How to stop climate change: the easy way

  • Thread starter Captain Compassion
  • Start date
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:21:03 -0800, Tartarus <tartarus@rome.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 12:16 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:31:31 -0800, Tartarus <tarta...@rome.com>
>
>> >> >> If you accept the accuracy of Catastrophic Anthropocentric Climate
>> >> >> Change then you must accept and advocate the end of human kind. --
>> >> >> Captain Compassion
>>
>> >> >That is silly to the point of stupidity.
>>
>> >> Yet it is the position advocated by some of the best and brightest.
>>
>> >No, it isn't, and I defy you to show that the best and brightest
>> >advocate this.
>>
>> Certainly those that advocate this position think they are.
>
>Irrelevant. You claimed they were the best and brightest. Make up
>your mind.
>
Why would your opinion have more weight than theirs?

>> >> What would you suggest? Modify human behavior? Might as well try to
>> >> convince wolves not to eat meat.
>>
>> >It is easy to modify human behavior. All it takes is a law with the
>> >promise of a stiff fine or a prison term.
>>
>> In other words you can modify human behavior with guns. But are you
>> really modifying that behavior or suppressing it? There is a
>> difference you know. When those being "modified" get guns themselves
>> then the behavior usually reverts back to type.
>
>You are modifying the behavior. Murderers have guns, and we regularly
>put them in prison. Murder is outlawed, and outlawed successfully,
>despite the fact that they have guns.
>
>Tartarus

--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Nov 12, 2:13 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Those nuclear power plants that were prevented from being built in the
> 70's and 80's would have already done so. Oh, and the folks who
> prevented them from being built are the ones demanding the emissions
> be drastically reduced. Oh, the irony.
In a rational world, nukes would fit well. But in an irrational world,
they are rich targets for terrorism. It was not upta me to fill the
world with religious fanatics willing to use any means necessary to
fulfill what they think is "god's will". Wouldnt they still be waiting
for the Rapture with more nuclear power?

We are where we are, and the most bang for the buck right now is
windfarms in many locations, cause the wind is always blowing
somewhere . Besides, wont you enjoy watching Sen. Kennedy having to
steer his sailing yacht around the wind turbine towers off his
beachfront?

I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
years. That dont sound like anything hominids can stop. They didnt
start it. Not that the climate change is not going to have devastating
consequences, which it would be more useful, to consider how to deal
with.

There are some entrepreneurs who have figured this out. Some farmers,
after they finished putting their crops in last spring, loaded their
equipment on trucks up to the Yukon, where they put in even more crops
in what had formerly been permafrost. If we are going to feed the
staving billions, we may need global warming for the arctic ice cap
to melt so the temps in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska will be warm enuf
in summer to grow the food.
 
On Nov 12, 11:22 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:13 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Those nuclear power plants that were prevented from being built in the
> > 70's and 80's would have already done so. Oh, and the folks who
> > prevented them from being built are the ones demanding the emissions
> > be drastically reduced. Oh, the irony.
>
> In a rational world, nukes would fit well. But in an irrational world,
> they are rich targets for terrorism. It was not upta me to fill the
> world with religious fanatics willing to use any means necessary to
> fulfill what they think is "god's will". Wouldnt they still be waiting
> for the Rapture with more nuclear power?
>
> We are where we are, and the most bang for the buck right now is
> windfarms in many locations, cause the wind is always blowing
> somewhere . Besides, wont you enjoy watching Sen. Kennedy having to
> steer his sailing yacht around the wind turbine towers off his
> beachfront?
>
> I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
> cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
> years.

What Greenland Ice Cores? Cite, please.

> That dont sound like anything hominids can stop. They didnt
> start it. Not that the climate change is not going to have devastating
> consequences, which it would be more useful, to consider how to deal
> with.
>
> There are some entrepreneurs who have figured this out. Some farmers,
> after they finished putting their crops in last spring, loaded their
> equipment on trucks up to the Yukon, where they put in even more crops
> in what had formerly been permafrost. If we are going to feed the
> staving billions, we may need global warming for the arctic ice cap
> to melt so the temps in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska will be warm enuf
> in summer to grow the food.

Which will be more than balanced by the farmland lost to drought.

Loser.
 
On Nov 13, 4:00 am, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:
> > I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
> > cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
> > years.
>
> What Greenland Ice Cores? Cite, please.
Since you resort to ad hominum its understandable that you are too
lazy or stupid to surf the question rather than having to accept a
link posted by me: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
There are lotsa others. The temp chart is about halfway down the page
on this one. You can see the rise that kicked in 12,000 years ago.

> > That dont sound like anything hominids can stop. They didnt
> > start it. Not that the climate change is not going to have devastating
> > consequences, which it would be more useful, to consider how to deal
> > with.
>
> > There are some entrepreneurs who have figured this out. Some farmers,
> > after they finished putting their crops in last spring, loaded their
> > equipment on trucks up to the Yukon, where they put in even more crops
> > in what had formerly been permafrost. If we are going to feed the
> > staving billions, we may need global warming for the arctic ice cap
> > to melt so the temps in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska will be warm enuf
> > in summer to grow the food.
>
> Which will be more than balanced by the farmland lost to drought.
YMMV. Canada did have problems this year because the varieties they
use were not used to such warm dry weather. But there are hybrids used
in Australia and the US that no only handle it, produce even more food
with the warmer and drier weather. I was born on a farm so I know how
important it is to have a dry spell when its time to harvest grain.

