That does not mean you can't understand it.
When astronomers finally figured out the albedo - sunlight relationship and applied it to Venus, to Jupiter and the other Gas Giant worlds, it was amazing to some that Venus was reflecting about 70% of the Sunlight it rec'd. Although closer to the Sun the 70% reflection suggested that the planet, below the "clouds" might be as cool as Earth. The Science Fiction writers wrote many fantasies, some fine stories about Venus's oceans.
However. When the microwave radiation was received in radio telescopes, and understood, it indicated that the surface of Venus was a hell-hot place. Many Russians and American scientists had almost believed the SF stories and hoped for clement conditions for a next-door planet to maybe settle in the future. (Venus is closer to Earth than Mars, but who cares?) The remarkable feat of the Russian Venera program showed us the surface, and showed us the nature of a Carbon Dioxide greenhouse. It is a hell-hot place.
The just-right-for-mankind level of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is probably somewhere in the 280ppm to 310ppm CO2 range although during our evolution (Under Gods Tight Rules) it never got much above 300 ppmv -- with the current locations of the landmasses and the oceans around the globe.
As tectonics moves the lands and seas around the planet -- the CO2 just-right-for-Mankind-and-all-other-Earthly living things -- may change. It is within this range that mankind evolved and that life on Earth also evolved (and used to develop) and become all the variations of life we see.
Connections in the physical chemical energy world are not mere "ideas" -- but rather facts and nuts and bolts relationships designed into the nature of the universe. If you like God as your designer, fine. Use your God concept -- but just don't place man on the same level, where some would suggest Man is ascendant to the physical world in which he lives; above it.
Maybe a better characterization would be -- just a bright monkey and nasty to all he touches -- until he develops an awareness of the connectedness of the universe's internal things; how they connect one to another and to all in proportion under physical laws.
This is way beyond the idea of "pollutants." This is not the noxious particulates, or mercury, lead, arsenic, NOX, or plutonium, or ozone. I mention this because there is a difference between most ideas's of pollution and the warming via CO2.
The situation is not a political debate. It is a life and death debate.
Fact: the atmospheric proportion of CO2 is rising. Fact: the rise is virtually 100% the result of Man's burning of fossil fuel. Fact: without CO2 in the air, Earth becomes a snowball or iceball. Even though H2O is a more significant "greenhouse" gas than CO2 -- when a certain range of temperature is reached -- it is not much of a greenhouse gas when frozen out of the air as ice. Those of you familiar with "dry ice" (solid CO2) know that CO2 freezes at a lower (absolute) temperature than H2O. CO2 becomes a dominant Greenhouse Gas over a larger range of "lower" temperatures, simply because it is a gas at lower temperatures than water.
The deniers say this doesn't matter.
They say, for example: (and seriously)
1) god will care for His favorite.
2) man could not possibly do anything to affect the planet.
3) dumping this CO2 in the air is good for you, and for plants.
4) there is no evidence. Nothing is happening. you are getting upset over nothing.
5) if god thought we were doing wrong he would strike us down.
6) We, Inhofe's friends, have these experts, the finest money can buy and we have paid them well to do the necessary "science" to show there is absolutely no danger to this CO2.
7) the evidence isn't in. we are still checking on the influence of van allen radiation and cosmic rays and the definite 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 . . .2025 alignment of the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way and the Suns passage near it every year, in Sagittarius.
8) earth shine on the moon proves the earth is cooling
9) the autocorrelation fact states that the mean can't be very far from our initial assumptions and we assume the quantities from the past can be applied directly to the prediction of the future, and no changes occur.
10) we can't afford to fix things; and we can't afford to stop burning Fossil C and what would the people in the middle east do?
11) we can't afford to pay for your excessive use and waste of resources, especially. We are only making on honest buck.
12) where would we put the co2? In the ground? How? we can't afford that.
and of course,
13) it is all a big lie.
Submitted by AGW | denialists | Humor | humor | James Inhofe | scientists
why we should take an alarmist approach to global warming, also no in debth info on the mechanisms that causes this. Why should I believe you? if all this is so obvious you should be able to cough up some evidence and explain it in a meaningful way. Or at least describe the process in detail. All you present here is superficial textbook knowledge and claims with nothing to back them up. Especially considering your age,nationality and experience you should be able to do better than this. You seem to be unable to do this...
... the global warming deniers rely on a lot of really crazy, even desperate "evidence" that GW can't be happening -- things like "earth shine" are truly loony.
No matter how much scientific evidence anyone provides for GW, it won't be accepted by fundamentalists and idealogues. It reminds me of how the tobacco companies denied for decades that cigarettes cause cancer -- they kept saying, "You can't prove scientifically that tobacco causes cancer."
Similarly, other are saying today that GW "can't be proven" -- but there gets to a point where the body of combined knowledge is overwhelming, and the knowledge truly is overwhelming that global warming is happening, and being driven by human activity.
Climate change is real and it's observable, but it's how you approach the problem that matters to me, and that skeptics are not simply dismissed as "denialists". The fact that you are putting yourself will in "harms" way as soon as you even dare to question the IPCC report or the scientfic consensus is what ticks me off. To many people acts as if the theories behind man made global warming is unquestionable hard facts and that the voices that critiques should be silenced and are on the pay roll of some big corporation.
The debate boils down to three yet unanswered questions
How big is the impact on the climate from man made Cgreenhouse gas emissions?
Can these effects be reversed?
what other factors affects our climate and how much?
Climate change alarmism is not a good solution , so far it has only lead to increased polarization of the debate and ill effects on poor communities all over the world. What I particularly don't enjoy in the case of Les Porter is his inability to stick to the topic. instead he starts talking about for example whaling, nationalities and other irrelevant things trying to bring down people's integrity based on where they come from and their age among other things. He also seems to think he can read people's minds over his internet connection and therefor he's able to tell you what you really meant by what you were saying.These techniques does not strenghten your case Les.
That's what ticks me off ,man made global warming or not,Please Les, stick to the issues and show people enough respect to consider their opinion as coming from a non-corrupt motivation.
