http://gamingtrend.com
September 30, 2014, 02:18:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liberal Ice Shelf continues to show how much it hates Bush  (Read 14226 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« on: March 26, 2008, 11:32:23 PM »

The Antarctic Ice Shelf's latest little tantrum attack on those glorious fighters against the "global warming" propaganda dumped 160 square miles of ice into the ocean.

Quote
Scientists are citing "rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica" as the cause of an initial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. The damage got started at the end of February when an iceberg dropped off and triggered the "runaway disintegration" of a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf.

The ice shelf, which scientists speculate has floated in the Antarctic region for hundreds of years, is succumbing to recent rises in temperature in the area--an average of 0.9 degree Fahrenheit every 10 years for the last 50 years.

This series of pictures that show the beginning of the breakup were taken by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer sensor, which flies on its Earth Observing System Aqua and Terra satellites.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/NASA

I sure hope NASA isn't implying that Global Warming is real.  They aren't allowed to do that anymore.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2008, 01:09:00 AM »

in all fairness it's only a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf  icon_wink
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2008, 04:08:46 AM »

Quote from: CeeKay on March 27, 2008, 01:09:00 AM

in all fairness it's only a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf  icon_wink

PEANUTS I SAY, PEANUTS.

gellar
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11427


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2008, 12:56:20 PM »

Love the thread title.  Could've been right out of the Onion.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 15463


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 28, 2008, 01:50:58 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on March 27, 2008, 12:56:20 PM

Love the thread title.  Could've been right out of the Onion.

+1  thumbsup
Logged
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 8989


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2008, 03:22:42 PM »

Quote from: ATB on March 28, 2008, 01:50:58 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on March 27, 2008, 12:56:20 PM

Love the thread title.  Could've been right out of the Onion.

+1  thumbsup

Yeah usually I see Unbreakable as a bit of a one trick pony... but this title is quality.

gellar
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 28, 2008, 04:32:33 PM »

Kind of spooky visualization: somebody mentioned the 160-sqare mile shelf is about the size of Manhattan  eek

One thing that concerns me regarding Antarctica melting is what happens once all the subglacial lakes start hitting the regular water.  There are microbes in there which have been isolated for perhaps as long as 500,000 years.  So what happens once it gets into the ocean?  It could just die, which would be bad from a research viewpoint... but what if it grows and spreads?  For all we know, it could make the red tides look like a holiday weekend.  Or maybe it will give us all super powers.  Who knows.

Anyway, I'm just curious how many people will still continue to deny that global warming is even occurring.  Even Ted Stevens, a longtime die-hard global warming denier, has come around (although, much like the Iraq war, his gut tells him it's a temporary situation that is somehow magically almost over).  He'll likely be out of office pretty soon, though- between the Bridge to Nowhere, the Series of Tubes, and him and his son being investigated by the FBI, it's most likely for the best anyway.

[edit] my bad, the Bridge to Nowhere was Tom Coburn, not Ted Stevens.
[edit2] guess I had it right the first time.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2008, 05:17:39 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 28, 2008, 05:07:50 PM »

No, the "bridge to nowhere" was Stevens.  Coburn attempted to amend the bill to divert funding to Katrina relief instead, but the amendment went down.

Read this for more info:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2008, 05:17:09 PM »

Quote from: Brendan on March 28, 2008, 05:07:50 PM

No, the "bridge to nowhere" was Stevens.  Coburn attempted to amend the bill to divert funding to Katrina relief instead, but the amendment went down.

Read this for more info:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001931.html

Ah ok, thanks!
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2008, 05:59:49 PM »

go to your library or newstand and pick up the march / april foreign affairs

this isnt antarctica - but theres a picture of the arctic (from what looks like a high orbiting satellite?) in 2001 - and another in 2007.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2008, 07:25:33 PM »

I'm really starting to think the oil industry funding Global Warming deniers was ALL about making it easier to grab the oil in the Arctic... all else be damned.

It's all about fiddling while Rome burns.
Logged
Eightball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1387


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2008, 05:28:10 PM »

Quote from: ATB on March 28, 2008, 01:50:58 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on March 27, 2008, 12:56:20 PM

Love the thread title.  Could've been right out of the Onion.

+1  thumbsup

Excellent title.  lol.
Logged
The Meal
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 159


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 04, 2008, 06:52:25 PM »

Definite points for the title and opening line. smile

UK scientists have eliminated correlation between solar cycles and the Earth's global temperature:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/03/there-is-no-sun-link-with-global-warming/

~Neal
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2008, 05:12:07 PM »

In other news, global warming has taken a vacation.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 05:13:42 PM by msduncan » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2008, 05:50:18 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 05, 2008, 05:12:07 PM

In other news, global warming has taken a vacation.

Just curious- is David Whitehouse a climatologist?  Because he seems to have missed a few things, what with the claim that somehow global warming is not happening.  Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, I love the spin from the global warming deniers recently: "Oh, global warming isn't real.  And besides, it's going away soon anyway!"

When those Liberal Ice Shelves stop their Bush-hating spin, maybe we can start thinking that perhaps Global Warming is going away.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2008, 07:21:19 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 05, 2008, 05:50:18 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 05, 2008, 05:12:07 PM

In other news, global warming has taken a vacation.

Just curious- is David Whitehouse a climatologist?  Because he seems to have missed a few things, what with the claim that somehow global warming is not happening.  Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, I love the spin from the global warming deniers recently: "Oh, global warming isn't real.  And besides, it's going away soon anyway!"

When those Liberal Ice Shelves stop their Bush-hating spin, maybe we can start thinking that perhaps Global Warming is going away.

I assumed you wouldn't read the article and I was right.     The article is pretty well balanced, and he doesn't deny that man made emissions are having a troubling impact on earth -- he's saying that since 2001 there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures and we need to find out why.

The mean global temperature has not risen since 2001.    Raw data

The earth's temperatures have been on a sharp increase since the early 1800's due to a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.    The Thames in England used to freeze over and they'd have festivals during the winter on it's frozen surface.    It hasn't frozen since the early 1800's due to continued recovery from the Little Ice Age.     It's natural to realize that temperatures were going to pull out of that global event by arching upward for a couple hundred years.     

Temperatures have now been steady globally for almost a decade and we need to find out why before we invest hundreds of billions of dollars.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 07:37:26 PM by msduncan » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2008, 08:53:53 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 05, 2008, 07:21:19 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on April 05, 2008, 05:50:18 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 05, 2008, 05:12:07 PM

In other news, global warming has taken a vacation.

Just curious- is David Whitehouse a climatologist?  Because he seems to have missed a few things, what with the claim that somehow global warming is not happening.  Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, I love the spin from the global warming deniers recently: "Oh, global warming isn't real.  And besides, it's going away soon anyway!"

When those Liberal Ice Shelves stop their Bush-hating spin, maybe we can start thinking that perhaps Global Warming is going away.

I assumed you wouldn't read the article and I was right.     The article is pretty well balanced, and he doesn't deny that man made emissions are having a troubling impact on earth -- he's saying that since 2001 there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures and we need to find out why.

Not only did I read it... but I read the comments underneath it, which is where I pulled my link.

Now while YOU may think the article is fair and balanced, that's your own opinion.  Mine differs, obviously.

Likewise, the conclusion that both you, Mr. Whitehouse, and other global warming deniers are jumping to- that global warming has "peaked" and will now start declining- has absolutely zero evidence to support it.