Chinese are now going to Southern Siberia to run truck farms in
summer, and as that kicks in, the global supply of veggies should rise
dramatically. The area used to be too dry as well as too cold, but
with the Arctic Ocean liquid now, moisture is being collected which is
then brought south into Central Asia. Last winter, Khotan had a record
snowfall. The Mongolian stock breeding of grass fed beef is doing
really well also.

Granted that Australia has had bad drought, and that the hurricanes we
expected hit China instead, but whether you are a loser or not depends
on where you are. So far, the net increase in farmland in the far
north looks very promising. Another nice thing too, is that this
ground has not been contaminated with years of petrochemicals, and
that the winters are still so cold that the ground freezes deep enuf
to kill all the bugs. Which means they wont need nearly as much
pesticide either.
> Loser.
 
On Nov 13, 3:46 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 4:00 am, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:> > I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
> > > cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
> > > years.
>
> > What Greenland Ice Cores? Cite, please.
>
> Since you resort to ad hominum its understandable

Asking for a cite is ad hominem? Oh, please.

>that you are too
> lazy or stupid to surf the question rather than having to accept a
> link posted by me:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/

Oh, far be it from me to demand proof of people who make claims. Very
well, I claim that your mother was a retarded drug addict.

> There are lotsa others. The temp chart is about halfway down the page
> on this one. You can see the rise that kicked in 12,000 years ago.

No, idiot, that's not what the graph shows. It clearly shows that
there was an 8 C rise over the period 20000 to 10000 BC. And it also
shows that the temperature has been at a dead stop for the last 10000
years.

What's more, 8C over 10000 years corresponds to roughly a 0.08 C rise
per century. Our temperature is currently rising at about 10 times
that rate.

Nice try, ostrich. Time to pull your head out of the sand.

>
> > > That dont sound like anything hominids can stop. They didnt
> > > start it. Not that the climate change is not going to have devastating
> > > consequences, which it would be more useful, to consider how to deal
> > > with.
>
> > > There are some entrepreneurs who have figured this out. Some farmers,
> > > after they finished putting their crops in last spring, loaded their
> > > equipment on trucks up to the Yukon, where they put in even more crops
> > > in what had formerly been permafrost. If we are going to feed the
> > > staving billions, we may need global warming for the arctic ice cap
> > > to melt so the temps in Siberia, Canada, and Alaska will be warm enuf
> > > in summer to grow the food.
>
> > Which will be more than balanced by the farmland lost to drought.
>
> YMMV. Canada did have problems this year because the varieties they
> use were not used to such warm dry weather. But there are hybrids used
> in Australia and the US that no only handle it, produce even more food
> with the warmer and drier weather.

Oh, goody, tell me, how does it work when there's no rain at all?
What do you think is going to happen down south where there's already
a water shortage when the rainfall gets cut in half?

> I was born on a farm so I know how
> important it is to have a dry spell when its time to harvest grain.

Man does not live on grain alone, moron. What about rice? You know,
the staple food for billions of Asians? You know how much rain you
need to grow that? Or the dozens of other crops which require large
amounts of water? Not to mention livestock.

>
> Chinese are now going to Southern Siberia to run truck farms in
> summer, and as that kicks in, the global supply of veggies should rise
> dramatically.

Surrrrrreeeee it will.

> The area used to be too dry as well as too cold, but
> with the Arctic Ocean liquid now, moisture is being collected which is
> then brought south into Central Asia. Last winter, Khotan had a record
> snowfall. The Mongolian stock breeding of grass fed beef is doing
> really well also.

Oh good, so how many generations do you think it'll take to figure out
what grows well up there? And it the meantime, how much southern
farmland will turn into uselss desert?

>
> Granted that Australia has had bad drought, and that the hurricanes we
> expected hit China instead, but whether you are a loser or not depends
> on where you are. So far, the net increase in farmland in the far
> north looks very promising.

And what about the net loss in other places?

>Another nice thing too, is that this
> ground has not been contaminated with years of petrochemicals, and
> that the winters are still so cold that the ground freezes deep enuf
> to kill all the bugs. Which means they wont need nearly as much
> pesticide either.

Uh huh, sure a lot of maybes in there.

>
> > Loser.

Retard.
 
On Nov 13, 8:13 pm, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Nov 13, 3:46 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 4:00 am, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:> > I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
> > > > cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
> > > > years.
>
> > > What Greenland Ice Cores? Cite, please.
>
> > Since you resort to ad hominum its understandable
>
> Asking for a cite is ad hominem? Oh, please.
I refer to the dismissiveness and the "loser" at the end of your
response. From your attitude, anyone who dares to disagree with you is
a fool. Why do you argue with fools?
>
> >that you are too
> > lazy or stupid to surf the question rather than having to accept a
> > link posted by me:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
>
> Oh, far be it from me to demand proof of people who make claims. Very
> well, I claim that your mother was a retarded drug addict.
It only took a minute to google the ice core chart. Your aggressive
attitude did not seem to permit that.

