Peter Sinclair’s new video is a scathing exposé of the right wing’s deliberate distortion of a statement by climate modeler Mojib Latif — led by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and George Will.
1 |
MandyManners Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:12:06pm |
| 2 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:14:04pm |
In his last video, Sinclair used his own crockery to dispute crockery, while his videos are well done and it is important to debunk nonsense, this makes one very suspicious of their agenda and accuracy.
| 4 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:17:41pm |
When this came out, I remember arguing with people here about this, that no indeed the warming was still happening and we were talking about a decadal cycle.
At the end of the day, pretty much everything I see from the deniers is one form or another of cherry picking and stupidly not bothering to actually get the whole message.
| 5 |
TedStriker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:18:52pm |
re: #2 Bagua
So you’re saying that Sinclair lied in debunking the anti-AGW crowd, is that what I’m hearing?
Please be specific in your evidence…
| 6 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:20:49pm |
re: #2 Bagua
In his last video, Sinclair used his own crockery to dispute crockery, while his videos are well done and it is important to debunk nonsense, this makes one very suspicious of their agenda and accuracy.
What are you talking about?
The last video I posted by Sinclair was a very well-researched and well-supported explanation of the role of CO2 in global warming.
| 7 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:22:03pm |
re: #2 Bagua
In his last video, Sinclair used his own crockery to dispute crockery, while his videos are well done and it is important to debunk nonsense, this makes one very suspicious of their agenda and accuracy.
Bagua, I was here arguing pretty much exactly what this video said when Latif’s story got distorted.
Sinclair is telling the up and up truth. I really don’t get you sometimes.
| 8 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:24:24pm |
Sounds to me just much propaganda as the coming from the other side. I haven’t studied the issue much, but in this video Peter Sinclair calls the people on the other side “evil”. Do you mean as in Osama Bin Laden evil?
| 9 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:25:04pm |
re: #8 G.W.
Sounds to me just much propaganda as the coming from the other side. I haven’t studied the issue much, but in this video Peter Sinclair calls the people on the other side “evil”. Do you mean as in Osama Bin Laden evil?
Did you even watch the video?
| 11 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:26:26pm |
re: #8 G.W.
Sounds to me just much propaganda as the coming from the other side. I haven’t studied the issue much, but in this video Peter Sinclair calls the people on the other side “evil”. Do you mean as in Osama Bin Laden evil?
I don’t know why, but I smell a sock…
| 12 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:26:45pm |
Instapundit sez…
IF TRUE, THIS’LL COST ‘EM: Senate GOP Folding Over Health Care Reform. I can think of no better way to spur a third-party challenge in 2012.
Maybe the Tea Party “conservatives” have hit the wall. Nothing would make me happier than to have them all go join the libertarian quacks where they belong. Go and begone. Let the adults deal with reality.
| 13 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:26:50pm |
re: #9 Charles
Yes, I did. How would I know that he used “evil” to describe opponents?
| 14 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:29:10pm |
re: #13 G.W.
Yes, I did. How would I know that he used “evil” to describe opponents?
What would you call it when someone deliberately lies about facts in order to promote an agenda?
| 15 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:30:20pm |
re: #6 Charles
What are you talking about?
The last video I posted by Sinclair was a very well-researched and well-supported explanation of the role of CO2 in global warming.
My points were not disputed on that thread, as I said, Sinclair was correct in that he was debunking false assertions, but his examples were also cherry picked. (The one I am referring to was the CO2 is food one)
| 16 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:30:42pm |
re: #13 G.W.
Yes, I did. How would I know that he used “evil” to describe opponents?
What would you call people that lie about a scientists speech to support their agenda. Sure, not Osama evil, but evil as in lying to mislead is basically evil.
| 17 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:31:59pm |
Not “evil”. Hyperbole of this sort has two effects. It demonizes the other side, and trivializes the term “evil”.
| 18 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:32:33pm |
re: #14 Charles
What would you call it when someone deliberately lies about facts in order to promote an agenda?
The problem is the such words are taken to mean he condemns anyone who is a skeptic as evil. I’m not sure if that’s what he means, but that’s how many people will take it. And people like Glen Beck will promote that interpretation, accurate or not.
| 19 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:32:35pm |
re: #13 G.W.
Yes, I did. How would I know that he used “evil” to describe opponents?