If you chart it on a graph... even assuming your contention that warming has been flat... there isn't anything to lead anybody to believe that it's going to go down.  Why?  Because the trend lines have only been going in an upward direction.  Since g.w. is primarily a man-made problem, what activities have been undertaken to reverse the trends?  Oh wait, that would be "none".

What's that saying, about doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results?

Quote
The earth's temperatures have been on a sharp increase since the early 1800's due to a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.    The Thames in England used to freeze over and they'd have festivals during the winter on it's frozen surface.    It hasn't frozen since the early 1800's due to continued recovery from the Little Ice Age.     It's natural to realize that temperatures were going to pull out of that global event by arching upward for a couple hundred years.

The Ice Age?  Are you kidding me?  The fricken Ice Age?  It hasn't frozen over since the 1800s due to a little thing the reality based community likes to call "The Industrial Revolution".

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that the universe is only 4000 years old?  That doesn't leave too much time for an Ice Age... which ended approximately 11,000 years ago.  However, even if I'm wrong about your beliefs in specific, there are a great deal of people saying this Ice Age stuff... who also happen to believe the earth is only 4000 years old or whatever.

Quote
Temperatures have now been steady globally for almost a decade and we need to find out why before we invest hundreds of billions of dollars.

In this case, I would cite the "Cheney Doctrine".  If there's even a 1% chance that global warming is a threat to the world, we have to do every single thing in our power to prevent it, costs (and facts) be damned.  As Cheney said, "It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

It applied to Iraq, and it applies even more to global warming.  At least we can prove global warming actually exists, unlike those phantom WMDs.  You wouldn't want to contradict Dick, would you?
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 09:02:49 PM by unbreakable » Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2008, 09:08:05 PM »

Quote

Not only did I read it... but I read the comments underneath it, which is where I pulled my link.

Now while YOU may think the article is fair and balanced, that's your own opinion.  Mine differs, obviously.


Likewise, the conclusion that both you, Mr. Whitehouse, and other global warming deniers are jumping to- that global warming has "peaked" and will now start declining- has absolutely zero evidence to support it.

I don't see anywhere in this article where Whitehouse asserts that global temperatures have peaked.   He says they have been steady for almost a decade which deserves investigation.      His entire point is that we don't seem to know enough of any of this to make absolute claims, both on the decade of stability or the trend of post LIA (little ice age) warming.

Quote
If you chart it on a graph... even assuming your contention that warming has been flat... there isn't anything to lead anybody to believe that it's going to go down.  Why?  Because the trend lines have only been going in an upward direction.  Since g.w. is primarily a man-made problem, what activites have been undertake to reverse the trends?  Oh wait, that would be "none".

Again nobody has jumped to the conclusion in that article that temperatures will begin to decline.    They are holding steady.    We should investigate.

Quote
What's that saying, about doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results?

Which is exactly what has happened.   We've done the same things the past decade that we did in prior decades, and the temperatures held steady -- different results.    Why?    We should investigate.

Quote
The Ice Age?  Are you kidding me?  The fricken Ice Age?  It hasn't frozen over since the 1800s due to a little think the reality based community likes to call "The Industrial Revolution".

Also, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you believe that the universe is only 4000 years old?  That doesn't leave too much time for an Ice Age... which was 11,000 years ago.

I'm not talking about the Ice Age OMGGZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!    I'm talking about the LITTLE ICE AGE.

And who in the world led you to believe that I think the world is 4000 years old?    Just because I'm a conservative?    Last time I checked it was closer to 4.5 billion.    And yes ... even though I'm conservative I also don't think Dinosaur skeletons were just a ploy placed here by satan to throw us off.   Roll Eyes

Quote
In this case, I would cite the "Cheney Doctrine".  If there's even a 1% chance that global warming is a threat to the world, we have to do every single thing in our power to prevent it, costs (and facts) be damned.

It applied to Iraq, and it applies even more to global warming.  At least we can prove global warming actually exists, unlike those phantom WMDs.

Ah yes.... everything relates back to either a) the Bush Administration or b) the war in Iraq or c) those WMD's to you.   I forgot.      You know the world is close to 4.5 billion years old --  what's 6, 10, or even 15 measily years in Iraq going to hurt?    Tongue
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2008, 09:26:40 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 05, 2008, 09:08:05 PM

I don't see anywhere in this article where Whitehouse asserts that global temperatures have peaked.   He says they have been steady for almost a decade which deserves investigation.      His entire point is that we don't seem to know enough of any of this to make absolute claims, both on the decade of stability or the trend of post LIA (little ice age) warming.

I don't see what makes you think Mr. Whitehouse has any credibility to make claims contrary to those made by climatologists.  From the bottom of your posted article:

"David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 19881998, Science Editor BBC News Online 19982006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).]"

So what about that makes him fit to refute the climatologists who have been correct about global warming?

BTW, claiming that "OMG this shit is complicated, and all this math makes my head hurt thinking about it.  Therefore we can't really ever know anything it" is essentially preaching even more do-nothing.  As for me, I'll listen to the people who do this for a living, rather than some dude talking out of his ass area of expertise (whether he writes for a magazine or not).

Quote
Again nobody has jumped to the conclusion in that article that temperatures will begin to decline.    They are holding steady.    We should investigate.

Ok.  Send a crack team of your best and brightest over to Antarctica, and let them observe the Liberal, Bush-hating Ice Shelves collapsing into the sea.  Have them stay there until they become convinced that global warming is actually occurring.  Or they freeze to death.  Whichever comes first, I guess.

It's really too bad this "wait and see" rationality didn't enter into the discourse before we illegally invaded a country which never attacked us.  Under the auspices of "defending America".

Quote
Quote
What's that saying, about doing the same things over and over, and expecting different results?

Which is exactly what has happened.   We've done the same things the past decade that we did in prior decades, and the temperatures held steady -- different results.    Why?    We should investigate.

So when people were showing that global warming was happening, and we could have done something about it... you guys said "we need to study this".  And now, when global warming is actually having disastrous effects on the planet... your answer is "more study".

I think the time for a do-nothing attitude has long passed.

Quote
And who in the world led you to believe that I think the world is 4000 years old?    Just because I'm a conservative?    Last time I checked it was closer to 4.5 billion.    And yes ... even though I'm conservative I also don't think Dinosaur skeletons were just a ploy placed here by satan to throw us off.   Roll Eyes

No, I just recalled incorrectly, which was the reason for me inserting the "forgive me if I'm wrong" line.  This may surprise you, but I don't consider myself a scholar on every aspect of your life.  I simply remembered wrong.

Quote
Quote
In this case, I would cite the "Cheney Doctrine".  If there's even a 1% chance that global warming is a threat to the world, we have to do every single thing in our power to prevent it, costs (and facts) be damned.

It applied to Iraq, and it applies even more to global warming.  At least we can prove global warming actually exists, unlike those phantom WMDs.

Ah yes.... everything relates back to either a) the Bush Administration or b) the war in Iraq or c) those WMD's to you.   I forgot.      You know the world is close to 4.5 billion years old --  what's 6, 10, or even 15 measily years in Iraq going to hurt?    Tongue

No... but if you make that kind of claim (about even a 1% chance of something being a threat), then it's obviously applicable to your decision making process.  Therefore, if someone supported invading Iraq just because they didn't like the cut of Saddam's jib, they must logically support the War On Global Warming.  For the exact same reason.