> > There are lotsa others. The temp chart is about halfway down the page
> > on this one. You can see the rise that kicked in 12,000 years ago.
>
> No, idiot, that's not what the graph shows. It clearly shows that
> there was an 8 C rise over the period 20000 to 10000 BC. And it also
> shows that the temperature has been at a dead stop for the last 10000
> years.
Agreed, remarkably stable over the course of the last 10,000 years.
when global warming, that is after the ice age, began. You are talking
about a system that has a lot of data, such as you show....

> What's more, 8C over 10000 years corresponds to roughly a 0.08 C rise
> per century. Our temperature is currently rising at about 10 times
> that rate.
>
> Nice try, ostrich. Time to pull your head out of the sand.
During the ice ages, the temperature changed quite often at even
faster rates, going both up or down within a century or so, often
within a few score of years, once that I saw, only took a decade. You
are talking about a fractal system such that you never have complete
confindence to know which way things will go next. Your dismissiveness
of any other vector than that which you see is indicative.

> > YMMV. Canada did have problems this year because the varieties they
> > use were not used to such warm dry weather. But there are hybrids used
> > in Australia and the US that no only handle it, produce even more food
> > with the warmer and drier weather.
>
> Oh, goody, tell me, how does it work when there's no rain at all?
> What do you think is going to happen down south where there's already
> a water shortage when the rainfall gets cut in half?
That does not make any sense on a global scale. As the oceans warm,
and we see this already in the arctic, the evaporation off them
increases so that the net total of moisture in the global atmosphere
increases. And as that increases, so does the cloud cover. I would
expect to see changes in the rainfall patterns, which has been the
case most obviously in central Asia.


> > I was born on a farm so I know how
> > important it is to have a dry spell when its time to harvest grain.
>
> Man does not live on grain alone, moron. What about rice? You know,
> the staple food for billions of Asians? You know how much rain you
> need to grow that? Or the dozens of other crops which require large
> amounts of water? Not to mention livestock.
I think the Chinese are smart enuf to figure that out. They expect the
Three Gorges to solve many of these problems. We will see.

> > Chinese are now going to Southern Siberia to run truck farms in
> > summer, and as that kicks in, the global supply of veggies should rise
> > dramatically.
> Surrrrrreeeee it will.
I would not be so dismissive of the skill of millions of Chinese
gardeners. They are also using clear plastic to extend the growing
season on row crops.

> > The area used to be too dry as well as too cold, but
> > with the Arctic Ocean liquid now, moisture is being collected which is
> > then brought south into Central Asia. Last winter, Khotan had a record
> > snowfall. The Mongolian stock breeding of grass fed beef is doing
> > really well also.
>
> Oh good, so how many generations do you think it'll take to figure out
> what grows well up there? And it the meantime, how much southern
> farmland will turn into uselss desert?
You have not noticed how monoon rains, which formerly only hit the
gulf coast, and petered out within a hundred miles or so now make it
all the way up to the Ozark and New Mexican mountains? Texas has had
the opposite problem; floods.

> > Granted that Australia has had bad drought, and that the hurricanes we
> > expected hit China instead, but whether you are a loser or not depends
> > on where you are. So far, the net increase in farmland in the far
> > north looks very promising.
> And what about the net loss in other places?
We will see. It is your certainty that I find irrational and partisan
rather than persuasive. The amount of land in the north is several
times what was useful in Eastern Australia. There are hybrids from
Scandinavia that would prolly do well in the Yukon and Alaska.

> >Another nice thing too, is that this
> > ground has not been contaminated with years of petrochemicals, and
> > that the winters are still so cold that the ground freezes deep enuf
> > to kill all the bugs. Which means they wont need nearly as much
> > pesticide either.
> Uh huh, sure a lot of maybes in there.
Care to name some? Just because the permafrost melts dont mean that
the ground still dont freeze for a meter or two down every winter.
We'll see. depends on how much snowcover, which could increase
dramatically if the arctic ocean stays liquid long enuf. But none of
the blister beetles, potato bugs, cut worms, or squash bugs I know of
bury themselves or their eggs more than a foot down. I was frankly
very surprised at how much worse the bug problem was in Arkansas than
in Minnesota where the water pipes hadda be 5 ft down to prevent
freezing.
> > > Loser.
>
> Retard.
 
On Nov 14, 11:13 am, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:13 pm, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:> On Nov 13, 3:46 pm, Day Brown <daybr...@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 4:00 am, sbm2...@shaw.ca wrote:> > I'm curious as to why threads like this dont discuss the Greenland ice
> > > > > cores, which show that Global Warming has been going on for 10,000
> > > > > years.
>
> > > > What Greenland Ice Cores? Cite, please.
>
> > > Since you resort to ad hominum its understandable
>
> > Asking for a cite is ad hominem? Oh, please.
>
> I refer to the dismissiveness and the "loser" at the end of your
> response.