Hey quit using my Presidents name in vain. You traitor to our Great Nation. Use some respect and you might get some back otherwise it will be demanded from you by the ones who love our Nation and our President whom ever he is. You bum.
What I can say is this global warming chicken little strategy and the people who are buying into this nonsense are A CANCER TO AMERICA. Tell me what caused the ice ages and warming periods before you or I ever walked this earth? Duhhh uh dont know. This cancer we have in America is attacking Americas vital organs. And it is YOU.
It is okay because in November and because of types just like you korczak that will cause obama's demise. Go to another COUNTRY and use your imagination of doom and gloom and how you are going to... WRAK save the world... WRAK and effect their economy and mental attitude toward America with your negative push. I guarantee when your liberal butt is dead and gone this world will be here. And continue to be here until the one who separates the water from the land decides to end this world. So hey chicken little get a life.
Wow... thanks for bringing up this point, and I quote from your reply:"Tell me what caused the ice ages and warming periods before you or I ever walked this earth?" -- Brilliant!
It's about time somebody responds to "the bully."
Xomba is fresh. Xomba is fun. Join Xomba now!
So Ken,
10 years with no warming (while CO2 continues to climb) apparently don't count as "evidence" for you. Supposing it continues to not warm -- maybe even cools down: How long would that have to happen to shake your faith?
Just wondering. If nothing can shake your faith, then what you have is religion, not science.
Bob
For some of these idiots it is easier to dream up through imagination and models of what is going to happen in the future. Doom gloom and the sky is falling so pay now for your carbon emissions. It is asinine and a hindrance to the growth of America. The strategy that these types use to combat anyone who calls them on this nonsense is to belittle or make you feel like you are not as smart as them. The idiot has to put itself on a higher platform than others to make him FEEL like he can show you everything he knows. So in all there intelligence in reality they are acting like a school child who is trying to fortify their click. It is amazing how these self righteous fools have to appease their own sense of self righteousness and what better way to do that than SAVE THE WORLD. I know I know our world is in terrible and inevitable peril but never fear they showed up to save the day. Or world in this case. I fully expect a bunch of replies with their graphs and charts and hot air in the form of an article. Get a life. Get real and get honest. How about start drilling for our own resources. Oh wait hold it. We don't have time the sky is falling.
Obama will be land slided this year just because of these types who hurt our economy, jobs, and the Nation as a whole.
... but to me, this just all about science, not politics. But even Conservative President George W. Bush now admits that climate change is real, and he even agrees that it is largely man-made -- but he only supports "voluntary" actions to remedy the sad situation. Too bad.
For me, I just look at the science, and I enjoy the arguments and counter-arguments -- in the end, the scienists who have made the case for global warming have simply done a much better job.
Incidentally, I also recently wrote a story in my own corner of the world about the effects of global warming -- researchers agree that global warming is killing off moose in Minnesota at a rapid rate. Go see my story here: GLOBAL WARMING KILLING MOOSE
First of all, I think everyone who believes the "consensus" has the more knowledgeable approach or better "science" ought to start at the beginning of the series I wrote. The first two articles pretty much take care of the question about who really knows what and how much credibility they have:
Climate Change Stupidity: An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis
Now, Les says that the scientific questions have been answered and that, "The only 'debate' is what to do about it." This is the approach that all AGW advocates take. They repeat it, they scream it, they refuse to acknowledge anything to the contrary no matter how much they are proven wrong. And yes, they are proven wrong...repeatedly. Such is the nature of science. Hypotheses are tested and re-tested, and new hypotheses are formed. However, in the circles of the "consensus," the testing never occurs. The experimentation is left entirely up to climate models.
The climate models have predicted alarming warming for many years, only to be recalculated every time the predicted rise falls short. Have the models explained why the global temperatures have failed to rise rapidly in the last ten years? Have the models accurately predicted the decrease in temperature over the last several years? No, they have not. The models rely mainly on the carbon dioxide premise and an inevitably increasing greenhouse effect. The models are wrong. Without corresponding experimentation they are worthless. Without acknowledging real world observation, the entire hypothesis is worthless.
My take on the AGW hypothesis is not to "deny" that the planet has warmed over the last 150 years. I know for a fact that it has. I also know that the previous few centuries before this warming the planet was in a cooling phase, so naturally, if the climate was to shift it would be to the warmer side. When we choose the starting point, we control the discussion. If we were to choose the year 1000 as our starting point, then were are not experiencing an alarming warming trend. If we go back another few thousand years, then we are actually in a cooling trend. If we start with the year 2000, then we have experienced almost no change at all. Choosing the end of the "Little Ice Age" as a starting point has less to do with the "effects" of the Industrial Revolution and more to do with propaganda techniques.
"As Venus is, Earth will become."
Perhaps this may be true, but not because of our increase in carbon dioxide. Venus is what it is because it is much closer to the sun and because it is not Earth. Earth is not Venus and any future happenings on Earth in one billion years is merely speculation at this point. Venus is not an example of what happens when carbon dioxide increases...it is an example of what happens when the sun is too close. Solar power/energy drives our solar system, hence the name.
Les, your "examples" of the "denialist" arguments are entirely absurd. Either you do not understand the arguments being made, or you purposely misrepresent them because you fear their practicality.
1) god will care for His favorite.
I have never used that argument and I personally don't know anybody who does. It's hard to attribute things to a being that we aren't sure exists or cares about us. It requires the same level of faith that is required by the advocates of AGW "science."
2) man could not possibly do anything to affect the planet.
Again, that is not an accurate representation of the argument. Man can do lots of things that can affect the planet, but driving an SUV is the least of our worries...especially when it has not been linked to catastrophic warming.
3) dumping this CO2 in the air is good for you, and for plants.
It actually is good for plants. It will not be good for humans when it reaches levels near 4000 ppm. Above that it starts to become toxic for human life. We have yet to reach 400 and by the time we'd even be close to 500, we'll most likely have new technology that relies on energy other than fossil fuels.
4) there is no evidence. Nothing is happening. you are getting upset over nothing.
This is probably the most accurate of the bunch. There isn't any evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. The hypothesis is flawed and the "evidence" used to support it doesn't support it. Something is happening - the Earth is warming. No, it's nothing to get upset over. We have benefitted from the warming so far.