If we can kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, torture cab drivers and rape children to find out where Saddam hid WMDs he didn't actually have, and create 3 million refugees... all based on a 1% chance that Saddam could have maybe possibly been a threat at some indeterminate point in the foreseeable future... then it's not too far of a stretch to say that, by the same decision making process, we should do something about Global Warming (whether it actually exists or not, or whether we've studied it enough or not, or whether we understand exactly why it's happening or not).

It's not about our analysis: it's about our response.  Remember that.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2008, 09:35:25 PM by unbreakable » Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM »

Quote

I don't see what makes you think Mr. Whitehouse has any credibility to make claims contrary to those made by climatologists.  From the bottom of your posted article:

"David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 19881998, Science Editor BBC News Online 19982006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).]"

So what about that makes him fit to refute the climatologists who have been correct about global warming?

BTW, claiming that "OMG this shit is complicated, and all this math makes my head hurt thinking about it.  Therefore we can't really ever know anything it" is essentially preaching even more do-nothing.  As for me, I'll listen to the people who do this for a living, rather than some dude talking out of his ass area of expertise (whether he writes for a magazine or not).

I've seen this sentiment a lot recently.    Apparently we are not supposed to challenge the findings of Climatologists, and instead supposed to dive headlong into extremely economic restrictive policies that will put us further behind the Chinese as far as rate of growth --- because btw the Chinese are going to do nothing at all to contribute to your cause.   

Global climate studies is a huge business these days.     For researchers and carriers of the faith -- there is the cash cow of the modern science era to be had.    Limitless grants, funds, corporate donations and literally as much research money out there as there has ever been in any scientific movement.     How is all this money affecting the objectiveness of the buisiness?   Because make no mistake:  this thing changed from science to business a long time ago.

Quote
Ok.  Send a crack team of your best and brightest over to Antarctica, and let them observe the Liberal, Bush-hating Ice Shelves collapsing into the sea.  Have them stay there until they become convinced that global warming is actually occurring.  Or they freeze to death.  Whichever comes first, I guess.

It's really too bad this "wait and see" rationality didn't enter into the discourse before we illegally invaded a country which never attacked us.  Under the auspices of "defending America".

Yes yes....  the liberal ice shelf joke was funny the first 5 times you used it.   

Quote

So when people were showing that global warming was happening, and we could have done something about it... you guys said "we need to study this".  And now, when global warming is actually having disastrous effects on the planet... your answer is "more study".

I think the time for a do-nothing attitude has long passed.

What disasterous effects has it had?    Can you prove to me that it has had a SINGLE disasterous result thus far?     

Quote
No, I just recalled incorrectly, which was the reason for me inserting the "forgive me if I'm wrong" line.  This may surprise you, but I don't consider myself a scholar on every aspect of your life.  I simply remembered wrong.

Fair enough.    I'm not a earth-is-4000 year old guy.      On the contrary I think it's older than most people can grasp in their minds.... and the forces, science, and processes at work on her are far too complicated for a new breed of science barely 50 years old to be able to understand completely.

Quote
No... but if you make that kind of claim (about even a 1% chance of something being a threat), then it's obviously applicable to your decision making process.  Therefore, if someone supported invading Iraq just because they didn't like the cut of Saddam's jib, they must logically support the War On Global Warming.  For the exact same reason.

If we can kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, torture cab drivers and rape children to find out where Saddam hid WMDs he didn't actually have, and create 3 million refugees... all based on a 1% chance that Saddam could have maybe possibly been a threat at some indeterminate point in the foreseeable future... then it's not too far of a stretch to say that, by the same decision making process, we should do something about Global Warming (whether it actually exists or not, or whether we've studied it enough or not, or whether we understand exactly why it's happening or not).

It's not about our analysis: it's about our response.  Remember that.

First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

Secondly -- This is the only point I'll conceed to you:    we should be taking steps to reduce emissions not because it's a OMFG!!!!!!EMURJENNCY!, but because it's logical.     Emissions are unnatural, they sometimes produce harmful byproducts that settle elsewhere on our planet, and the world should be working to reduce them over time in a productive and reasonable manner.    Sort of like cleaning your room so you have a more comfortable place to hang out.   

I completely disagree with this alarmist, must stop everything NOW and cut everything off mentality that has taken fire.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2008, 03:09:36 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM

I've seen this sentiment a lot recently.    Apparently we are not supposed to challenge the findings of Climatologists, and instead supposed to dive headlong into extremely economic restrictive policies that will put us further behind the Chinese as far as rate of growth --- because btw the Chinese are going to do nothing at all to contribute to your cause.   

Well if it makes you feel better, I don't take advice on brain surgery from non-brain surgeons either.

As for the Chinese, if the US had signed on to an environmental agreement, it would have carried a lot of weight to get everyone else to do it.  For the same reason nuclear proliferation because a big issue again when GWB pulled the US out of the ABM treaty (the legality of which is even debatable, since such an action was likely up to Congress.  But that's beside the point).  So understandably, many other countries figured if the world's biggest polluter wasn't going to do anything about it, they wouldn't bother with it either.

Quote
Global climate studies is a huge business these days.     For researchers and carriers of the faith -- there is the cash cow of the modern science era to be had.    Limitless grants, funds, corporate donations and literally as much research money out there as there has ever been in any scientific movement.     How is all this money affecting the objectiveness of the buisiness?   Because make no mistake:  this thing changed from science to business a long time ago.

So... since reversing the epic amounts of damage polluters have done to the planet is going to take a large amount of money... we are supposed to look sceptically at environmentalists?  That continues to be the absolute silliest argument against global warming one could possibly make.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you global warming deniers are absolutely correct, and it's all bullshit, but we find this out after 'fixing' the problem.  So in exchange for being wrong... we get clean and renewable energy, hopefully an elimination of pollution, and worldwide infrastructure to support companies making wise environmental decisions.  OMFG... WHAT A DISASTER!!!!

Quote
Yes yes....  the liberal ice shelf joke was funny the first 5 times you used it.

And it gets funnier every time I make it.   

Quote
Quote
So when people were showing that global warming was happening, and we could have done something about it... you guys said "we need to study this".  And now, when global warming is actually having disastrous effects on the planet... your answer is "more study".

I think the time for a do-nothing attitude has long passed.

What disasterous effects has it had?    Can you prove to me that it has had a SINGLE disasterous result thus far?

Hurricanes and tornadoes, when they occur, are more powerful... and thus cause more damage.

Red tides are killing coral, which was the habitat for a great deal of sea life.  Which is besides the point anyway, since the added water into the oceans is going to lower the amount of salt in ocean water, which make make it harder for sea life to survive anyway.

Then there's the economic factor, like ski resorts being devastated because they aren't getting enough snow anymore.

Insects are a bigger problem for farmers, and new kinds of insects are able to spread to new areas they had not been able to in the past.

I can keep going, but I've made my point.  If you think global warming doesn't hurt anything, you are going through life with blinders on.

Quote
Fair enough.    I'm not a earth-is-4000 year old guy.      On the contrary I think it's older than most people can grasp in their minds.... and the forces, science, and processes at work on her are far too complicated for a new breed of science barely 50 years old to be able to understand completely.