Yes, THAT was an ad hominem. But I only put it there when you started
acting like an ass.

>From your attitude, anyone who dares to disagree with you is
> a fool. Why do you argue with fools?

Because if you don't, they wind up running your country.

>
> > >that you are too
> > > lazy or stupid to surf the question rather than having to accept a
> > > link posted by me:http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
>
> > Oh, far be it from me to demand proof of people who make claims. Very
> > well, I claim that your mother was a retarded drug addict.
>
> It only took a minute to google the ice core chart. Your aggressive
> attitude did not seem to permit that.

Yes, but how would I know it was the same one you were talking about?
Because of course, the one you cited shows something completely
different from what you claimed.

>
> > > There are lotsa others. The temp chart is about halfway down the page
> > > on this one. You can see the rise that kicked in 12,000 years ago.
>
> > No, idiot, that's not what the graph shows. It clearly shows that
> > there was an 8 C rise over the period 20000 to 10000 BC. And it also
> > shows that the temperature has been at a dead stop for the last 10000
> > years.
>
> Agreed, remarkably stable over the course of the last 10,000 years.
> when global warming, that is after the ice age, began. You are talking
> about a system that has a lot of data, such as you show....

If you are talking about the current warming problem, that has only
shown up over the last century. Far too recent to appear on your ice
cores, if that's what's you're insinuating.

>
> > What's more, 8C over 10000 years corresponds to roughly a 0.08 C rise
> > per century. Our temperature is currently rising at about 10 times
> > that rate.
>
> > Nice try, ostrich. Time to pull your head out of the sand.
>
> During the ice ages, the temperature changed quite often at even
> faster rates, going both up or down within a century or so, often
> within a few score of years, once that I saw, only took a decade.

And how would you see that, moron? The graph shows changes over the
course of millenia. Unless you're trying to measure it off your
monitor with a magnifying glass and a ruler, there's no way you're
going to be able to pick anything out with that kind of resolution.

>You
> are talking about a fractal system such that you never have complete
> confindence to know which way things will go next.

No, but you can measure a trend. Moron.

>Your dismissiveness
> of any other vector than that which you see is indicative.

Oh please. So we should just keep pumping out CO2 because umpteen
thousand years ago there MIGHT have been a decade or so when the
temperature changed as fast as it's doing now? Riiiggghhhtt...keep
denying, ostrich.

>
> > > YMMV. Canada did have problems this year because the varieties they
> > > use were not used to such warm dry weather. But there are hybrids used
> > > in Australia and the US that no only handle it, produce even more food
> > > with the warmer and drier weather.
>
> > Oh, goody, tell me, how does it work when there's no rain at all?
> > What do you think is going to happen down south where there's already
> > a water shortage when the rainfall gets cut in half?
>
> That does not make any sense on a global scale. As the oceans warm,
> and we see this already in the arctic, the evaporation off them
> increases so that the net total of moisture in the global atmosphere
> increases.

And as the temperature increases, the amount of moisture that the
atmosphere can hold increases as well.

> And as that increases, so does the cloud cover. I would
> expect to see changes in the rainfall patterns, which has been the
> case most obviously in central Asia.
>
> > > I was born on a farm so I know how
> > > important it is to have a dry spell when its time to harvest grain.
>
> > Man does not live on grain alone, moron. What about rice? You know,
> > the staple food for billions of Asians? You know how much rain you
> > need to grow that? Or the dozens of other crops which require large
> > amounts of water? Not to mention livestock.
>
> I think the Chinese are smart enuf to figure that out. They expect the
> Three Gorges to solve many of these problems. We will see.

Riiggghhhtt....

>
> > > Chinese are now going to Southern Siberia to run truck farms in
> > > summer, and as that kicks in, the global supply of veggies should rise
> > > dramatically.
> > Surrrrrreeeee it will.
>
> I would not be so dismissive of the skill of millions of Chinese
> gardeners. They are also using clear plastic to extend the growing
> season on row crops.
>
> > > The area used to be too dry as well as too cold, but
> > > with the Arctic Ocean liquid now, moisture is being collected which is
> > > then brought south into Central Asia. Last winter, Khotan had a record
> > > snowfall. The Mongolian stock breeding of grass fed beef is doing
> > > really well also.
>
> > Oh good, so how many generations do you think it'll take to figure out
> > what grows well up there? And it the meantime, how much southern
> > farmland will turn into uselss desert?
>
> You have not noticed how monoon rains, which formerly only hit the
> gulf coast, and petered out within a hundred miles or so now make it
> all the way up to the Ozark and New Mexican mountains? Texas has had
> the opposite problem; floods.

Oh, that's muccchhh better. Thanks for pointing that out. We're also
going to see more flooding from extreme weather.

The bottom line is, who knows what the hell is going to happen? We're
looking at climatic chaos, here. And chaos rarely works out for the
better, despite what you see with your rose-covered glasses.

>
> > > Granted that Australia has had bad drought, and that the hurricanes we
> > > expected hit China instead, but whether you are a loser or not depends
> > > on where you are. So far, the net increase in farmland in the far
> > > north looks very promising.
> > And what about the net loss in other places?
>
> We will see. It is your certainty that I find irrational and partisan
> rather than persuasive. The amount of land in the north is several
> times what was useful in Eastern Australia. There are hybrids from
> Scandinavia that would prolly do well in the Yukon and Alaska.

