tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post1280712600255109677..comments2023-07-07T04:02:25.375-04:00Comments on Sane Political Discourse: Copenhagen CopulationPatrick Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-25403533594510186212009-12-16T15:38:59.964-05:002009-12-16T15:38:59.964-05:00Dmarks:
How much money do you think Exxon and oth...Dmarks:<br /><br />How much money do you think Exxon and other oil companies, ComEd and other utilities put behind the "climate change is false" claim?<br /><br />There are a lot more people who stand to lose money by acting like climate change isn't real than Al Gore stands to make is pointing out the simple concept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, since civilization began, we haven't seen this much CO2 and methane being pumped into the atmosphere by Man, and that the sole reason Venus, which is twice the distance away from the Sun, has a higher average temperature than Mercury is because of mainly CO2 and other greenhouse gases.<br /><br />Now, I agree that it is bullshit that shit like Kyoto said the US had to cut its emissions but China, Mexico, Nigeria and India didn't.<br /><br />But Patrick,<br /><br />In some cases it is our fault other peoples of the Earth are poor. Maybe not always us Americans but certainly Western Countries and specifically when it comes to the West and Africa...perhaps even India/Pakistan and other regions of the former British Empire or other former European colonies. Vietnam may be another one that comes to mind but certainly not China.Toad734https://www.blogger.com/profile/01450263690181812924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-40978190059901166012009-12-11T23:23:59.704-05:002009-12-11T23:23:59.704-05:00"Sounds like he was getting the earth and the..."Sounds like he was getting the earth and the sun mixed up"<br /><br />Gee, I never knew that Gore was one of the pre-Copernicans. But it doesn't surprise me, I guess.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-62351401104793757322009-12-11T12:27:42.813-05:002009-12-11T12:27:42.813-05:00Thanks, dmarks. While he didn't actually say ...Thanks, dmarks. While he didn't actually say that the earth was millions of degrees 2 kilometers (about 1 mile), he did say it was millions of degrees at the core. Minor distinction. Still, a very stupid thing for him to say. <br /><br />Sounds like he was getting the earth and the sun mixed up. As we know, people do mis-speak from time to time. I suspect this was one of those cases.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-37069225821418845452009-12-11T12:17:27.817-05:002009-12-11T12:17:27.817-05:00The roaring boob who falsely took credit for inven...<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMrxC-qEHb8" rel="nofollow">The roaring boob who falsely took credit for inventing the Internet lays down another whopper</a>.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-74421805551177323262009-12-10T22:45:42.751-05:002009-12-10T22:45:42.751-05:00dmarks,
Reference please to the million degree com...dmarks,<br />Reference please to the million degree comment. That seems too stupid even for Gore.Jerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-83941368774902202302009-12-10T22:20:44.987-05:002009-12-10T22:20:44.987-05:00I wonder how much Al Gore would be shilling the gl...I wonder how much Al Gore would be shilling the global warming thing if he wasn't making a lot of money off of it.<br /><br />Yes, Al Gore. The king of pseudoscience, who recently said that the Earth's temperature was millions of degrees, just a mile into the crust.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-59843347780757517412009-12-10T14:43:31.948-05:002009-12-10T14:43:31.948-05:00101: I'm losing it, I missed your comment ent...101: I'm losing it, I missed your comment entirely there for a minute. <br /><br />To your point, there's still a debate on the whole situation, as to how culpable we might be, as well as if we really have that much influence or if the Earth will counterbalance us easily.<br /><br />And that's the ongoing discussion we really need to have, not the obsessive screamings of MMGWH kooks, not people who have no interest in MMGWH than to secure their own power and not address any problems, and not the people who have no intellectual honesty to say that it's not impossible.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-89783354257647089972009-12-10T13:58:13.777-05:002009-12-10T13:58:13.777-05:00Saty: I'm going to assume you saw the MMGWH a...Saty: I'm going to assume you saw the MMGWH and just typed a response, because otherwise you are ignoring the whole point of the post.<br /><br />The point of the post is that the moves with cap and tax, and with Copenhagen <b>HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM THEY PURPORT TO ADDRESS!</b><br /><br />And I think I covered the fact that I'm skeptical but not a fucking denier. If there were no questions (and the whole email scandal opens an assload of new ones), then it would be a different story. Did you ever consider actually not just reiterating the same damned talking points when the discussion is NOT about whether there is or is not global warming?<br /><br />Strangely, the word "obtuse" seems to want to float to the surface here. To expand on that:<br /><br /><i>One of the most exhausting subjects that I have discussed (other than the bane of rationality, abortion) is the non-debate over climate change, AKA Manmade Global Warming Hysteria. The reason it's such a pain in the very deepest reaches of my ass is because there are two sides that have abandoned sense for absolutism. <br /><br />The first side are the MMGWH acolytes.</i>Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-60589503967757842892009-12-10T06:04:54.714-05:002009-12-10T06:04:54.714-05:00I've said a thousand times at least that to th...I've said a thousand times at least that to think we can continue to fuck with an established system is naive and ultimately self-serving.<br /><br />The best analogy for the earth as a series of intimately interconnected systems is the homeostasis of the body.