Yes, I'm sure people said the same thing about light bulbs, vaccines, and computers.  Advances are far too important to trust to the people who made them and understand how they work  Roll Eyes

Quote
First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

Yes, all the cherry-picked information agreed that Saddam had WMD, and all the people fired for not being on board with agreeing with the Saddam-WMD conclusion were just disgruntled hyper-partisans who deserved to be ignored anyway.

And obviously Clinton and everyone else in the whole wide world agreed with that intel SO much that they brought down Saddam themselves.

And of course another thing is, obviously Saddam was such a threat that we had to cut and run from Afghanistan.  It's not like that Osama guy did anything that bad to us anyhow.

Quote
Secondly -- This is the only point I'll conceed to you:    we should be taking steps to reduce emissions not because it's a OMFG!!!!!!EMURJENNCY!, but because it's logical.     Emissions are unnatural, they sometimes produce harmful byproducts that settle elsewhere on our planet, and the world should be working to reduce them over time in a productive and reasonable manner.    Sort of like cleaning your room so you have a more comfortable place to hang out.   

I completely disagree with this alarmist, must stop everything NOW and cut everything off mentality that has taken fire.

Seeing as how literally every environmental concern was put on hold (and even relentlessly attacked) after GWB took office, what you are seeing is the pushback.  And the results of ignoring the problem, of course.

As I said, as far as even supposed over-reactions go, being wrong on this issue has absolutely zero downside anyway.  Unlike other really wrong and really bad decisions.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2008, 06:11:38 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM

First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

This is a "justification" by right-wingers that I hear a lot and it's absolutely meaningless.  Yes, Clinton's administration thought he had WMDs because not all were accounted for during the UN destruction of the WMDs after Gulf War I.  The UN inspectors pulled out in 1998 due to the interference by the Iraqi governement.  From this point on, we have no UN on-site inspectors and reduced intel capabilities.  So our assumption was they still must have possessed some WMDs because we had little on-site intel and their uncooperative attitude towards the UN suggested they had something to hide.

Due to Bush's saber-rattling (this was OK), UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002, providing our best on-site intel in over 4 years.  From November, 2002 until March, 2003, the Iraqi government was significantly less obstructionist than in previous inspections and the inspectors found NOTHING.  In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.  Another report in January said that the chemical agents Saddam did have in the past had been rendered inert by time (3-5 year shelf life).  The lead UN inspector's report in early March said Iraq was actively cooperating with UNMOVIC - a drastic change from their attitude in 1998.  This on-site intel was entirely ignored, as were many reports from the CIA that suggested that Iraq did NOT have WMDs anymore. 

This simple fact is that the vast majority of independent intel available in March, 2003 suggested that Iraq did not have WMDs, that they were cooperating with the UN and that an invasion was entirely unjustified.  Same thing with the supposed (and non-existent) Iraq/Al-Queda links.  But Bush and his cronies only wanted to hear - and disseminate - intel that supported the justification of an invasion.  So trying to use the claim that "Clinton thought he had them" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - the facts on hand and the situation within Iraq were radically different than when Clinton left office.

So jam that right-wing red herring back into the filing cabinet under "useless excuses".  It isn't going to work here.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 06:13:33 PM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2008, 06:52:32 PM »

Quote

Well if it makes you feel better, I don't take advice on brain surgery from non-brain surgeons either.

As for the Chinese, if the US had signed on to an environmental agreement, it would have carried a lot of weight to get everyone else to do it.  For the same reason nuclear proliferation because a big issue again when GWB pulled the US out of the ABM treaty (the legality of which is even debatable, since such an action was likely up to Congress.  But that's beside the point).  So understandably, many other countries figured if the world's biggest polluter wasn't going to do anything about it, they wouldn't bother with it either.

So you think the Chinese would follow in our footsteps, the benevolent nation that it is?

I believe China should take the lead.   Why not?

Quote
So... since reversing the epic amounts of damage polluters have done to the planet is going to take a large amount of money... we are supposed to look sceptically at environmentalists?  That continues to be the absolute silliest argument against global warming one could possibly make.

Silly?    There's LOTS of money to be had in Global Warming and all the studies, grants, research, and big fat cash cow associated with it.    That's not silly at all.    Money changes everything.

Quote
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you global warming deniers are absolutely correct, and it's all bullshit, but we find this out after 'fixing' the problem.  So in exchange for being wrong... we get clean and renewable energy, hopefully an elimination of pollution, and worldwide infrastructure to support companies making wise environmental decisions.  OMFG... WHAT A DISASTER!!!!

Using terms like 'deniers' doesn't further your argument and only makes you sound like a zealot.   

Quote

Hurricanes and tornadoes, when they occur, are more powerful... and thus cause more damage.

You are kidding right?   This is nonsense.   Even the recent active year we had (the year of Katrina) has years comparable and matching in the 1800's and the early 1900's.    This has nothing to do with Global Warming and everything to do with cycles.    If you go to this page, you'll see that most of the records held from strongest to latest in development have been spread out evening throughout the last century and a half.

Quote
Red tides are killing coral, which was the habitat for a great deal of sea life.  Which is besides the point anyway, since the added water into the oceans is going to lower the amount of salt in ocean water, which make make it harder for sea life to survive anyway.

Please point me to a red tide -- been happening since Adam was a pup -- caused by Global Warming.

Then there's the economic factor, like ski resorts being devastated because they aren't getting enough snow anymore.

Quote
Insects are a bigger problem for farmers, and new kinds of insects are able to spread to new areas they had not been able to in the past.

Source?   I searched and could not find a case where insects spread due to Global Warming and thus threatened farmers.    I found one artcle hypothesizing that this COULD happen in the future....but no evidence whatsoever that it has.

Quote
I can keep going, but I've made my point.  If you think global warming doesn't hurt anything, you are going through life with blinders on.

No.   All you did was point to ONE unusually active hurricane cycle that is a repeat of cycles we saw in the 1930's, the late 1800's, etc.     The rest of it you pulled from theories people have that stuff is going to happen.

Quote
Yes, I'm sure people said the same thing about light bulbs, vaccines, and computers.  Advances are far too important to trust to the people who made them and understand how they work  Roll Eyes

Not even sure how this is even a counter to my statement.    You are naive if you think scientists know everything there is to know about warming, if it is long term, why and how it's happening, or even if it really is happening.     We're looking at a 50 year slice of an ancient planet.   

Quote
Yes, all the cherry-picked information agreed that Saddam had WMD, and all the people fired for not being on board with agreeing with the Saddam-WMD conclusion were just disgruntled hyper-partisans who deserved to be ignored anyway.

And obviously Clinton and everyone else in the whole wide world agreed with that intel SO much that they brought down Saddam themselves.

And of course another thing is, obviously Saddam was such a threat that we had to cut and run from Afghanistan.  It's not like that Osama guy did anything that bad to us anyhow.

We're never going to agree on this.   I'm glad you are such a good Monday morning QB.

Quote
Seeing as how literally every environmental concern was put on hold (and even relentlessly attacked) after GWB took office, what you are seeing is the pushback.  And the results of ignoring the problem, of course.

As I said, as far as even supposed over-reactions go, being wrong on this issue has absolutely zero downside anyway.  Unlike other really wrong and really bad decisions.