5) if god thought we were doing wrong he would strike us down.
That's just stupid...I agree that this is a dumb argument.
6) We, Inhofe's friends, have these experts, the finest money can buy and we have paid them well to do the necessary "science" to show there is absolutely no danger to this CO2.
This is the typical attack on scientists who disagree with the "consensus." Instead of addressing the argument laid out by the skeptics (who are just as educated and experienced as the advocates), you choose to assassinate their character by calling them "deniers" and suggesting that they are on the payroll of "Big Carbon." Then, at the same time, you dismiss the fact that many of the AGW advocates are on the Big Environmentalist payrolls. Yes, it's true. If they are not funded by environmentalist organizations, they are funded by the government (the taxpayers). Their research funding (their livelihood) relies on the dire predictions that they make. The better case they can make that global warming is a serious problem, the more they stabilize their future financial situation. This is why advocates get paid and skeptics get ridiculed and/or fired.
7) the evidence isn't in. we are still checking on the influence of van allen radiation and cosmic rays and the definite 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 . . .2025 alignment of the supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way and the Suns passage near it every year, in Sagittarius.
You're right - the evidence isn't in. There are plenty of reasons why and tons of information we have yet to learn about what affects our climate and to what degree.
8) earth shine on the moon proves the earth is cooling
No, the Earthshine experiment has shown that Earth's albedo changes and that these changes do affect temperature. When albedo increase, temperature decreases. When albedo decreases, temperature increases. Is albedo the only factor of our climate? No, it is not.
9) the autocorrelation fact states that the mean can't be very far from our initial assumptions and we assume the quantities from the past can be applied directly to the prediction of the future, and no changes occur.
This is just more nonsense that nobody is really using. The past is the past...we can only study and learn from it. This is something the climate models (and the people creating them) can't do.
10) we can't afford to fix things; and we can't afford to stop burning Fossil C and what would the people in the middle east do?
We can't afford the ridiculous propositions put forth by the AGW advocates. We are witnessing the effects of higher gas prices and the use of biofuels. It isn't pretty and it isn't helping solve anything. What we are seeing right now is the environmentalist's dream. This is what they are striving for - increased expenses, decreased production...a return to a less able society. We are supposed to feel guilty for being humans. We are supposed to apologize for our existence. Well, sooner or later, the advocates will be the ones apologizing when they're trying to save their own necks.
11) we can't afford to pay for your excessive use and waste of resources, especially. We are only making on honest buck.
I'm not sure who you're referring to here. The carbon credit schemers?
12) where would we put the co2? In the ground? How? we can't afford that.
We don't need to "put it" anywhere.
and of course,
13) it is all a big lie.
Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the advocates just don't know that they just don't know. Perhaps some of them are in fact lying. We can't be positive about all of them. But we do know that they are not being completely honest and that they are trying to silence the debate that is not over. They think that by silencing their opposition that that makes their arguments true. It's not a lie, it's just willful ignorance.
Anyway...I'll let all of you chew on that for a while. If this makes me irrational and illogical, then perhaps you ought to check your premises.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
Martin123, eggsovresy,
Are you both mad, or just pretending to be mad?
In 1998, Science invited 51 people to write essays for Science and the one link above is where Arthur C Clarke poses the question usually to normally intelligent people about their concepts of creationist religion.
EXCERPT . . ."I have encountered a few "creationists" and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were really mad, or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created the whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading humankind? And, although I do not necessarily agree with the paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin's advocacy of evolution as a major proof of the glory of God, de Chardin's attitude is both logical and inspiring." End excerpt, Arthur C Clarke, invited essay in Science 5 June 1998.
Creationist's suddenly give Satan the power to deceive us by planting the rocks full of things older than the fundamentalist bible says they are.
Don't push your luck with English; we steal good words and bad from every language -- from native American's (pow-wow) to German's (Gedanken). (And a few dozen hundreds of others)
Freedom to breed is intolerable?
Read Garrett Hardin, in 1968 and 1998; and if you're able to get a copy at some library or institute of higher learning, surely you can use their links to "Science" so you can read it in 2008.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;280/5364/682?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Garret+Hardin+essay&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
What surprises you about Americans?
Rude Americans? Ugly Americans? You appear to align your self with some pretty nice fellows, but fellows but eggsovresy is very simple in his eloquence, Bob is just Out there, and obviously a highly intelligent and respected denialist. Publius is getting really into it.
So you like whale meat? Tasty, huh? They say that the flesh between the metacarpals and metatarsals is exquisite. I think that is in Thomas Harris' character, Hannibal Lecter's gourmet cook book "Having Friends For Dinner." Holt Rhinehurt Winston Salem & Ligette; 2002, Genre: Humoresque. Tom Haris
Cutting to the spine of that "Issue of insult:"
In my very humble and considered opinion, Norway's "surviving" whaler should be a museum for all the children of Norway to see the great history of Norway as it was once an ocean going nation. The remainder of the whalers should be scuttled or torpedoed. Whale tourism should be made a mainstay of the Norwegian Lines fare. One European stop would include the Whaler's Museum.
The museum would someday (if we survive AGW) be on a par with Mengele's work with the Nazi SS http://isurvived.org/drMengele.html, or the efforts to preserve the human record of what happened at Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, and human perspective on killing and ingestion of intelligent animals.
Being passable at English does not make you a writer of English.
You are NOT my opponent. This is NOT a debate. This is NOT even "writer's" being nice to eachother and putting silly issues like human and other species survival off the plate, pretending ignorance. (Gee, maybe you are. You can read any number of my xombyte posts about AGW.)
I'm sorry I even opened up with comments to you. You pretend; and that, too poorly.
==========
Ken -- I'm not kidding about the dirt riding!
Locally, we have some tremendous country a dirt bike makes quickly accessible. I'm too old and decrepit to wheelie or do much downhill. I did have a story about one dirt bike route that was grabbed by the Denver Post for one of their weekend magazine inserts. I worked extensively with the editor before the paper shut that mag down. That was like dirt-writing, but about dirt riding. They wanted me to submit another piece for another "newspaper mag" they were developing, but I did not quit my science job! My Science Job was very consuming.