There are studies which suggest that Canada could lose up to 60% of
it's flora as the forests are unable to keep up with the climate.
Hard to be optimistic after reading something like that. Sorry, I'm
not entirely thrilled about playing Russian Roulette with our
children's future.

>
> > >Another nice thing too, is that this
> > > ground has not been contaminated with years of petrochemicals, and
> > > that the winters are still so cold that the ground freezes deep enuf
> > > to kill all the bugs. Which means they wont need nearly as much
> > > pesticide either.
> > Uh huh, sure a lot of maybes in there.
>
> Care to name some?

Sure. MAYBE we'll be able to grow food on land which has never been
used for farming. MAYBE we'll be able to figure out what will grow
where fast enough to avoid a famine. MAYBE the rain will fall where
we want it. MAYBE they'll be enough new farmland to replace the
stuff we lose, and we'll be able to get it up and running in time.
MAYBE you're a retard..whoops, that's a certainty.


> Just because the permafrost melts dont mean that
> the ground still dont freeze for a meter or two down every winter.
> We'll see.

You keep saying that. Ever consider what's going to happen if your
grasp of agriculture is as shaky as your grasp of climatology? You've
proven yourself a moron on one issue, it's not much of a stretch that
you'd be a moron on the other.

>depends on how much snowcover, which could

Coulda woulda shoulda.

> increase
> dramatically if the arctic ocean stays liquid long enuf. But none of
> the blister beetles, potato bugs, cut worms, or squash bugs I know of
> bury themselves or their eggs more than a foot down.

Speaking of which, we're losing more trees up here to pine beetles
than we are to forest fires because the winters aren't getting cold
enough to kill them off. And there ain't no maybe about that one.
 
In article <1t49j3da4l3q7346i8bfi7ocr0fvtjgrm2@4ax.com>,
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net says...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 09:35:21 -0600, "Doorman"
> <astroinc_NOSPAM@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
> >news:vot8j3lf4j2q86nsst8jqnkdr1fkm42tre@4ax.com...
> >> How to stop climate change: the easy way
> >> Mark Lynas
> >> Published 08 November 2007
> >> http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080026
> >>
> >> We have about 100 months left. If global greenhouse gas emissions have
> >> not begun to decline by the end of 2015, then our chances of
> >> restraining climate change to within the two degrees "safety line" -
> >> the level of warming below which the impacts are severe but tolerable
> >> - diminish day by day thereafter. This is what the latest science now
> >> demands: the peaking of emissions within eight years, worldwide cuts
> >> of 60 per cent by 2030, and 80 per cent or more by 2050. Above two
> >> degrees, our chances of crossing "tipping points" in the earth's
> >> system - such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, or the release
> >> of methane from thawing Siberian permafrost - is much higher.
> >
> >
> >Taking aim at Al Gore and other "climate change" activists, the founder of
> >the Weather Channel says the campaign to promote the theory of man-made
> >global warming is "the greatest scam in history."
> >
> >NOT ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE. That should be the key statement when trying to
> >spread fear and despair.
> >
> Don't buy the "settled science" and "consesus" arguments eh?

Uh No. First, who settled it, and second, a consensus, isn't that about
as relevant as conventional wisdom, which BTW is almost always wrong?

The only thing true about global warming is that they are going to tax
the living crap out of you to combat it. Isn't it nice to have such
caring people controlling the debate? I am touched.

>
> "This discussion is behind us. It's over. The diagnosis is clear, the
> science is unequivocal -- it's completely immoral, even, to question
> now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to
> question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at
> a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues." -- Dr. Gro
> Harlem Brundtland, UN special envoy on climate change.
>
> Dr. Brundtland is a public health professional and former Norwegian
> Prime Minister so she should know. :)
>
>
>

--
Daniel L Bergman
nightwind65


"There is no vice... so contemptible; he who permits himself to
tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third
time, till at length it becomes habitual..." ---Thomas
Jefferson
 
On Nov 9, 7:35 am, "Doorman" <astroinc_NOS...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:vot8j3lf4j2q86nsst8jqnkdr1fkm42tre@4ax.com...
>
> > How to stop climate change: the easy way
> > Mark Lynas
> > Published 08 November 2007
> >http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080026
>
> > We have about 100 months left. If global greenhouse gas emissions have
> > not begun to decline by the end of 2015, then our chances of
> > restraining climate change to within the two degrees "safety line" -
> > the level of warming below which the impacts are severe but tolerable
> > - diminish day by day thereafter. This is what the latest science now
> > demands: the peaking of emissions within eight years, worldwide cuts
> > of 60 per cent by 2030, and 80 per cent or more by 2050. Above two
> > degrees, our chances of crossing "tipping points" in the earth's
> > system - such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, or the release
> > of methane from thawing Siberian permafrost - is much higher.
>
> Taking aim at Al Gore and other "climate change" activists, the founder of
> the Weather Channel says the campaign to promote the theory of man-made
> global warming is "the greatest scam in history."
>
> NOT ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE. That should be the key statement when trying to
> spread fear and despair.