Yes being wrong has negative impacts.    We can expend trillions of dollars and handcuffing our ecnonomy in a fight that we might not be fighting right, shouldn't be fighting at all, or should be fighting differently.      The global warming zealots are seeing the edge of a pool and wanting to dive head first into it without figuring out what's on the other side.    I use the term zealot for as long as the global warming supporters use the vocabulary of zealots against anyone that questions the prevailing theories.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2008, 06:55:33 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2008, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM

First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

This is a "justification" by right-wingers that I hear a lot and it's absolutely meaningless.  Yes, Clinton's administration thought he had WMDs because not all were accounted for during the UN destruction of the WMDs after Gulf War I.  The UN inspectors pulled out in 1998 due to the interference by the Iraqi governement.  From this point on, we have no UN on-site inspectors and reduced intel capabilities.  So our assumption was they still must have possessed some WMDs because we had little on-site intel and their uncooperative attitude towards the UN suggested they had something to hide.

Due to Bush's saber-rattling (this was OK), UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002, providing our best on-site intel in over 4 years.  From November, 2002 until March, 2003, the Iraqi government was significantly less obstructionist than in previous inspections and the inspectors found NOTHING.  In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.  Another report in January said that the chemical agents Saddam did have in the past had been rendered inert by time (3-5 year shelf life).  The lead UN inspector's report in early March said Iraq was actively cooperating with UNMOVIC - a drastic change from their attitude in 1998.  This on-site intel was entirely ignored, as were many reports from the CIA that suggested that Iraq did NOT have WMDs anymore. 

This simple fact is that the vast majority of independent intel available in March, 2003 suggested that Iraq did not have WMDs, that they were cooperating with the UN and that an invasion was entirely unjustified.  Same thing with the supposed (and non-existent) Iraq/Al-Queda links.  But Bush and his cronies only wanted to hear - and disseminate - intel that supported the justification of an invasion.  So trying to use the claim that "Clinton thought he had them" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - the facts on hand and the situation within Iraq were radically different than when Clinton left office.

So jam that right-wing red herring back into the filing cabinet under "useless excuses".  It isn't going to work here.
Good grief.   This horse has been beyond beaten to death, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind.     I see it this way...you see it the way you just laid out.     Let's save this for another thread so that we dont' get tracked off from the current issue.     You'll be rid of Bush in less than a year, and we'll be in Iraq for another 5 (at least) in some capacity.     Time to deal with what we should do now, rather than how we got here.     The American people had a shot to remove Bush after the invasion and they chose not to.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2008, 07:28:56 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 06:55:33 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2008, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM

First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

This is a "justification" by right-wingers that I hear a lot and it's absolutely meaningless.  Yes, Clinton's administration thought he had WMDs because not all were accounted for during the UN destruction of the WMDs after Gulf War I.  The UN inspectors pulled out in 1998 due to the interference by the Iraqi governement.  From this point on, we have no UN on-site inspectors and reduced intel capabilities.  So our assumption was they still must have possessed some WMDs because we had little on-site intel and their uncooperative attitude towards the UN suggested they had something to hide.

Due to Bush's saber-rattling (this was OK), UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002, providing our best on-site intel in over 4 years.  From November, 2002 until March, 2003, the Iraqi government was significantly less obstructionist than in previous inspections and the inspectors found NOTHING.  In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.  Another report in January said that the chemical agents Saddam did have in the past had been rendered inert by time (3-5 year shelf life).  The lead UN inspector's report in early March said Iraq was actively cooperating with UNMOVIC - a drastic change from their attitude in 1998.  This on-site intel was entirely ignored, as were many reports from the CIA that suggested that Iraq did NOT have WMDs anymore. 

This simple fact is that the vast majority of independent intel available in March, 2003 suggested that Iraq did not have WMDs, that they were cooperating with the UN and that an invasion was entirely unjustified.  Same thing with the supposed (and non-existent) Iraq/Al-Queda links.  But Bush and his cronies only wanted to hear - and disseminate - intel that supported the justification of an invasion.  So trying to use the claim that "Clinton thought he had them" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - the facts on hand and the situation within Iraq were radically different than when Clinton left office.

So jam that right-wing red herring back into the filing cabinet under "useless excuses".  It isn't going to work here.
Good grief.   This horse has been beyond beaten to death, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind.     I see it this way...you see it the way you just laid out.     Let's save this for another thread so that we dont' get tracked off from the current issue.     You'll be rid of Bush in less than a year, and we'll be in Iraq for another 5 (at least) in some capacity.     Time to deal with what we should do now, rather than how we got here.     The American people had a shot to remove Bush after the invasion and they chose not to.

Translation: "You're right, but I can't admit it".
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2008, 07:30:02 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 06:52:32 PM

So you think the Chinese would follow in our footsteps, the benevolent nation that it is?

I believe China should take the lead.   Why not?

I think it would be far easier to get China to move toward environmental alternatives if they US took the lead, of course.

But hey, if you'd like to surrender America's leadership role in the world to China, just say so.  Cuz that's exactly what it sounds like you are saying.

Quote
Quote
Insects are a bigger problem for farmers, and new kinds of insects are able to spread to new areas they had not been able to in the past.

Source?   I searched and could not find a case where insects spread due to Global Warming and thus threatened farmers.    I found one artcle hypothesizing that this COULD happen in the future....but no evidence whatsoever that it has.

It's quite easy to find a source.  All you have to do is look.

Quote
Quote
Yes, I'm sure people said the same thing about light bulbs, vaccines, and computers.  Advances are far too important to trust to the people who made them and understand how they work  Roll Eyes

Not even sure how this is even a counter to my statement.    You are naive if you think scientists know everything there is to know about warming, if it is long term, why and how it's happening, or even if it really is happening.     We're looking at a 50 year slice of an ancient planet.   

They don't HAVE to know everything there is about warming.  They just have to be able to prove that it's happening, and that the cause is human activity... which has already been done.

So, once again, citing the One Percent Doctrine, it means America HAS to take action.  If there is even a 1% chance that global warming threatens the world, it must be attacked with all the resources we can bring to bear on it.

Like Cheney said, "It's not about our analysis: it's about our response."  You aren't going to contradict Dick Cheney, are you?

Quote
Quote
Yes, all the cherry-picked information agreed that Saddam had WMD, and all the people fired for not being on board with agreeing with the Saddam-WMD conclusion were just disgruntled hyper-partisans who deserved to be ignored anyway.

And obviously Clinton and everyone else in the whole wide world agreed with that intel SO much that they brought down Saddam themselves.

And of course another thing is, obviously Saddam was such a threat that we had to cut and run from Afghanistan.  It's not like that Osama guy did anything that bad to us anyhow.

We're never going to agree on this.   I'm glad you are such a good Monday morning QB.

Of course not.  On one side are all the facts, and on the other is your opinion.  That's not Monday morning QB, that's just common sense.  It doesn't take a genius to know the Bush administration was lying about Saddam- the Bush Administration lies about everything.  If they say it, it's guaranteed to be untrue.  There's no 20/20 hindsight required.

Heck, it didn't take hindsight to see that GWB was cutting and running from Afghanistan without finishing the job.

Let me make a prediction:  this week, the Bush Administration is going to make a big announcement on something.  Shortly afterward, there will be a leak of information, or else more facts revealed through reporting... and the Bush Administration's announcement will be revealed to be a lie.

Care to make a wager on whether my prediction comes true or not?

Quote
Quote
Seeing as how literally every environmental concern was put on hold (and even relentlessly attacked) after GWB took office, what you are seeing is the pushback.  And the results of ignoring the problem, of course.