BTW, I did do federal science at one of the few Federal Science agencies that exists, mostly during pre-neanderthal administrations; and I did it for 34 years, before retiring.
I will NOT discuss what I did. In a way, like your dirt writing, my several hundred publications are sanitized to be nameless science faces of our government. (Yeah. I was heavy into the grist of science, the observations and measurements and used these to reach definitive conclusions -- and though many thousands use my work, the nameless face of government science subsumes all. And it used to bother me, but does not now.)
Your writing is extremely readable -- and I want to read the Moose article when I finish here. For a while the only place I saw Moose in Colorado, was in Colorado's North Park area. But I saw a Cow headed South at about 10,000 ft a year or five back.
Thanks for the comments. You're right about the denialists. About their mental denial wall being impenetrable. I respond to the denialists even when I know it is a waste of time.
- - -
It is like "Faith," as a Minnesota-born colleague used to say: "Faith is believing in something even when you know it is not true."
He also used to say we would not live long enough to see a stable, truly democratic government in South America. The Jury is still out, but maybe Brazil is going to do it! (He blamed it on the Patron-system sponsored by the Church of Rome. I also have great "faith" in the human potential in both Argentina and Chile.
Keep writing!
------------------------
Publius
Again this is in the "humor category."
Thanks for your array of comments.
Look, I think you have gotten lots of support from the social "writers" those who have said as much as "the Lord will look out for us. So I don't care if it is going to get hot or not."
But it doesn't matter. nick does not have a place for political satire or sharp science writing. If the categories had moderators, lots of things would change.
=============
During this time of year, I spend a lot of time working out of doors, and since that happens, I do not get to write or post as much.
But I probably will post again. Just not as soon as most insulter's expect.
Thank you all for your comments. Yeah, it sounds trite to me too. Just know I mean it.
--------------
Ken,
I report during Edit: I read your moose article. Well done!
I see sarcasm is a non-existing concept in your mind. Your comments about whaling/nazis/no debate/english etc (all have nothing to do with global warming) have proven to me that you might very possibly be mad and can't be taken seriously. Dismiss any opponents by stating that they don't exist, very clever technique.However, if I wasn't your opponent before you surely got me as your opponent now!
Good luck making enemies
I suggest you review a few of my postings to get an idea of "Heart of Darkness -- 'humor'." (These are light "dark-hearted", but I think I could conjure the words reaching deeper into the depravity bright monkey can do to each other and the planet, with a small effort.)
IF you think I am your chosen "opponent" perhaps you can chase or point out all my "weak points" through an understanding of this sarcastic humor, American style -- or at least my style.
Sometimes, it might be hard to explain "sarcasm," yet many students of the concept are able to crosswalk it through and amongst many languages. A fellow I once worked with knew all of the romance languages, and many of the "common" languages of Europe, though Norwegian, of course, was not one of them. What was impressive to me was his knowledge of the "Central and North American Indian languages such as Sioux, Apache, Navajo, Yaqui, Cherokee, and Black Foot all of which had been long divorced from trans-Asian or trans European or African tongues. He had a penchant for it, a talent. He said they were easy since they mostly contained the same roots. Prior to the printing press -- nations were not really possible. Records were not well made to communicate through abstract symbolic constructs.
Alexander's effort was probably as large a collection of people ever brought into an empire, until now.(Nah. The British Empire would have to be deeply considered, and it lasted quite a while.)
The point is, yes, English is widely used. About on a par with the Chinese dialects. To my limited knowledge, only Sanskrit has the potential to again evolve into a language as capable as English. (And it once did become as large, containing the assimilation of many languages to join minds over time. Then as Taprial says, the Frog returned to the safety of the well.)
IPCC? Get real.
You think I am a disciple of the IPCC -- I am not. I think they are being too business-friendly. I think they are far too reticent and conservative. This CO2 problem is the equivalent of a species threatening situation far more dangerous than a few thermonuclear weapons, and the essential equivalent of all out thermonuclear war -- but more insidious. I discount any of the sea ice estimates from the standard IPCC consensus scenarios, since all models are one sigma from current and near-past observations and measurements.
I placed this current post in the Humor Category, like I posted one on Canada's new polar bear hunting rules.
I want to take time to edit and revise my overly long posting on Ice Core CO2 records, and the one the I am working on to attempt to refute Carl Johnson's posting on global warming I have cited many times.
http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html
Who, like the real discoverer of "global warming" was not a climate scientist, or a meteorologist, but an engineer, who just thought about the heating the layer of CO2 we keep adding to insulates the Earth. How hot will wht we have done to the air make it get?
Carl's effort is of the same scientific nature as Brookhaven's Schwartz's "" HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM" -- by Stephen E. Schwartz, June 2007 " that was linked to by Inhofe's site and so highly regarded there by denialists.
Anyway, for your English Literature read or participate in a performance of Hamlet or Macbeth. Wednesday is a nice corruption but permanent addition to English isn't it?
Here are some other exercises There are sensitive, "feely" ones too, but these are on Xomba.
http://www.xomba.com/the_fine_art_of_stacking_coins_and_paper_money_in_very_tall_stacks
http://www.xomba.com/numbers_of_the_beast_the_manburger_box
http://www.xomba.com/primatologists_stunned_imaginations_exceeded_anthropologist_astonished
http://www.xomba.com/time_short_time_endless_time_imaginary
http://www.xomba.com/the_suns_future_a_brief_outline
http://www.xomba.com/pluto_plutoed_the_famous_three_dwarfs_images_and_data_and_opinion
http://www.xomba.com/solar_constant_and_the_amount_of_energy_produced_by_the_sun
Martin123, good luck to you. Continue your education.
Friend, enemy, opponent? Nah. None of those.
Arrogant child. No, I think of you as one of my "mistakes" and a waste of time to explain or discuss anything "with."
Yeah. You are just one of my many many "mistakes."
Do you understand that? You may think your existence is independent of what the world seems to be cognizant of -- but here, on Xomba -- I'll alway think of you as just a mistake I made. Of course, you can change your name, and maybe hide for awhile -- in other words be beyond identification as one of Les' many mistakes.