The founder of the Weather Channel is not, as far as I have been able
to determine, a scientist.
 
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:16:53 -0800 (PST), goofindoo@gmail.com wrote:

>On Nov 9, 7:35 am, "Doorman" <astroinc_NOS...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vot8j3lf4j2q86nsst8jqnkdr1fkm42tre@4ax.com...
>>
>> > How to stop climate change: the easy way
>> > Mark Lynas
>> > Published 08 November 2007
>> >http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080026
>>
>> > We have about 100 months left. If global greenhouse gas emissions have
>> > not begun to decline by the end of 2015, then our chances of
>> > restraining climate change to within the two degrees "safety line" -
>> > the level of warming below which the impacts are severe but tolerable
>> > - diminish day by day thereafter. This is what the latest science now
>> > demands: the peaking of emissions within eight years, worldwide cuts
>> > of 60 per cent by 2030, and 80 per cent or more by 2050. Above two
>> > degrees, our chances of crossing "tipping points" in the earth's
>> > system - such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, or the release
>> > of methane from thawing Siberian permafrost - is much higher.
>>
>> Taking aim at Al Gore and other "climate change" activists, the founder of
>> the Weather Channel says the campaign to promote the theory of man-made
>> global warming is "the greatest scam in history."
>>
>> NOT ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE. That should be the key statement when trying to
>> spread fear and despair.
>
>The founder of the Weather Channel is not, as far as I have been able
>to determine, a scientist.

How does effect the veracity of his statement?


--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
Whether you look at the last hundred years, or the Greenland ice core
and the last 110,000 years, global warming is going on. Whether you
think only in the last hundred, or the last 12,000 does not alter the
data showing the world is getting warmer.

I've read that they think it will be warmer than at any time in the
last 5 million years. Well, ok. Was the world devoid of life then? No,
it was just different. Europe, for one, was tropical & subtropical
jungle. Yes, lotsa species will go extinct. And new species will
emerge. We have a word for that: evolution. I dont think we have the
power to stop that either.

Reducing the carbon footprint of what passes for modern civilization
will involve reductions in oil consumption. Given that petroleum
engineers say we will run out soon if we dont, makes the idea look
reasonable. The lower the supply of oil, the higher the price. The
higher the price, the more greed motivates men to try violent means to
control a supply. The violence however, damages the infrastructure,
which drives down production, and thereby drives the price higher, the
greed higher, and the violence higher.

Either find a rational way to cut oil consumption, which will reduce
greenhouse emissions, or watch the spread of violence and anarchy cut
oil consumption by eliminating the supply. They can do it the old
fashioned way. It certainly is not upta us. What is, is to pay
attention as all this unfolds, and make our own plans for the future
accordingly.

No matter what the political decisions, the way to bet is that the
climate model on which those decisions will be made is wrong. Climate
models always fail to include all the relevant factors, and therefore
always wrong. Ecosystems which have been very dry, wet, cold, or hot,
will prolly change the most. I would stay out of them. The temperate
zones where plants have had to adapt to wide variations are a better
bet.
 
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:50:08 -0800 (PST), Day Brown
<daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

>Whether you look at the last hundred years, or the Greenland ice core
>and the last 110,000 years, global warming is going on. Whether you
>think only in the last hundred, or the last 12,000 does not alter the
>data showing the world is getting warmer.
>
>I've read that they think it will be warmer than at any time in the
>last 5 million years. Well, ok. Was the world devoid of life then? No,
>it was just different. Europe, for one, was tropical & subtropical
>jungle. Yes, lotsa species will go extinct. And new species will
>emerge. We have a word for that: evolution. I dont think we have the
>power to stop that either.
>
>Reducing the carbon footprint of what passes for modern civilization
>will involve reductions in oil consumption. Given that petroleum
>engineers say we will run out soon if we dont, makes the idea look
>reasonable. The lower the supply of oil, the higher the price. The
>higher the price, the more greed motivates men to try violent means to
>control a supply. The violence however, damages the infrastructure,
>which drives down production, and thereby drives the price higher, the
>greed higher, and the violence higher.
>
>Either find a rational way to cut oil consumption, which will reduce
>greenhouse emissions, or watch the spread of violence and anarchy cut
>oil consumption by eliminating the supply. They can do it the old
>fashioned way. It certainly is not upta us. What is, is to pay
>attention as all this unfolds, and make our own plans for the future
>accordingly.
>
>No matter what the political decisions, the way to bet is that the
>climate model on which those decisions will be made is wrong. Climate
>models always fail to include all the relevant factors, and therefore
>always wrong. Ecosystems which have been very dry, wet, cold, or hot,
>will prolly change the most. I would stay out of them. The temperate
>zones where plants have had to adapt to wide variations are a better
>bet.

Well said.