Yes but your statement of about Bin Laden means that you are utterly distorting the context simply to be a troll.
However you have asked about evil and from your emblem I assume you are a Jew, so I will remind you of the Law.
Since you have taken the time to put an Aleph up as your symbol, I am going to place you under the special care that I take for Jewish posters who badly violate the Law. Being an observant Jew, this behavior particularly peeves me.
Do not bear false witness, means do not lie.
Do not put a stumbling block before the blind, means don’t lead people to their dooms.
The science of AGW is very well established. Lying about it and distorting it risks the lives of millions of people.
Further, willfully distorting the words of another to one’s own purpose, you should know.
Since you are bearing false witness through distortion and so were BEck and Hannity et al - to the risk of millions of lives, yes that actually does come under the Torah definition of evil.
Now please do us a favor and stop embarrassing the people.
| 20 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:32:55pm |
re: #17 G.W.
Not “evil”. Hyperbole of this sort has two effects. It demonizes the other side, and trivializes the term “evil”.
Quite Concur.
| 21 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:33:08pm |
re: #14 Charles
What would you call it when someone deliberately lies about facts in order to promote an agenda?
Under Torah law, that is called evil Charles. Dude has an aleph.. pisses me off.
| 22 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:33:55pm |
re: #17 G.W.
Not “evil”. Hyperbole of this sort has two effects. It demonizes the other side, and trivializes the term “evil”.
It’s not “hyperbole.” The video absolutely PROVES that Hannity, Beck, Will, and Coren outright lied about Mojib Latif’s speech. It’s right there in front of you.
I consider this evil behavior and I have no problem at all with calling it by that name.
| 23 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:34:01pm |
re: #15 Bagua
My points were not disputed on that thread, as I said, Sinclair was correct in that he was debunking false assertions, but his examples were also cherry picked. (The one I am referring to was the CO2 is food one)
NO they were not Bagua. I challenge you right now to back that up.
| 24 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:34:21pm |
re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote
Not a sock.We use tree rings to trace global warming. They are thicker because the trees grow more. Sinclare’s (last) video implied the opposite through hand-picked examples. It was either patently dishonest, or tree rings are not a viable way to discern global warming/caused by CO2. It cannot be both ways.
| 25 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:35:08pm |
| 26 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:35:09pm |
re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote
I did not break any of the laws you quoted. I objected to the term “evil”.
| 28 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:38:23pm |
re: #26 G.W.
I did not break any of the laws you quoted. I objected to the term “evil”.
Evil has no messenger. Under Torah Law, distorting the words of another is evil. Under Torah Law, supporting lies that harm or endanger others is evil.
You by defending these lies and trying to discredit an attempt to spread the truth are, by extension under Torah Law committing the same offense.
Anyone who goes and advertises himself as a member of the Tribe would know this.
You have done very wrong.
| 29 |
MandyManners Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:38:52pm |
| 30 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:39:21pm |
| 31 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:40:31pm |
re: #5 talon_262
So you’re saying that Sinclair lied in debunking the anti-AGW crowd, is that what I’m hearing?
Please be specific in your evidence…
No, I never said “lied,” I said “crockery” in that he was disputing simplistic anti-AGW garbage with simplistic arguments himself. In his case he did not lie and yes his points were better, but I found them misleading as well. I made my points on that thread and only one of them was challenged. I do not wish to carry the points over here. What I am saying is this soured me on him as a source.
| 32 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:41:39pm |
re: #26 G.W.
Lying is commonly accepted as an “evil”trait.
You forgot to mention *itler.
Hyberbole is no stranger to you.
Review this video again. And please do not steal my talking points.
I am sometimes afraid to comment because what I say is taken up by the critics, of anything on this blog, who have nothing better to do.
| 33 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:41:47pm |
re: #28 LudwigVanQuixote
Evil has no messenger. Under Torah Law, distorting the words of another is evil. Under Torah Law, supporting lies that harm or endanger others is evil.
You by defending these lies and trying to discredit an attempt to spread the truth are, by extension under Torah Law committing the same offense.
Anyone who goes and advertises himself as a member of the Tribe would know this.
You have done very wrong.