But I think your language mannerisms, attitude, clumsy adeptness -- all would reveal you while you continue to practice English.
Good luck. This is a Humor post. Laugh.
But, Martin123, I'm retired.
Team up with somebody like Publius or eggsovresy, or Cormack and get your team-writing up! AND GOING!
Thanks for your comments. If you read the content of some of the posts I citied you may get a new perspective on your attitude. I can be as "dismissive" as I want to.
I have owned up to "most" of My Mistakes.
Some other mistakes, of course, I have not owned up to and possibly never will!
Farewell, Push hard on this language thing, it will help you.
It may be the price of the all-encompassing freedom America promotes, that any one can say anything without really wondering what he /she is saying. The same may hold good for the highly non-tolerant attitude of the American people.
I really don't care too much for the GW series, but still i have started wondering whether the aim is to do something about it or is it just an argument which needs to be won.
Being non aligned and erring on the side of caution never hurt anyone.
Must say one thing about Publius. Retained his dignity at all times,( during earlier discussions), unlike a few others. Well done Pub.
Dammit, Publius has done a good job in recent times at non-plus. I would say he has done well.
If you want to call it dignity, well, that's a perception. Dying with dignity is quite the rage, and it would also be a nice thing, I guess, to place on the marker, "He lived and died with Dignity." Or "He wrote dignified prose."
In the past I razed the offending replies both of us may have made -- but there is plenty to see that isn't dignified but controversial.
When you delete your posting, you delete all comments. You may repost the byte with a new name, and the comments are gone. It cleanses many things. It is a catharsis that covers the obvious frictions. You would have to see some of Pubs earlier comments to gather a different perspective, but you are half-again as old as he -- and I think, wiser.
Taprial! I thank you for your kind humor counsel.
You write!: I really don't care too much for the GW series, but still i have started wondering whether the aim is to do something about it or is it just an argument which needs to be won. [?]
I do not read Pubs climate series fallacies. I would have too much negative to impart. (I probably should start the refutation of them, but it is like Eggs and Publius discussing religion. )
India maybe able to do without Oil. May be able (actually will have to) find alternative energies to supply a developing lifestyle. However, climate change will affect some 50% of India's water supplies in major ways.
I suggest www.realclimate.org for some examples of tongue in cheek humor, some humor that most will miss, but also for the science referents. I think readers there might be interested in your Indian perspective, but it is not a social discourse. Newcomers are welcome, non-scientists are welcome, and the presence of denialists is there evident, and their endless efforts are mostly ignored. Comments are moderated to keep comments on topic, but of course some of the best interaction and learning is in those that stray.
When I first read carl johnsons blogs at
http://mb-soft.com/public3/global.html
I was disturbed. The fellow makes points where they communicate. His approach is simplistic, he uses the wrong values (I can't imagine where he got his solar constant (we know this very very well Think of the power requirements for satellites -- you have to be able to operate a radio at a certain level of energy. The stretch is the CO2 shift and too simplified a response outline. [Ocean thermal response and interaction with sea and land is very important in climate and Carl skips the Ocean feed. Which may turn out to be a brilliant shortcut -- or the Achilles heal in his approach.
The climate issue will become more apparent as food supplies are stressed and starvation deaths climb. Yeah, Tap. Even the financial difficulties are kin to the climate. We have a tiger by the tail -- and we can't just "let go."
Thanks for the insight, and this should not incite anyone.
I got out-doors work to get done. More later.
You are just a rambler of you and yours imaginations gone wild smart guy.
Religious fundamentalist is man made. That is why you can make the statements you do.
God left Saul. God takes care of HIS own even when he leaves you. Saul is in Heaven. That is grace. Which is another subject you are ignorant in. I am not ignorant in His Grace so you have been gracefully informed. We are saved by Grace.
God left Jesus for the first time in his life when Jesus was on the cross. Because HE had to judge Jesus. Perfect God can not fellowship with imperfect man.
Basic principals for the Brephos. Infant on milk. Baby believers.
I am a Christian. Your subject is man made like your models and graphs you are so proud. I am sure it is hard work. But for all you and yours hard work and intelligence. I am amazed at what stupidity does. Chicken little.
Chicken little got ate by the fox. The cockroaches that feed on others at others expense. They'll be noticed. General democrat will have to go back into hiding and begin his socialist save the world attack on the middle class clandestinely.
In the original post, Les states that one of the GW deniers' arguments is:
"5) if god thought we were doing wrong he would strike us down."
Well maybe God Is striking us down - Not all at once but very slowly by increasing the intensity of temperature extremes and storm events. His goal maybe is to WARN US so we can take the appropriate actions (Free Will) to chart our own future and correct our mistakes.
What cycle of discipline do you think we are in there coelacanth6? fifth cycle? sixth discipline cycle? In the seventh cycle of discipline the Bible says for the mothers to teach the daughters songs of eulogy. Your right women will be given away to your enemies.
In other words the race is wiped out. So tell me there six. What cycle of discipline do you think we are in?
An infant on milk could tell me.
If half of the so called Bible Belt started studying the Word of God and growing in the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. They might start understanding Grace.
Meat and potato doctrines. The problem isn't the secular. The problem is the believers. There are not many Seniors. Their children are being grown up with human viewpoint like your statement here. Really it is insulting my intelligence. But who am I? Two words. The voters.
... this all reminds me of when The Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest because he had the audacity to promulgate actual science, whether it agreed with religious or political doctrine or not.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. I think today it's more political ideology than religion that tends to stifle real science -- the current administration has been strenuously muffling scienists over the global warming thing for the past 7 years -- whenever the science conflicts with the Neo-Con view of reality, even their own scientists are silenced, fired, pressured, or whatever.
Well, Les, let's hope you are more like Galileo than the philosopher Giordana Bruno -- the latter was burned at the stake by religious authorities -- for his own good and in the name of Jesus.
Hell, Galileo even got an apology from the Catholic Church -- although it took almost 500 years. The trouble with the situation today is -- the human race may not last 500 years if religious people continue to stifle real science and hope that faith and God will pull our fat our of the fire we lit under our own arses.