--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Nov 16, 11:22 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> >No matter what the political decisions, the way to bet is that the
> >climate model on which those decisions will be made is wrong. Climate
> >models always fail to include all the relevant factors, and therefore
> >always wrong. Ecosystems which have been very dry, wet, cold, or hot,
> >will prolly change the most. I would stay out of them. The temperate
> >zones where plants have had to adapt to wide variations are a better
> >bet.
>
> Well said.
Thanx. Lemmee add this for your consideration, as if things were not
ambiguous enuf already:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112172203.htm
Talks about a new method of generating hydrogen from cellulose that is
several times more efficient. But then, there's the fine print. the
cathode needs platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is 1446$/oz today. Got
any to spare? i dunno, but alternative energy is just like global
warming. Every time you think you see a solution, there's another
gotcha.

>The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius>

If you know of any place you can go where you wont find yourself among
the ranks of the insane, could you send me a private email? Rite now,
I live alone in the Ozark boonies, and everyone I know is merely
neurotic, best enjoyed in small occasional visits. My heart goes out
to those people, but I'm retired from case work. It is just too
stressful, and from what I can tell of those in the field, getting
more so. Even the people prescribing meds are on meds.

<"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill>

A reasonable analysis. "Sinister" implies some kind of mastermind
behind it, but I dont see anything that well organized. I got an email
saying the FBI seized the assets of the "Liberty Dollar". Which
certainly seems sinister, but again, not well thot out. Just what do
they expect to do with a few tons of precious metal against the scale
of disaster Churchill worried about?

Take, for instance, http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/ which
shows 90% of the global stock indexes all having losses. And
conversely, corn, oats, wheat, rice, & soybeans, are all near record
highs. Why is it that Ron Paul cant figure out that it'd be far better
to base the dollar on something the US produces, ie grain, rather than
gold, which the US imports? Even the leadership is insane.
 
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:13:16 -0800 (PST), Day Brown
<daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 11:22 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> >No matter what the political decisions, the way to bet is that the
>> >climate model on which those decisions will be made is wrong. Climate
>> >models always fail to include all the relevant factors, and therefore
>> >always wrong. Ecosystems which have been very dry, wet, cold, or hot,
>> >will prolly change the most. I would stay out of them. The temperate
>> >zones where plants have had to adapt to wide variations are a better
>> >bet.
>>
>> Well said.
>Thanx. Lemmee add this for your consideration, as if things were not
>ambiguous enuf already:
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112172203.htm
>Talks about a new method of generating hydrogen from cellulose that is
>several times more efficient. But then, there's the fine print. the
>cathode needs platinum as a catalyst. Platinum is 1446$/oz today. Got
>any to spare? i dunno, but alternative energy is just like global
>warming. Every time you think you see a solution, there's another
>gotcha.
>
>>The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
>escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius>
>
>If you know of any place you can go where you wont find yourself among
>the ranks of the insane, could you send me a private email? Rite now,
>I live alone in the Ozark boonies, and everyone I know is merely
>neurotic, best enjoyed in small occasional visits. My heart goes out
>to those people, but I'm retired from case work. It is just too
>stressful, and from what I can tell of those in the field, getting
>more so. Even the people prescribing meds are on meds.
>
><"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
>we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
>Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
>of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill>
>
>A reasonable analysis. "Sinister" implies some kind of mastermind
>behind it, but I dont see anything that well organized. I got an email
>saying the FBI seized the assets of the "Liberty Dollar". Which
>certainly seems sinister, but again, not well thot out. Just what do
>they expect to do with a few tons of precious metal against the scale
>of disaster Churchill worried about?
>
>Take, for instance, http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/ which
>shows 90% of the global stock indexes all having losses. And
>conversely, corn, oats, wheat, rice, & soybeans, are all near record
>highs. Why is it that Ron Paul cant figure out that it'd be far better
>to base the dollar on something the US produces, ie grain, rather than
>gold, which the US imports? Even the leadership is insane.
>
I don't worry about the markets, stock or otherwise, all that much.
Market fluctuations are designed to eliminate the little guy. If you
do the opposite of the "little guy" you usually do ok. High commodity
prices aren't all that bad for the US. We can afford it and they are
our commodities. High good is ok. The #2 gold producing country in the
world is Nevada. Stay armed and keep them yankees off your mountain.

Cheers




--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
On Nov 17, 10:34 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
wrote:
> I don't worry about the markets, stock or otherwise, all that much.
> Market fluctuations are designed to eliminate the little guy. If you
> do the opposite of the "little guy" you usually do ok. High commodity
> prices aren't all that bad for the US. We can afford it and they are
> our commodities. High good is ok. The #2 gold producing country in the
> world is Nevada. Stay armed and keep them yankees off your mountain.
i thot the USA was way down the line of gold producers behind South
Africa, Russia, and mines in Central Africa and South America.

But certainly, the USA produces, and exports, lots of grain that
China, India, and the Arab oil nations need.

From what I can tell, the Yankees coming here are mostly vets. Guys
who like to hunt and fish. Unless you are a fly fisherman, you prolly
dont know that the world record holder brown trout came out of the
Little Red 20 miles from me. And unless you hunt, you would not notice
that the antlers on my wall are not deer, but elk. We also have open
seasons on bear, turkey, and wild boar (which were introduced from
Europe). The question is not whether they are Yankees, but whether
they are wussies.

the history is obscure, but during the civil war, the Ozark counties
seceded... from the confederate government in Little Rock. These
hillbillies were not going to fight to preserve slavery for the
benefit of the rich plantation owners on the delta. The Union army
never came thru either. They liked being left alone then, and they
still like it.
 