LVQ: Are you a yeshiva trained scholar? The member of a bet din, perhaps? If not, please be very careful about expounding on “Torah Law”, much the same way a layman with no legal training would be careful about making claims under civil or criminal law. It does no one any good to kick off a discussion about Jewish legal precepts or biblical legal frameworks in the context of a message board discussion. As a lawyer might say: forum non conveniens
| 34 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:41:48pm |
re: #28 LudwigVanQuixote
I did not distort any words and I did not support any lies. I object to the use of the word “evil”.
| 35 |
MandyManners Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:42:15pm |
| 36 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:42:17pm |
re: #23 LudwigVanQuixote
NO they were not Bagua. I challenge you right now to back that up.
We were both on that thread and you never disputed my points. I could be wrong, but it was a different video and only one of my points was challenged.
| 37 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:43:19pm |
re: #25 Danny
Glenn’s entertaining fantasies on that one.
I don’t think so. We all need 8 years of Obama. It’s good for the country and it gives the conservatives time to unload ballast. A 3rd party run of someone like Palin or Joe the Plumber is good for everybody. It a very real possibility, it will be painful but maybe it needs to happen.
| 38 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:44:01pm |
re: #34 G.W.
It is evil to twist a point just to further an agenda, with noregard for the truth.
| 39 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:44:57pm |
re: #15 Bagua
My points were not disputed on that thread, as I said, Sinclair was correct in that he was debunking false assertions, but his examples were also cherry picked. (The one I am referring to was the CO2 is food one)
Then I missed them. repost here and take your thrashing. Bagua for all of your piety about what you think scientific integrity should be, you better bloody well know that when you claim someone is distorting things you had better be able to back it up.
It is like a yo yo with you. Sometimes reasonable and then sometimes with the unbacked up snark.
I am calling you to hear and now to back up your claims. I am sick and tired of you discrediting true things.
Back it up now or loose my respect for good.
| 40 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:45:10pm |
Its simple really. There are transient inputs and steady state inputs. The steady state input to the global warming equation is the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are a lot of transients that affect the net sum as well. We can try to do something about the steady state inputs. As for the transients, we don’t have much control over them.
| 41 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:46:01pm |
re: #36 Bagua
We were both on that thread and you never disputed my points. I could be wrong, but it was a different video and only one of my points was challenged.
Then I missed them stop whining and repost. I can’t be around 24/7 to watch you have another change of sanity.
You have made a claim that the evidence was cherry picked. Back it up here right now.
| 42 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:46:10pm |
re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote
Ludwig, easy of the religion, Science and Religion are very different and one can’t defend ones self against charges of Faith based science propaganda by using religious law.
| 43 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:47:26pm |
re: #37 Killgore Trout
I don’t think so. We all need 8 years of Obama. It’s good for the country and it gives the conservatives time to unload ballast. A 3rd party run of someone like Palin or Joe the Plumber is good for everybody. It a very real possibility, it will be painful but maybe it needs to happen.
Downding. 8 years of Obama would be disastrous, 4 will be bad enough. Mitt Romney needs to run again, he could send BHO packing.
| 44 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:47:35pm |
re: #42 Bagua
Ludwig, easy of the religion, Science and Religion are very different and one can’t defend ones self against charges of Faith based science propaganda by using religious law.
Back up your claims about the science. I am really sick of you pulling this shit.
The religion has to do with the fact that this hypocrite is advertising himself as a Jew. It has nothing to do with you.
| 45 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:16pm |
re: #43 Dark_Falcon
Downding. 8 years of Obama would be disastrous, 4 will be bad enough. Mitt Romney needs to run again, he could send BHO packing.
Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency. The religious right will make damned sure of that.
| 46 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:16pm |
re: #37 Killgore Trout
I don’t think so. We all need 8 years of Obama. It’s good for the country and it gives the conservatives time to unload ballast. A 3rd party run of someone like Palin or Joe the Plumber is good for everybody. It a very real possibility, it will be painful but maybe it needs to happen.
I guess it depends on how you define “challenge.” I don’t see much of one coming from any third party.
| 47 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:31pm |
Absolutely not part of the debate;
The amount of money a scientist gets.
What the ramifications of global warming are in regards to our discomfort.
The effects and causes of GW are valid discusion topics.
| 48 |
Pythagoras Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:38pm |
re: #4 LudwigVanQuixote
When this came out, I remember arguing with people here about this, that no indeed the warming was still happening and we were talking about a decadal cycle.
At the end of the day, pretty much everything I see from the deniers is one form or another of cherry picking and stupidly not bothering to actually get the whole message.