Anyway, I wish more people would read history and see how, time and time again, the religious people have been largely wrong about everything throughout the centuries, and the scientific people have been largely right about everything.
For example, for sickness, the religious people gave us "faith healing" and the the "laying on of hand" -- while science gave us penecillin. Which would you rather have?
Today, it's just more of the same -- I heard a preacher on public radio a while ago say that God will not allow global warming to happen because of the covenant he made with the human race after the flood ... sheesh! How can anyone believe that?
Anyway, keep trucking, Les "Mr. Galileo" Porter.
It is not the skeptics that are engaged in character assassination and calling for the silencing and/or imprisonment of their opponents. Perhaps you do understand history, but your observational skills are severely lacking.
Furthermore, I would like you to point out in any of my articles where I have used a religious premise to argue about science. The fact of the matter is, if science is what you're all about, then you are failing to practice what you preach. Science does not become settled when a group of people agree on something and say that it is. It becomes settled when observation and experimentation confirm hypotheses. What observations and experimentation has confirmed the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? A weak correlation between two factors does not qualify as evidence and computer models do not qualify as an experiment.
Anyway, I wish more people would study contemporary history and see how, time and time again, the environmentalists/alarmists have been largely wrong about everything throughout the decades, and their opponents have been largely right about everything.
For example, Paul Erlich said the world would become overpopulated long before the 20th century ended and we would all die from starvation. Ted Danson warned us all that the oceans would die in ten years - and that was in the 1980's. Al Gore and his buddies have claimed that our carbon emissions will drastically raise temperatures and cause a runaway greenhouse...yet temperatures are currently decreasing. He also says that our carbon emissions can cause a new ice age unexpectedly...yet that entirely contradicts the runaway greenhouse hypothesis. He can't eat his cake and have it too. Meanwhile, Gore's already astronomical energy consumption has increased since last year - while he makes millions of dollars off of "carbon credits." Yep, that sure sounds like sound science and compassion for the environment to me.
Do yourself a favor - before you start talking about the Inquisition, at least try to understand which side you're currently on, instead of making a fool of yourself. Then, take the blinders off and admit that the "environmentalist cause" is nothing more than statist propaganda.
*If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.
.... on my Christian Evangelical friends and other various Conservatives.
I must admit that even today's top Conservative, George W. Bush, not only admits that global warming is real, but Goerge Bush also agrees it is being driven by human activity. This is the Bush Admin. official stance, now, and has been for years, as you will see here:
George Bush Admits Global Warming Real and Man Made
Also, it is now the case that more than 70% of Christian Evangelicals agree that global warming is real, and caused by the human race. Here is an official statement from one of the leading Enagelical groups:
Claim 1: Human-Induced Climate Change is Real
Since 1995 there has been general agreement among those in the scientific community most seriously engaged with this issue that climate change is happening and is being caused mainly by human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels. Evidence gathered since 1995 has only strengthened this conclusion.
Because all religious/moral claims about climate change are relevant only if climate change is real and is mainly human-induced, everything hinges on the scientific data. As evangelicals we have hesitated to speak on this issue until we could be more certain of the science of climate change, but the signatories now believe that the evidence demands action.
So let me here offer my apologies to all of those "God believers." Apparently, the majority of you now agree with the scientific fact that global warming is both real and man made!
The Inquisition is not dead, however! Today, rather than being run by monolithic entities like the Catholic Church, the Inquisition is being driven by the Exxon-Mobile Slave Masters!
As we can all see, Exxon Mobile has "mind slaves" on these very forums -- but thankfully, top Conservatives and a clear majority of Christian leaders in America today have seen the light and now believe global warming is real and man made.
So, as John McCain says, "The debate is over." I recently saw John McCain's TV ad bragging about how he stood up to President Bush on climate change -- but McCain should amend his ads to admit that it is Goerge Bush's official stance that global warming is real and man made.
Anyway, I'm glad that visionary leaders like Al Gore are being joined by Republican's like McCain -- the good news is, whowever gets elected this fall -- McCain or Obama -- both will be on the right side of the global warming issue, which gives us all hope.
Barn Swallows Can Understand Math
What, asked Martin123 do we need to do if this pipeline stuff is on its way? (Those are words I put in his mouth, a condensed approximation of his earlier question.)
Thanks Ken.
The Tactics of Denial continue.
Denialist Bob Cormack has basically opted out, but he is welcome back anytime. He needs to enunciate his own tactic ticket.
Publius trudges on! (how much does he get for this carbon deception project?) but his newly written and soon to be updated bio is a window, and for me clarifies so much about him! Most of it in my mind is "good", but he does need to do one more edit on his bio --
Martin123 (Young Norway dude, new to English) feels insulted by my supposed insults of him (maybe they shoulda been funnier) that he insults me and I admit even attempting to communicate anything is a mistake. Oh yes, I am as humble as I can be arrogant -- a kind of Jekyll-Hyde balance. Maybe only a little "mad," or maybe a lot.
Coelacanth06, understands that God might 'strike us down.' (I want to respond -- and I did write a response suggesting that "more knowledge of the Universe increases the "size" of your fundamental beliefs (your God gets really really large) -- that is actually a good piece of work that would absolutely not offend her or even most of you if you thought it through -- but it needs finishing and polish.) [write now it just sits there, and I think about it]
eggsovresy? Eggs is just incomplete. Of course, I have hope he is able to learn from exposure to things larger than denials. But at age, well, maybe not.
Ken is a great writer. He probably needs to be finishing one or more of his "novels" projects, and is using this as a diversion while his subconscious assembles the plot details in the background. His lucid description of welfare terror until ghosting gave him a start is a nice piece in itself. Thanks Ken. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Galileo had made an objective twice the diameter of the one he made? And imagine if he had had a timepiece like a cheap digital wristwatch with a start stop function, a stopwatch? I daresay he might have gotten closer to gravity and Newton's realization of gravitational force. Imagine, rolling objects down an inclined plane, and know the analog with falling, minus a little friction -- was a perfect way to evaluate the rate of fall.
Martin Sheen says, "Nothing gets done unless it is done by a fanatic."
I may have to assume the fanaticism.