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:51:46 -0800 (PST), Day Brown
<daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

>On Nov 17, 10:34 pm, Captain Compassion <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net>
>wrote:
>> I don't worry about the markets, stock or otherwise, all that much.
>> Market fluctuations are designed to eliminate the little guy. If you
>> do the opposite of the "little guy" you usually do ok. High commodity
>> prices aren't all that bad for the US. We can afford it and they are
>> our commodities. High good is ok. The #2 gold producing country in the
>> world is Nevada. Stay armed and keep them yankees off your mountain.
>i thot the USA was way down the line of gold producers behind South
>Africa, Russia, and mines in Central Africa and South America.
>
This summer I went on a fishing trip up to Northern Nevada and stayed
in Elko. I was shocked. This is one booming place. From what I
understand much of Northern Elko and Humbolt counties covered with low
grade gold deposits. Not all that rich or concentrated but covering
hundreds of square miles. It is being extracted not in mines but from
surface extraction like copper and such. While not profitable at $200
an ounce but at near $800 an ounce it is extremely profitable.

>But certainly, the USA produces, and exports, lots of grain that
>China, India, and the Arab oil nations need.
>
>From what I can tell, the Yankees coming here are mostly vets. Guys
>who like to hunt and fish. Unless you are a fly fisherman, you prolly
>dont know that the world record holder brown trout came out of the
>Little Red 20 miles from me. And unless you hunt, you would not notice
>that the antlers on my wall are not deer, but elk. We also have open
>seasons on bear, turkey, and wild boar (which were introduced from
>Europe). The question is not whether they are Yankees, but whether
>they are wussies.
>
I have fished the White River on several occasions and have traveled
the Ozarks. It is nice country.

>the history is obscure, but during the civil war, the Ozark counties
>seceded... from the confederate government in Little Rock. These
>hillbillies were not going to fight to preserve slavery for the
>benefit of the rich plantation owners on the delta. The Union army
>never came thru either. They liked being left alone then, and they
>still like it.

Sounds like a good place to be. I chose rural Nevada.


--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
I write of the Ozarks cause that's what I know. I'm not surprised that
Northern Nevada is likewise well situated for a post crash economy,
altho I'd worry about forest fires. But going to an area you know, and
better yet are known, is a very high priority. Even if things go on as
they always have, such rural areas offer the saner lifestyles.
 
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:36:17 -0800 (PST), Day Brown
<daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:

>I write of the Ozarks cause that's what I know. I'm not surprised that
>Northern Nevada is likewise well situated for a post crash economy,
>altho I'd worry about forest fires. But going to an area you know, and
>better yet are known, is a very high priority. Even if things go on as
>they always have, such rural areas offer the saner lifestyles.

Post crash economy? Perhaps but I'm here for the hunting, fishing
cheap living expenses and the $1.50 well drinks.


--
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
 
I spoke with a young woman today who'd moved into the Ozarks from
Little Rock. In part, she was just disgusted with the low income in
the face of rising prices, and saw no future in the rat race. She's
staying with friends now, and will prolly get another low paying job
next week. But as she gets established, the "cheap living expenses"
Captain Compassion mentions become the obvious economic advantage. She
has a cell phone, her car, and her clothes.

She eliminates the risk of finding her apartment broke into, and if
her car breaks down, there are lots of us to call to pick her up and
fix her up with another vehicle while we work out whatever the problem
is. From my discussions with her, she finds the young men in the city
as too stupid to bother spending time with, which has something to do
with why she finds time to talk with me. She is smart enuf to see thru
the romance bullshit on the tube, knows there is no "perfect mate" in
the city, myspace, or anywhere else. She has broken out of her
Christian upbringing, and is investigating newage, wicca, pagan, or
whatever you want to call alternate cosmologies and the cultural
values they produced.

She's had enuf environmental consciousness, and enuf political
awareness of how the media manipulates the sheeple, to shift her focus
from national or global political action to local. Where she feels she
might have more input. Now, I am not in a position to evaluate how
representative she is of what is going on among her peers, but I can
see how this could be going on in a lotta places, entirely under the
radar. She hasnt filed for unemployment, nor welfare, nor has she paid
rent, mortgage, or utility bills. As far as the economic numbers the
system depends on, she has entirely disappeared. This is a new form
of young people "dropping out" as the exploitation of the power elites
continues to get worse.
 

Similar threads

A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
63
Andrewimmix
A
A
The Higher-Self Alignment 2024 Calendar
Replies
0
Views
25
Andrewimmix
A
Y
Climate change activists claim responsibility for deflating the tires to ‘over 11,000 SUVs’
Replies
0
Views
22
Yahoo News
Y
A
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
0
Views
343
avyea
A
M
XEVIL 6: the best software for captcha solving is available !!
Replies
0
Views
125
MaryIntork0176
M
Back
Top