<br /><br />Most of the various systems of the body work within fairly small tolerances; for example, the normal range of serum potassium is 3.5-5.5. In order to keep to this narrow range, the body has to not only self-monitor (outside of conscious awareness), but to also react to bring an out-of-whack level within tolerances.<br /><br />On a normal day your body has no difficulty compensating for the various fluctuations in, for example, the amount of potassium you take in, or the amount of liquids; it can adjust accordingly. However, if you develop a gastrointestinal virus that causes severe diarrhea, in most cases the body can't compensate fast enough to prevent problems of varying degrees from happening. These can range from mild to fatal.<br /><br />The point is that you cannot inflict a huge change (and spewing millions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere daily, chronically, over 150+ years, over and above any natural process)into a stable system and expect the system to just take it in stride.<br /><br />The cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gas pollutants while at the same time stripping the planet of billions of acres of forest (which would at least assist in the mitigation of co2) is causing changes in our climate. Going back to the homeostasis analogy, it is irrational and illogical to expect that you can load a body down with potassium while simultaneously crippling the body's ability to excrete it and expect that no adverse reaction will occur.<br /><br />The people who so vehemently deny this all do so on the basis of 'freedoms' and 'money' and 'economics'. They're ever so worried that they might have to give up something or pay something. It boils down to selfishness: if we can deny that something's happening loudly enough, we won't have to sacrifice anything personally to fix it.<br /><br />You cannot fuck with a complex system on a large level (and the cumulative total of what we are doing to the earth is a large level) and expect it to maintain itself endlessly. To believe so is either naive to the point of ignorance or plainly intellectually dishonest.Satyavati devi dasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13980257934310271457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-34894290005590554672009-12-09T15:27:39.479-05:002009-12-09T15:27:39.479-05:00Jerry: That's a lot, actually, and it compound...Jerry: That's a lot, actually, and it compounds. There's really no excuse for any of it. It's all greed: rich government elites who are already awash in money, seeking to plunder us even more. <br /><br />Get rid of all "special" taxes on energy, so everyone can pay as close to the real value as possible.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-55998381172585813942009-12-09T14:58:05.134-05:002009-12-09T14:58:05.134-05:00I enjoy a good global warming discussion Patrick. ...I enjoy a good global warming discussion Patrick. Lakes I fish up north have changed since I was a kid. The ice caps are melting sending cold water into the ocean. Thus the paradox of warmer temps but colder water.<br /><br /> It's difficult to to believe that our pollution is not a contributing factor. <br /><br /> My concern is tempered with my human selfishness. I like to drive and pollute as much as the next guy and wonder is there anything we can do to slow or stop climate change?<br /><br /><br /> We can't seem to stop nuclear proliferation or terrorism either.Joe "Truth 101" Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875151516978133598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-18038085404544884322009-12-09T09:03:34.132-05:002009-12-09T09:03:34.132-05:00Jerry: The problem here is that we're dealing...Jerry: The problem here is that we're dealing with calculations and estimates, which as the whole climate emails scandal has shown, can be skewed depending on the desired result.<br /><br />For example, there's the <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/energyandenvironment/wm2503.cfm" rel="nofollow">Heritage Foundation's examination of CBO numbers</a>. In this, the damage of a cap and tax scheme are obvious:<br /><br /><i>It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss. Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four--and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915 by 2035.</i><br /><br />We can do battle of the links all day here (which is ultimately futile). But increasing the cost of energy, which will increase the cost of everything (how much will be debated until hard numbers come in), on an issue that may or may not need to happen NOW to save us all, especially in a recession atmosphere, is insanely misguided.Patrick Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16377933168305160179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1250195226200160668.post-72167146017511651552009-12-08T20:24:24.103-05:002009-12-08T20:24:24.103-05:00"The result is an increase in the price of en...<i>"The result is an increase in the price of energy, which also means an increase in the price of EVERYTHING!"</i><br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.400-lowcarbon-future-we-can-afford-to-go-green.html" rel="nofollow"> this article </a>the price of goods in 2050 will increase very little, except for airline travel. Here are the figures:<br /><br /> * 1% on clothing: A £500 men's suit will become £5 more expensive<br /> * 2% on electronics: A £1000 laptop would cost £20 more<br /> * 1% on food: The average UK household spends £50 a week on food. This increases by less than £1<br /> * 15% on electricity: A typical UK household spends £400 a year on electricity. This will jump by roughly £60<br /> * 0% on communications: UK phone bills will be essentially unaffected<br /> * 140% on air travel: A return flight from London to New York would jump from £350 to around £840<br /> * 2% on tobacco: Barring new taxes, the cost of a pack of 20 cigarettes will rise by roughly 10 pence<br /> * 2% on alcohol: The cost of a pint of beer will rise by about 6 pence by 2050<br /> * 1% on cars: A new Toyota Prius, currently about £20,000, will cost £240 more in a low-carbon 2050<br /> * 2% on household goods: The price of a washing machine will rise by a few poundsJerry Critterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870618647449723147noreply@blogger.com