Publius and Bob are likely not executives in the Big Carbon pay scheme, so their sins are just public enunciations of climate lies and deceptions, and their penances would likely be financial.
- - - - - -
In my mail box, from James Hansen, I got a particularly satisfying statement to echo what I have been advocating here to Publius, et al. for a long time. Bob Cormack attempts to dehumanize me for my stance on Environmental Conspiracy Laws, suggesting my offering is a kind of Trotsky-esque Communist purge of the opposition, extending it to the "wrong thinking" of those who disagree with my "right"-thinking. There is a reason I chose to insinuate that these thinkings are like the resettlements of the city people to the countryside under Pol Pot. The situation with Mugabe, and with the Military Junta in Burma (Myanmar), and countless other despots around the world -- are no different than the delayed effects of CO2 dumped by them and us into the air. But that is a little "light." I want to make the penalties fit the malfeasances and irresponsibilities.
Is summary examination too much?
The entire fossil fuel business should be held responsible, even if it would not do any more good than the Nuremberg trials and executions. Spandau was kept open for my sixth cousin, a fellow named Rudolf Hess, whose grave is unmarked (as it should be unmarked.)
Now developing are similarities to the current fossil fuel situation. The "actions" [buying Congress and the Executive -- and the Majority Court] by Big Carbon and its helot minions, that affect species and world endangerment qualifies them for summary examination.
We should and do have punishments on the scale fit for crimes against humanity. Presidents and Lawmakers should not be exempted. A fate like that of Rudolf Hess is more than I would allow for the Carbon Crowd.
What Crimes Do They Commit?
The following excerpt is from James Hansen: You may notice, as an earlier post of mine, stated -- James Hansen's approach is gentler than mine would be. These people are committing a crime that involves the future of all species, not just homo sapiens but all species. It is not simply massive "genocide;" or the European's diseases killing 90% of the non-immune American natives both north and south. It is not simply the holocaust, but comparable to it -- because it is being done wantonly, for the profit of a few, at the sacrifice of humanity and millions of other species.
I excerpt from James Hansen -- speaking and writing as a private citizen, something that others in science agencies of the federal government have been reticent or just flat afraid to do.
James Hansen writes:
"CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.
Conviction of Exxon Mobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.
If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.
Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.
A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.
Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry.
The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead.
Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses. Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible."
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867
==============
Oh, Publius -- maybe you could volunteer to be one of the first to face the environmental conspiracy laws. You know, as a test case for humorous Justice. (Justice you can smile about; funny justice.)
In the records of Xomba are some "dignified" along with some clumsy (No problem with being thumbs or thumby) fallacy laden espousals that are the "strawmen" you love to profer as though it was an act of "innocence." I guess the defense could be innocent by reason of ignorance.
I was so pleased to read in your bio that you have been educated and trained in reason and logic. With that training, even an Environmental Conspiracy Tribunal, after debriefing at Gitmo would surely dismiss you for "reasons."
Here is link to the text of James Hansen.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
... wow, yes, Les, imagine if Galileo had a lens twice the size (and of superior optical quality) than the first instrument he turned upon the heavens!! Just the thought of that gives me shivers.
What a fantastic mind Galileo had. A telescope in anyone else's hands was merely a telescope -- but in the hands of Galileo, the telescope was nothing less than an instrument of revolution -- and that's not an exageration!
You know -- in my opinion -- Galileo came within a hair's breadth of discovering the theory of relativity. I realize that's a bold statement, but when you examine the way he was thinking -- for example, he was contemplating the movement of the tides, and he was visualizing the movement of a ship across the surface of the ocean, and for a moment, he began to think about what would happen if one dropped an object from the crow's nest of a ship while it was in motion -- WOW!
Of course, he did not have nearly the background of knowledge to make the intuitive leap to something as amazing as relativity.
But, anyway, I often wonder what that moment was like when Galileo turned his telescope for the first time on Jupiter and saw those four pin points of lights that were Jupiter's moons!!!!!!!! I mean -- god! -- it must have almost made his head explode!!
I remember when I was a little boy and I finally got my hands on my first "real" telescope -- a 6-inch Newtonian reflector with a 48-inch focal length -- and turning it on Jupiter and seeing that little banded disk and those four amazing moons -- and I knew what I was about to see, yet it was still mind blowing -- now imagine Galileo seeing this for the first time in human history -- the mind reels!!!!!!!
But I digress, and this is all off topic. I'll just say briefly that I agree with Mr. Hansen -- Big Oil should be put on trial for crimes against the planet.
I just heard on the news now that Exxon got off nearly scott free for the Exxon Valdez horrific disaster in Alasaka -- thank you Supreme Court, you bunch of Conservative pro-oil idealogues! What a tragedy!
KEN'S SHORT SCIENCE FICTION E-BOOK
Ken,
Galileo, today, would be doing cosmology, and I do not know how or if he would bite into string theory, and its nothing experimental. Probably wouldn't entertain it too much; but multiverse, he might like. Me, too. I'd like to live in the one where I just won the quarter billion dollar lottery. . .
I built 6 and 8 inch and have a 17-1/4" Coulter f 4.5 bucket.
Several of my postings here on xomba have segments of SF pieces I have extracted from my own stories. (manburger, co2 Ice cores) But I first read Tom Godwin's "The Cold Equations" way back in the 1950's. It impressed me as a youngster, and the parallel now exists with denialists, obfuscators and Carbon CEO's.
This is a planetary emergency. The equations of CO2 and heating are as inevitable as gravity and as psychological as a broken arm. As much biodiversity as I would like to see carried into the future, I think of the denialists and The Cold Equations -- and I think, they won't go "out the airlock" like the naive but heroic heroine, in Godwin's story.
So heck. Space 'em!
Naturally I jest. One of the cold equation emulator rehashings, and sorry, don't recall the author, was that the sweet young thing (stow-a-way) and the pilot amputated enough extremities to solve the fuel mass problem and landed on the colony world with legs and arms missing.
(Kind of like Skywalker (Luke) and Darth's later accouterments, cyborgian limbs -- would be the option after landing. . .)
Of course, two legs and a big head for some would mass the needed amount. But, I suppose they think they can outlast their pronouncements.