We just keep getting back to the linear trend. The momentary sag below the trend will recover — I don’t really care when. This video supports my view. In fact it MAKES my point — that the linear trend keeps holding. Notice how the graph at 5:30 follow the linear regression without any hint of a second order term. At the 6 minute mark he shows a 100 year prediction, and even that barely curves.
“Tipping points” in climate change was an overreach.
| 49 |
Pawn of the Oppressor Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:47pm |
re: #42 Bagua
Ludwig, easy of the religion, Science and Religion are very different and one can’t defend ones self against charges of Faith based science propaganda by using religious law.
Now that’s just evasive nonsense.
Lying is a sin of speech. It brings harm to others. It’s a terrible thing. What does it matter if that is framed in terms of Torah (or not)?
| 50 |
Shiplord Kirel Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:48:55pm |
It is not hyperbole to call this kind of distortion evil. Millions, perhaps tens of millions, of people take the right-wing pundits at their word. If those millions believe there is no crisis, that, indeed, it is all a lefty power-grab; how much will it delay the effort to develop alternate energy or other strategies for mitigating or coping with the long-term warming trend? These people vote, the effect will be significant and it could be disastrous.
Why, they might ask, would we need nuclear powerplants when there is a thousand year supply of coal in the ground?
A prediction: the anti-nuclear movement, long a lefty preserve, will begin a major shift to the right. It would be an obvious strategy for unscrupulous denialists to tie the almost superstitious dread of nuclear energy to acceptance of AGW.
| 51 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:49:21pm |
re: #47 swamprat
Absolutely not part of the debate;
The amount of money a scientist gets.
What the ramifications of global warming are in regards to our discomfort.The effects and causes of GW are valid discusion topics.
You’re not seriously suggesting that scientists are getting rich by promoting climate change, are you?
| 52 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:49:33pm |
re: #33 imp_62
LVQ: Are you a yeshiva trained scholar? The member of a bet din, perhaps? If not, please be very careful about expounding on “Torah Law”, much the same way a layman with no legal training would be careful about making claims under civil or criminal law. It does no one any good to kick off a discussion about Jewish legal precepts or biblical legal frameworks in the context of a message board discussion. As a lawyer might say: forum non conveniens
As a matter of fact I have studied in Yeshiva, but a small cheder boy would know that purposefully distorting the words of another , to the harm of others is absolutely forbidden speech.
That is something five year olds know.
| 53 |
Coracle Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:50:14pm |
Bagua,
I see in the last thread here, that you argue that the “CO2 is plant food argument is facile”. But it is not taken as such by the denialist crowd. Just because it is easily debunked does not mean that many in the opposition cling tight to it. That’s part of the point. Exposing it exposes the lack of science and logic on the denial side. What other points do you think remain unaddressed?
| 54 |
Gus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:50:19pm |
re: #2 Bagua
In his last video, Sinclair used his own crockery to dispute crockery, while his videos are well done and it is important to debunk nonsense, this makes one very suspicious of their agenda and accuracy.
How can you say that? Even on its own this video is accurate. It points out the clear distortion of Mojib Latif’s statement.
| 55 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:50:25pm |
I am a believer in science and the scientific method. I am also G-d fearing. I find no contradiction in these positions; G-d gave us intellect and expects us to use it. On the other hand, I am not convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge is the sine qua non of understanding the workings of global climate. Climatology has only started to benefit relatively recently from progress in computer processing speed and available time on supercomputers able to run complex climate models. Anyway, I am a layperson. What I know about science could barely fill an evening of dinner conversation.
| 56 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:50:30pm |
re: #48 Pythagoras
We just keep getting back to the linear trend. The momentary sag below the trend will recover — I don’t really care when. This video supports my view. In fact it MAKES my point — that the linear trend keeps holding. Notice how the graph at 5:30 follow the linear regression without any hint of a second order term. At the 6 minute mark he shows a 100 year prediction, and even that barely curves.
“Tipping points” in climate change was an overreach.
Umm did you notice that the fit under the curve was an exponent? Please do watch the video again. Exponents are not linear.
| 57 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:51:09pm |
re: #52 LudwigVanQuixote
I repeat: I have not distorted any words. I objected to the use of the word “evil”. If everything is “evil”, then real evil becomes mundane.
| 58 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:52:07pm |
re: #45 Charles
Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency. The religious right will make damned sure of that.