As I said, as far as even supposed over-reactions go, being wrong on this issue has absolutely zero downside anyway.  Unlike other really wrong and really bad decisions.

Yes being wrong has negative impacts.    We can expend trillions of dollars and handcuffing our ecnonomy in a fight that we might not be fighting right, shouldn't be fighting at all, or should be fighting differently. 

You mean... like Iraq?  Or were you refering to the Bush Boom?

Quote
The global warming zealots are seeing the edge of a pool and wanting to dive head first into it without figuring out what's on the other side.    I use the term zealot for as long as the global warming supporters use the vocabulary of zealots against anyone that questions the prevailing theories.

The only people denying global warming are politically motivated.  Scientists have agreed about it for more than a decade already.

If you want to call anyone zealots, you need to look at the people who denied that global warming was even occuring, and at those who now claim that God told them that even though it's not occuring, it's just about over anyway.  All evidence to the contrary.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2008, 08:36:41 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2008, 07:28:56 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 06:55:33 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on April 06, 2008, 06:11:38 PM

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 01:57:24 PM

First of all -- the intelligence on Iraq had the previous administration believing there were WMD's there as well.    This is well documented, but no matter how many times I roll out the quotes or dig up the articles, you dismiss them and decide that Bush farted them up somewhere as an excuse.    It's bullshit.   The previous administration (not just Clinton but all those that surrounded him) thought they were there as well.      So it was their perception that there was far more than a 1% chance that they were acting on.

This is a "justification" by right-wingers that I hear a lot and it's absolutely meaningless.  Yes, Clinton's administration thought he had WMDs because not all were accounted for during the UN destruction of the WMDs after Gulf War I.  The UN inspectors pulled out in 1998 due to the interference by the Iraqi governement.  From this point on, we have no UN on-site inspectors and reduced intel capabilities.  So our assumption was they still must have possessed some WMDs because we had little on-site intel and their uncooperative attitude towards the UN suggested they had something to hide.

Due to Bush's saber-rattling (this was OK), UN inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002, providing our best on-site intel in over 4 years.  From November, 2002 until March, 2003, the Iraqi government was significantly less obstructionist than in previous inspections and the inspectors found NOTHING.  In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program.  Another report in January said that the chemical agents Saddam did have in the past had been rendered inert by time (3-5 year shelf life).  The lead UN inspector's report in early March said Iraq was actively cooperating with UNMOVIC - a drastic change from their attitude in 1998.  This on-site intel was entirely ignored, as were many reports from the CIA that suggested that Iraq did NOT have WMDs anymore. 

This simple fact is that the vast majority of independent intel available in March, 2003 suggested that Iraq did not have WMDs, that they were cooperating with the UN and that an invasion was entirely unjustified.  Same thing with the supposed (and non-existent) Iraq/Al-Queda links.  But Bush and his cronies only wanted to hear - and disseminate - intel that supported the justification of an invasion.  So trying to use the claim that "Clinton thought he had them" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - the facts on hand and the situation within Iraq were radically different than when Clinton left office.

So jam that right-wing red herring back into the filing cabinet under "useless excuses".  It isn't going to work here.
Good grief.   This horse has been beyond beaten to death, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind.     I see it this way...you see it the way you just laid out.     Let's save this for another thread so that we dont' get tracked off from the current issue.     You'll be rid of Bush in less than a year, and we'll be in Iraq for another 5 (at least) in some capacity.     Time to deal with what we should do now, rather than how we got here.     The American people had a shot to remove Bush after the invasion and they chose not to.

Translation: "You're right, but I can't admit it".

No.   Translation:  I'm tired of making an argument to people that are so entrenched in their views that it's paramout to me throwing myself up against a brick wall.     And that applies for you arguing the point at me.    I'm never going to agree with what you are selling, so you should give up too.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2008, 12:33:04 AM »

Quote

I think it would be far easier to get China to move toward environmental alternatives if they US took the lead, of course.

But hey, if you'd like to surrender America's leadership role in the world to China, just say so.  Cuz that's exactly what it sounds like you are saying.

I'd be very happy for China to take the lead in this.    In fact I wholeheartedly invite them to do so.

Quote
It's quite easy to find a source.  All you have to do is look.

I went to your source and wound up searching for GTA IV websites instead.    Easy to do, considering the source.

Quote
They don't HAVE to know everything there is about warming.  They just have to be able to prove that it's happening, and that the cause is human activity... which has already been done.

They know warming is happening, and they theorize that it's caused by man.    They haven't proven that it's man made emissions that is causing it, if it is part of a long term, permanent, or temporary process.    They've acknowledged that it's happened before on Earth, but they theorize that this time it's different.     I theorize that we don't know enough yet to be dumping trillions of dollars into it at the expense of the economy and the wellbeing of Americans.    If the rest of the world is so damned hot fire ready to declare it an emergency, let them turn their lights off first.

Quote
So, once again, citing the One Percent Doctrine, it means America HAS to take action.  If there is even a 1% chance that global warming threatens the world, it must be attacked with all the resources we can bring to bear on it.

Like Cheney said, "It's not about our analysis: it's about our response."  You aren't going to contradict Dick Cheney, are you?

So, once again, it comes back to evil Bush, Cheney or the Iraq war.     Not wasting time arguing this again.

Quote

And obviously Clinton and everyone else in the whole wide world agreed with that intel SO much that they brought down Saddam themselves.

And of course another thing is, obviously Saddam was such a threat that we had to cut and run from Afghanistan.  It's not like that Osama guy did anything that bad to us anyhow.

Clinton set the policy of regime change in Iraq -- not Bush.    And so now we 'cut and run' from Afghanistan?    I need to catch up on my msnbc reading because last time I checked we're still actively fighting on that front.

Quote
Of course not.  On one side are all the facts, and on the other is your opinion.  That's not Monday morning QB, that's just common sense.  It doesn't take a genius to know the Bush administration was lying about Saddam- the Bush Administration lies about everything.  If they say it, it's guaranteed to be untrue.  There's no 20/20 hindsight required.

Ah... ok gotcha.    Everyone in the Bush Administration lies about everything.     Next....

Quote
Heck, it didn't take hindsight to see that GWB was cutting and running from Afghanistan without finishing the job.

Cutting and running again.    Firstly -- I recognize your attempt to use conservatives terms about what some people want to do in Iraq against us in Afghanistan.    Secondly -- we're still fighting there, remember?

Quote
Let me make a prediction:  this week, the Bush Administration is going to make a big announcement on something.  Shortly afterward, there will be a leak of information, or else more facts revealed through reporting... and the Bush Administration's announcement will be revealed to be a lie.

So you predict that someone in the Bush Administration will say something this week, and the hard left blogs will set about labeling it as a lie.    Gotcha.   You're probably right.


Quote


As I said, as far as even supposed over-reactions go, being wrong on this issue has absolutely zero downside anyway.  Unlike other really wrong and really bad decisions.

To the extent that you want to act?   Yes it does.     We would cripple our economy at a time when we are entering a possible recession.     Now if you were here suggesting we continue our hard work towards clean energy, alternatives, etc.... I'm with you there.     But you instead want to pull the train break and switch tracks to disasterous results.

Quote

You mean... like Iraq?  Or were you refering to the Bush Boom?

Back to Iraq again eh?    Iraq would be a piss in the wind compared to what it would take to implement the emergency measures you want us to.