So heck. (Planetary Emergency.) Space 'em!
You complain that:
"Bob Cormack attempts to dehumanize me for my stance on Environmental Conspiracy Laws, suggesting my offering is a kind of Trotsky-esque Communist purge of the opposition"
Well, what's a person to think when you say things like this?
"...the denialists ... [are] the real outliers, and dangerous enough to the species and the ecology of the planet to be summarily examined to see what is wrong with their minds..."
I had no idea you were simply suggesting a friendly chat over tea and cakes.
*****************
Personally, I think it would be quite entertaining if some environmental organizations took Hansen up on his suggestion and tried to prove "crimes against humanity" on executives of oil companies. Of course, the very first thing the defense would do would to be to make the accusers prove that a crime had actually been committed, so the basic science, data, and predictive skill of the models would become the issue. Since the accused would have the presumption of innocence and the power of discovery (in US courts, anyway), it wouldn't do to just say; "All of us scientists are agreed, you just need to believe us."
Unfortunately, all of the environmental orgs that I know of (and have been a member of) have quite a lot of sharp lawyers on staff, and they wouldn't be dumb enough to get involved in something that could backfire as badly as this. I know this is a suggestion that you (and Hansen) will never, ever follow; but you should really read the chapter in Crichton's book ("State of Fear") where he outlines the probable course such a lawsuit would follow. He is obviously much more familiar with the legal system than Hansen.
Everytime the AGW alarmists engage in a moderated and fair debate with "denialists" they lose badly. Getting blown away in a high profile court case would be a disaster for them.
Like I said: Entertaining.
Sorry, Bob. Had a real crash. Good karma (and foresight) saved most of my computer. I would like to have gotten back to you earlier.
You and Pub seem to have the same mental scripting. But Law has nothing to do with the direction this prosecution for environmental crimes will move. It will begin more like a disintegration of civil order. If it is fueled by bank runs on the present $520 trillion value of derived bank skims and scams, be it mortgages, gold, oil, or by some military internal security "clamp down" on an unruly public it could quickly progress to a Romanian solution -- kind of like the handling of Mussolini by the people of Italy, once the Nazi or even neoNazi elements were purged or convinced to find a new god-belief.
The high profile tobacco cases come to mind -- which the public interest lost. (Boulder is "smoke free" isn't it?) But this tobacco parallel is the "poison" aspect of your stated position. What you are advocating is tantamount to a much more transforming scale of crime, a truly Zarathustran Super Nietzsche kind of social control turned to planetary death. What is preached is death to life on the planet -- and possibly not all -- but most we are familiar with.
No. It is not mere genocide. It is Biocide.
No Bob, they won't treat you like Benito; nor will Pub be handled so. You, because you will be gone. Pub would high-tail away from those seeking his recompense -- certainly secure in the logic of the Law. (Well, maybe not so secure.)
The tactic you ply is exactly like the tobacco manipulations, and I think they will come to revisit you; but deny all you want. What you preach is worse. At least the illusion of freedom to smoke or not to smoke gives most a long life. The heat death is different for the resultant climate you advocate. It makes your thesis a crime against life and nature. I judge these more serious crimes than the Sudanese self-righteousness you and pub seem to bear as though it be your God-given right to screw with the air we all have as commons.
Crichton's star has faded.
The approach to legal manipulations in "State of Fear" is ludicrous and will prove to be in our much more enlightened world, just flat wrong. I agree with most colleagues that his "State" is a "State of Confusion," which you apparently share. If you have hitched your future to such confusion, you would not find much solace in the real world.
Entertain yourself.
Tea and cakes, like Sarte.
Your scripting is as faulty as pub's in this regard -- and it is too bad you won't live long enough to really enjoy the denialist's fate as a social and balanced payback.
Thanks for your clever response!
"Law has nothing to do with the direction this prosecution for environmental crimes will move."
Good to know that you realize your prosecution (persecution?) fantasies have nothing to do with real Law. It seemed pretty obvious that neither you nor Hansen had ever participated in a strongly contested legal proceeding (or hadn't learned anything, if you had).
I still maintain that it would be entertaining to see the AGW alarmists handed their heads, supposing they are stupid enough to initiate something.
Now, when will you realize that your other fantasies also have nothing to do with reality?
Bobby.
My goodness. How does your mind work?
You live in the beautiful little town of Boulder, Colorado, a hot bed of scientific research where they have the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and these guys and gals run lots of models which are describing the warming we are seeing and the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice which (Gee Whiz!!) only happens when the temperature rises. But here you are denying it. Even CU is located there and that is a good school.
Do you really believe those sensors you claim to have built?
I believe you have built them, but wow, when the instruments tell you something you want to deny, don't you look at other lines of evidence (like the melting Arctic Sea Ice) to support the rise in thermometer reading we are witnessing. Look. So you don't agree with the thermometer on the porch or the NCAR or NOAA thermometers. So learn from the National Snow and Ice Data Center -- and their data on sea ice melt. A second line of evidence, more than just the thermometer reading.
No. Not Bob? He just denies it! No evidence, no references, no citing of people in the same town/community he lives in, nor their work!
Image and text: NCAR -- and UCAR the consortium of universities with government.
Or Bob, your fantasy denial must include this kind of information from NOAA:
Image and text from NOAA.gov
But I forget. Data and observational measurements confuse your fantasy.
Carl Johnson, as I mentioned to you and others like Martin123, predicts the full effect of ~390 ppmv CO2 to not occur until 143 years have passed. You and pub and I will be gone. But whatever the time scale, the inevitable warming will continue -- despite your denials.
The Law?
Right now the law protects YOU. You think it is a shield? (I've often wondered about the fate of Madelyn Murray O'Hare, the famed atheist, even with the law's protection, she and Jimmy Hoffa vanished as though abducted by space aliens.) Gone. But not forgotten.
I know it is hard to und
Recent comments
36 min 50 sec ago
40 min 7 sec ago
58 min 20 sec ago
1 hour 31 min ago
1 hour 49 min ago
1 hour 53 min ago
3 hours 4 min ago
3 hours 20 min ago
3 hours 32 min ago
3 hours 46 min ago