The same people disputing and distorting facts on global warming will see to it if we don’t stop them.
I’ve got no problem with calling lying and distorting facts for an agenda evil. If folks want to quibble about the degree of evil, that’s fine, but lying = evil.
| 59 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:52:18pm |
Blatant outright lying by the Global Warming deniers.
It took me a while, but I get it.
| 60 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:53:07pm |
re: #45 Charles
Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency. The religious right will make damned sure of that.
With respect, I disagree. I think he can win, and absent a better pick, I plan to support him.
| 61 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:53:25pm |
re: #39 LudwigVanQuixote
Then I missed them. repost here and take your thrashing. Bagua for all of your piety about what you think scientific integrity should be, you better bloody well know that when you claim someone is distorting things you had better be able to back it up.
It is like a yo yo with you. Sometimes reasonable and then sometimes with the unbacked up snark.
I am calling you to hear and now to back up your claims. I am sick and tired of you discrediting true things.
Back it up now or loose my respect for good.
Ludwig,
I’m not interested in your being sick and tired, nor did I challenge a single aspect of the science, I challenged the rhetorical argument made by Sinclair in the last video (not the one in this thread.) Those arguments should be debated in that thread and you should calm down.
Also, you are a bit of the yo-yo yourself, you made very good points in that thread, stayed on firm scientific grounds and avoided emotional insults, I complimented you on that content and did not dispute one word of what you said as I recall. If your argument that Mr. Sinclair and you are equals as scientists then I am confused.
While I was typing you just said:
Back up your claims about the science. I am really sick of you pulling this shit.
I never made claims about “the science,” I was commenting on the examples Sinclair used and how he worded his arguments. At the time of that thread you found nothing in my posts to object to, so why the hysteria now?
| 62 |
Boyo Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:53:52pm |
so…the man made global warming deniers…do they deny out of ignorance or malice? and if out of ignorance then why do they have such a loud megaphone to speak from? and if out of malice …to what end?
| 63 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:54:00pm |
re: #45 Charles
Quite So! The Republicans search for a credible, charismatic, capable candidate to put up. Newt ain’t it! Not Ron paul, not Huckabee not Pawlenty. Who might there be?
| 64 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:54:25pm |
re: #58 Thanos
The same people disputing and distorting facts on global warming will see to it if we don’t stop them.
I’ve got no problem with calling lying and distorting facts for an agenda evil. If folks want to quibble about the degree of evil, that’s fine, but lying = evil.
That’s right — the same groups of people are promoting AGW denial and creationism. It’s all part of the same extreme right wing religious agenda, and Mitt Romney will never be acceptable to these groups.
| 65 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:54:46pm |
re: #51 Charles
Quite the opposite.
I take issue with those who think that this is a valid topic. Scientists should make a good salary. And I doubt they would sully their own reps by latching on to a fad.
Salaries are a distraction/red herring/ bs talking point.
Which is what I thought I said.
Trying to use money to discredit the opposite viewpoint is an old trick. It is bogus.
| 66 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:54:48pm |
re: #57 G.W.
I repeat: I have not distorted any words. I objected to the use of the word “evil”. If everything is “evil”, then real evil becomes mundane.
If you are a Jew then you understand that by definition, what those guys did in the video is evil under Torah Law.
Now you are getting insipid.
| 67 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:55:04pm |
re: #62 Boyo
so…the man made global warming deniers…do they deny out of ignorance or malice? and if out of ignorance then why do they have such a loud megaphone to speak from? and if out of malice …to what end?
It all comes back to power and control. Politics.
| 68 |
researchok Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:55:07pm |
re: #34 G.W.
I did not distort any words and I did not support any lies. I object to the use of the word “evil”.
The deliberate misinterpretations and falsifications of the truth-any truth- nothing but evil.
Religious thought, creed and believers have been lied about by evil people and as a result, people have suffered.
Political thought and ideologies have been lied about by evil people and as a result, people have suffered.
The same is true of science and all other truths.
| 69 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:07pm |
re: #65 swamprat
Quite the opposite.
I take issue with those who think that this is a valid topic. Scientists should make a good salary. And I doubt they would sully their own reps by latching on to a fad.
Salaries are a distraction/red herring/ bs talking point.