Quote
The only people denying global warming are politically motivated.  Scientists have agreed about it for more than a decade already.

If you want to call anyone zealots, you need to look at the people who denied that global warming was even occuring, and at those who now claim that God told them that even though it's not occuring, it's just about over anyway.  All evidence to the contrary.

Really?    Then why can't I have a debate with a Global Warming theory supporter without Iraq, the evil Bush Administration, and the term 'denier' being thrown in my face?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2008, 01:14:33 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 06, 2008, 08:36:41 PM

No.   Translation:  I'm tired of making an argument to people that are so entrenched in their views that it's paramout to me throwing myself up against a brick wall.     And that applies for you arguing the point at me.    I'm never going to agree with what you are selling, so you should give up too.

No, the point is that you have no argument to refute what I've posted above.  The simple cold, hard facts are that the situation in 2003 was vastly different than in 1998, and so your "Clinton thought he had WMDs" point has no validity whatsoever.  That you can't admit that simple, factual point shows that your brick wall analogy is a good one, except it describes your mindset.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3314


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2008, 01:15:09 AM »

So much for taking a R&P break I guess. Tongue Or are you expecting a nicer reception here?
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2008, 01:29:36 AM »

Quote from: Lee on April 07, 2008, 01:15:09 AM

So much for taking a R&P break I guess. Tongue Or are you expecting a nicer reception here?

I'm practicing here, with sources and trying to keep venom out of it.

In fact some of the opposition here is far more in your face, so I thought it might be a good place to practice and get better at supporting my arguments.    The break I am taking on OO is so that I can release the aggression I'd built in my mind against some of the members there.    They deserved that much, and it is critical for me as well.   
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2008, 01:58:50 AM »

Well, since MSD has no intention of changing his mind no matter what the science has to say, it seems pointless to continue discussing the matter with him.

Obviously he thinks this topic is far too important to let it be decided by the scientists, and it's up to the politicians and pundits and energy industry to save us all from the evils the environmentalists seek to unleash on the world.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2008, 02:02:48 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 07, 2008, 12:33:04 AM

Really?    Then why can't I have a debate with a Global Warming theory supporter without Iraq, the evil Bush Administration, and the term 'denier' being thrown in my face?

Because your modus operandi is the same as unbreakable's - you refuse to concede any point, even those that are factual in nature.  Now on Global Warming, virtually every respectable climatologist and those in associated disciplines agree the planet is warming.  This is a fact beyond any reasonable dispute (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).  The real questions are "to what degree", "what impact is man having on that warming", "will temperatures continue to rise" and "what are the consequences"?

The problem here is unlike almost any other in history.  This isn't an enemy we can attack and beat back with tanks and guns.  The effects of Global Warming could be disastrous and non-reversible in any kind of reasonable time-frame.  Or they could be mild and inconsequential.  Ultimately, it becomes a risk-reward scenario.  Best guesses are 2-11.5 degrees by 2100.  That's a huge variance.  2 degrees doesn't mean much.  11.5 degrees turns part of the country into the Sahara desert.  So is it prudent to spend money now to prevent that worst-case scenario happening?  Well, we're spending billions of dollars on "Star Wars" for the same thing.  We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined.  Why?  So we don't get attacked - preventing the worst-case scenario.  We insure against the worst case scenario all the time - how is acting now to prevent a probability or even a strong possibility different? 

The problem here is waiting for definitive proof of a disastrous scenario means it's already happening and it's too late to prevent it.  Think of New Orleans in 2004.  Most everyone knew the levee system was likely to fail.  It was known for years.  No one knew exactly what would make it fail, nor when it would happen.  Once evidence of failure started to happen, it was too late - the city was under water.  So exactly what piece of evidence are you waiting for?  Because if you're waiting until you get a guarantee, then that's like standing on the deck of the Titanic and not getting into a lifeboat because you don't have proof that the ship will go under the water.

As for China, I frankly think that's a side argument and doesn't belong as a main consideration for action/inaction.  We don't control them.  And if Global Warming is a strong possibility, failure to act because China isn't acting seems to me to be cold-war mutually assured destruction (MAD) all over again, except this time the button's probably already been pushed.  We've shown time and time again that when we're willing to stake out the moral high ground, the rest of the world will follow.  We're the only country in the world with enough clout - militarily and economically - to do it. 

Just as an aside, when I hear the "go slower" folks on this issue, they always remind me of the Tobacco lobby and the CFC lobby back in the 80s.  They also said there was "no definitive proof", to "wait for more data" and would release the occasional counter-study (financed by those smae groups) to provide inaccurate data meant to the confuse the issue.  Those in the know really didn't disagree with the conclusion, but they want to delay the pain to make another buck at the expense of the general public.  And their MO was to fool enough like-minded sheep and confuse the issue to continue to suck on the tit of the almighty dollar.  Sadly, I see this issue being taken down the same path.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2008, 02:08:25 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 07, 2008, 01:29:36 AM

...get better at supporting my arguments...

This oughta be good...links to the John Birch Society, Accuracy in Academia and the Family Research Council incoming!!!


Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2008, 02:13:19 AM »

I've conceeded many points in the past, Blackadar.  That you believe otherwise just highlights your own preconcieved notions, and how resistant they are to reality.


Now by way of explaining why I kept raising the issue of Iraq, it's entirely because of the One Percent Doctrine, which every Iraq War supporter has accepted as truth: that despite all evidence to the contrary, even an insignificant and improbable chance of Saddam possessing WMD was far too much... and thus the war in Iraq is not only justified, but demanded by that one percent chance.

So by the same logic, global warming and the threat it poses to the entire world is far too much to even wait for the constant calls of those denying global warming.  Even if there is a one percent chance the claims of global warming could be correct, we must likewise, just like with Saddam's WMD, attack the problem with all haste and disregard of costs or political consequences.  The threat is just... too... great.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, nor do we want it to be rising sea levels.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2008, 02:21:55 AM »

Quote
Because your modus operandi is the same as unbreakable's - you refuse to concede any point, even those that are factual in nature.  Now on Global Warming, virtually every respectable climatologist and those in associated disciplines agree the planet is warming.  This is a fact beyond any reasonable dispute (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).  The real questions are "to what degree", "what impact is man having on that warming", "will temperatures continue to rise" and "what are the consequences"?

These are exactly the questions I'm asking.    And I also ask is the warming due to mankind, or some natural process?

Quote
The problem here is unlike almost any other in history.  This isn't an enemy we can attack and beat back with tanks and guns.  The effects of Global Warming could be disastrous and non-reversible in any kind of reasonable time-frame.  Or they could be mild and inconsequential.  Ultimately, it becomes a risk-reward scenario.  Best guesses are 2-11.5 degrees by 2100.  That's a huge variance.  2 degrees doesn't mean much.  11.5 degrees turns part of the country into the Sahara desert.  So is it prudent to spend money now to prevent that worst-case scenario happening?  Well, we're spending billions of dollars on "Star Wars" for the same thing.  We spend more on our military than every other country in the world combined.  Why?  So we don't get attacked - preventing the worst-case scenario.  We insure against the worst case scenario all the time - how is acting now to prevent a probability or even a strong possibility different? 

I have no problems at all in taking steps to develop alternate energy, reducing emissions, and finding workable solutions.    I have no problems funding it in a healthy manner.    The part where we differ on opinion is how much economic risk do we take this to in order to combat an environmental risk we don't yet fully understand.    Should we start?   Absolutely.   Should we take reasonable steps now?   Yes, because even if everyone is wrong we've cleaned up the planet a bit.    

But we should absolutely not economically derail this country to take drastic action.

Quote
The problem here is waiting for definitive proof of a disastrous scenario means it's already happening and it's too late to prevent it.  Think of New Orleans in 2004.  Most everyone knew the levee system was likely to fail.  It was known for years.  No one knew exactly what would make it fail, nor when it would happen.  Once evidence of failure started to happen, it was too late - the city was under water.  So exactly what piece of evidence are you waiting for?  Because if you're waiting until you get a guarantee, then that's like standing on the deck of the Titanic and not getting into a lifeboat because you don't have proof that the ship will go under the water.

As I said, I completely support taking measures and funding switches in technology.    But there are two serious problems:   the health of our economy, and the unwillingness of China to follow suit.     I differ on opinions with unbreakable in thinking that China will do a damn thing to help, even if we completely pulled the train brake now.

Quote
As for China, I frankly think that's a side argument and doesn't belong as a main consideration for action/inaction.  We don't control them.  And if Global Warming is a strong possibility, failure to act because China isn't acting seems to me to be cold-war mutually assured destruction (MAD) all over again, except this time the button's probably already been pushed.  We've shown time and time again that when we're willing to stake out the moral high ground, the rest of the world will follow.  We're the only country in the world with enough clout - militarily and economically - to do it. 

Ok... I'm going to conceed this point.    We should act without China even if it is futile just because it's right to do it.    No, I'm not being sarcastic.    I just differ on how to approach it and how fast or drastic to make changes with you.     We should take steps, develop new technologies, and reduce our emissions.      We should do it without China if nessessary.

Quote
Just as an aside, when I hear the "go slower" folks on this issue, they always remind me of the Tobacco lobby and the CFC lobby back in the 80s.  They also said there was "no definitive proof", to "wait for more data" and would release the occasional counter-study (financed by those smae groups) to provide inaccurate data meant to the confuse the issue.  Those in the know really didn't disagree with the conclusion, but they want to delay the pain to make another buck at the expense of the general public.  And their MO was to fool enough like-minded sheep and confuse the issue to continue to suck on the tit of the almighty dollar.  Sadly, I see this issue being taken down the same path.

Except that the steps you are proposing wouldnt just affect one industry, it would dramatically affect everyone.      I doubt we'll agree with how far and fast to go....   but don't think just because we don't agree on speed that I don't support changing the overall way we live in this world.       I think we should, and we should overall live beside the natural world instead of on top of it.    I just don't think we should sacrifice our economy in order to get there in a decade.
Logged
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2008, 02:22:35 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 02:13:19 AM

I've conceeded many points in the past...

Just cuz I'm... you know... curious... I'd be very interested to see where and when this happened.
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2008, 02:49:18 AM »

Quote from: msduncan on April 07, 2008, 02:21:55 AM

I have no problems at all in taking steps to develop alternate energy, reducing emissions, and finding workable solutions.    I have no problems funding it in a healthy manner.    The part where we differ on opinion is how much economic risk do we take this to in order to combat an environmental risk we don't yet fully understand.    Should we start?   Absolutely.   Should we take reasonable steps now?   Yes, because even if everyone is wrong we've cleaned up the planet a bit.     

But we should absolutely not economically derail this country to take drastic action.

Your main point seems to be regarding the economic impact an aggressive global warming stance would have on the US.  You provide no data to back up this stance, nor any data regarding the future costs of global warming (versus current costs) by not acting aggressively.  This University of Maryland study was well-received among the scientific community regarding possible costs of global warming: http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/index.html.  It's an interesting read and far better than the Stern study (which estimated a 5-20% loss in global GDP, almost $7 trillion dollars).  Again, using the best data we have suggests that prolonged inaction is far more costly than an aggressive proactive stance.

There is a point that I imagine you and I would agree - America is at its best when there is a capitalistic opportunity to be had.  As such, I'm not convinced that the economy would take a large hit.  No doubt certain sectors would be adversely impacted.  However, new areas of opportunity would be opened and cost-effective for new businesses to start up.  Witness ethanol (note I'm not a huge fan of ethanol) - gas prices rose to the point that it can be considered a cost-effective alternative.  It's also making funding for other alternative fuels (switchgrass, which I'm more of a fan of) possible.  Yes, it's painful at the pump now.  But what happens if we find a way to make switchgrass a viable, inexpensive fuel?  If that happened, the American heartland just became the new Saudi Arabia.  What are the benefits of fuel independence in respect to the American economy (trade deficits, debt, inflation) as well as American security?  As a country, we're at our best when we're presented with a capitalistic opportunity - we're far more aggressive and opportunistic than every other country in the world.  Why not play to our strengths?

As such, I'm not so sure that an aggressive stance on global warming wouldn't actually help our economy in the long run.  Developing countries with low-tech factories and a scarcity of top engineers and scientists like China and Mexico could - in the long run - be much more drastically impacted if we can take the lead on this issue and then shape the global debate in our favor.  Imagine the costs to China if they're forced to modernize their factories with American-developed global warming solutions.  Of course, increased costs there increases our costs here - except a smaller trade deficit would mean a stronger dollar, making foreign goods more affordable.  Imagine the cost of oil and the impact on the Middle East peace process if there's an American-developed fuel alternative that can easily be grown right here at home.  As such, I see as much opportunity as risk in acting now - but far more risk than opportunity in waiting to act.   
« Last Edit: April 07, 2008, 02:55:02 AM by Blackadar » Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2008, 03:01:55 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on April 07, 2008, 02:13:19 AM


Now by way of explaining why I kept raising the issue of Iraq, it's entirely because of the One Percent Doctrine, which every Iraq War supporter has accepted as truth: that despite all evidence to the contrary, even an insignificant and improbable chance of Saddam possessing WMD was far too much... and thus the war in Iraq is not only justified, but demanded by that one percent chance.

So by the same logic, global warming and the threat it poses to the entire world is far too much to even wait for the constant calls of those denying global warming.  Even if there is a one percent chance the claims of global warming could be correct, we must likewise, just like with Saddam's WMD, attack the problem with all haste and disregard of costs or political consequences.  The threat is just... too... great.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, nor do we want it to be rising sea levels.

I agree that this is a valid point that neocons need to address.  If they believe in the 1% doctrine, why would it not apply to Global Warming?  If they don't, then doesn't that have a drastic impact upon the rationale (or lack thereof) for the war in Iraq?

Personally, I believe the 1% doctrine is a bunch of shit that could be used to justify almost anything and therefore is far more dangerous than useful. 
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
The Meal
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 159


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2008, 04:11:21 AM »

China has some incentive to help reduce global warming:
Quote
China's rapid industrialization and increasing population, along with a growing dietary preference among its citizens for meat, are straining the country's water resources to the point where food imports will probably be needed to meet demand in coming decades.

Quote
The recent trend toward increased meat consumption in China is aggravating the country's relative shortage of water, says Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project in Amherst, Mass. While the nation is home to about 21 percent of the planet's population, it has only 8 percent of its renewable water resources, she notes. More than one-third of the world's population lives in regions where water is considered scarce (SN: 7/20/02, p. 42).

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20080119/fob4.asp

Lots of good stuff in that article.

~Neal
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.676 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.5s, 2q)