Which is what I thought I said.Trying to use money to discredit the opposite viewpoint is an old trick. It is bogus.
Great, I agree then. Thanks for clarifying that.
| 70 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:16pm |
Hey Lizards, again.
I finally finished the audio version of Nixon and Mao by Margaret McMillan. I didn’t really know much about this part of our history and found this book to be a great primer. It might be boring for those who have already studied it.
The intracacies of Cold War Foreign Relations and the impossibility of what Nixon and Kissinger accomplished in secret was fascinating.
At the end she quotes Mr. Spock: “Only Nixon can go to China”. I thought that worth an upding on it’s own.
Also, the entire text of the Shangai Communique is at the end of the book. A significant document, of which I knew nothing. Really, significant.
I was intrigued by the motives and words used by Nixon —it’s almost as if he was ahead of his time.
| 71 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:20pm |
re: #60 Dark_Falcon
With respect, I disagree. I think he can win, and absent a better pick, I plan to support him.
I don’t think he could win if nominated, but I’m more certain the religious right won’t allow him to get the nomination.
| 72 |
Kosh's Shadow Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:22pm |
re: #45 Charles
Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency. The religious right will make damned sure of that.
Do you mean he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, or the Presidency, should some sanity magically appear in the party?
It seems to me he has a good chance of winning the presidency, especially if the economy hasn’t completely recovered, but little of getting the nomination.
| 73 |
What, me worry? Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:23pm |
re: #55 imp_62
I am a believer in science and the scientific method. I am also G-d fearing. I find no contradiction in these positions; G-d gave us intellect and expects us to use it. On the other hand, I am not convinced that the current state of scientific knowledge is the sine qua non of understanding the workings of global climate. Climatology has only started to benefit relatively recently from progress in computer processing speed and available time on supercomputers able to run complex climate models. Anyway, I am a layperson. What I know about science could barely fill an evening of dinner conversation.
What I saw Ludwig addressing is evil speech and there is such a thing. One only has to look at the current state of the blogosphere and LGF to see that. Whether one believes in G-d or not isn’t even the point. Bad speech, lying speech hurts and sometimes worse than a sword.
There are varying degrees of evil in the world.
| 74 |
Boyo Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:38pm |
re: #67 Racer X
It all comes back to power and control. Politics.
so…its in the interest of politics or politicians to deny agw …for the purpose of retaining their own power??… i dont get it
| 75 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:56:39pm |
re: #52 LudwigVanQuixote
As a matter of fact I have studied in Yeshiva, but a small cheder boy would know that purposefully distorting the words of another , to the harm of others is absolutely forbidden speech.
That is something five year olds know.
Knowing something from cheder or even some yeshiva learning does not a legal scholar make. It would just be more appropriate if you framed your arguments base on religious law as personal opinions or interpretations, rather than as “lechatchila” truths. Even Gil Student on Hirhurim is careful to say that his opinions are not legal rulings; so for a true layman to opine on the interpretation of halacha is not really appropriate. Please don’t take this the wrong way.
| 76 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:57:13pm |
re: #61 Bagua
I never made claims about “the science,” I was commenting on the examples Sinclair used and how he worded his arguments. At the time of that thread you found nothing in my posts to object to, so why the hysteria now?
You just claimed that Sincliar cherry picked the bug part of the last video.
Now that is a lie you told. back up your claim, or my claim that you are lying will stand. And stop with the constant semantic games about how I just don’t understand what you are really saying or what your really getting at. I don’t care.
You claimed that something was cherry picked. I am calling you out on that. Now back it up.
| 77 |
bosforus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:58:13pm |
re: #45 Charles
Mitt Romney has absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency. The religious right will make damned sure of that.
I give a reluctant upding for that. Reluctant because I wish it wasn’t so.
Nugget of historical goodness: Joseph Smith ran for the 1844 presidency.
| 78 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:58:15pm |
re: #72 Kosh’s Shadow
Do you mean he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, or the Presidency, should some sanity magically appear in the party?
It seems to me he has a good chance of winning the presidency, especially if the economy hasn’t completely recovered, but little of getting the nomination.
If it’s Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama, I’m voting for Obama unless something inconceivable happens in the meantime to change my mind. I’ve never trusted Romney, and I especially don’t trust him after he appeared at the Values Voters Summit.
| 79 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:58:33pm |
re: #53 Coracle
Bagua,
I see in the last thread here, that you argue that the “CO2 is plant food argument is facile”. But it is not taken as such by the denialist crowd. Just because it is easily debunked does not mean that many in the opposition cling tight to it. That’s part of the point. Exposing it exposes the lack of science and logic on the denial side. What other points do you think remain unaddressed?
Yes, that’s correct. I agreed with the premise that that was a facile argument and I have no problem with calling attention to that, nor have I ever disputed or argued a point on science (that I can recall.) I made my points on that thread and expressed my resulting unease of Sinclair’s work here. Doesn’t make him wrong on everything nor am I commenting on this particular video.
My impression is he is he is an advocate, not a scientist.
| 80 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:59:11pm |
CO2 is plant food. And true that more plants would eat more CO2. But not true that more CO2 would mean more plants would appear.
| 81 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 8:59:12pm |
re: #74 Boyo
so…its in the interest of politics or politicians to deny agw …for the purpose of retaining their own power??… i dont get it
Not retaining - they are well aware that they are losing power, and they are grasping at anything to try and change that.
| 82 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:00:25pm |
re: #72 Kosh’s Shadow
Do you mean he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, or the Presidency, should some sanity magically appear in the party?
It seems to me he has a good chance of winning the presidency, especially if the economy hasn’t completely recovered, but little of getting the nomination.
Even if nominated, it would be a tough race for him. Obama approval has stayed steady for the last two or three months of pushing some progressive agendas. If health reform passes, he can slow down and coast as he gets credit for the eventual economic recovery.
| 83 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:00:33pm |
re: #75 imp_62
Knowing something from cheder or even some yeshiva learning does not a legal scholar make. It would just be more appropriate if you framed your arguments base on religious law as personal opinions or interpretations, rather than as “lechatchila” truths. Even Gil Student on Hirhurim is careful to say that his opinions are not legal rulings; so for a true layman to opine on the interpretation of halacha is not really appropriate. Please don’t take this the wrong way.
I am curious then. You are clearly someone who has some learning or at least access to a Jewish website.
Under what circumstances would purposefully distorting the words of another, to the detriment of others not be considered evil?
The fact that you are making this argument is making me very suspect of you.
| 84 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:00:49pm |
re: #76 LudwigVanQuixote
Wrong video Ludwig, wrong thread and anything I said was my observation, I may be mistaken, but I do not lie.
| 85 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:00:49pm |
re: #73 marjoriemoon
What I saw Ludwig addressing is evil speech and there is such a thing. One only has to look at the current state of the blogosphere and LGF to see that. Whether one believes in G-d or not isn’t even the point. Bad speech, lying speech hurts and sometimes worse than a sword.
There are varying degrees of evil in the world.
No disagreement. I was trying to get into all the various angles of the discussion here. Which seems to be suffering from a terrible case of entropy at this point.
| 86 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:00:56pm |
re: #79 Bagua
Yes, that’s correct. I agreed with the premise that that was a facile argument and I have no problem with calling attention to that, nor have I ever disputed or argued a point on science (that I can recall.) I made my points on that thread and expressed my resulting unease of Sinclair’s work here. Doesn’t make him wrong on everything nor am I commenting on this particular video.
My impression is he is he is an advocate, not a scientist.
Answer the claim about cherry picking.
| 87 |
Boyo Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:01:04pm |
re: #81 Racer X
Not retaining - they are well aware that they are losing power, and they are grasping at anything to try and change that.
i can understand that…but how would they change their loss or losing of power by denying something very real??? wouldnt that make them less credible and less powerfull?…
| 88 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:01:12pm |
re: #71 avanti
I don’t think he could win if nominated, but I’m more certain the religious right won’t allow him to get the nomination.
We’ll see. There’s more than 2 years before we know for sure. I think that dissatisfaction with Obama will get some more moderate voters looking rightward. When they do, plans need be laid to get them to support sane candidates. Mitt Romney can scoop up such voters and win the nomination. That’s a road back for the GOP and that is a course I intent to pursue.
| 89 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:01:15pm |
re: #66 LudwigVanQuixote
If you are a Jew then you understand that by definition, what those guys did in the video is evil under Torah Law.
I am not even sure what you mean by “evil” under Torah law. Do you mean רשע?
Can you prove it?
| 90 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:01:17pm |
re: #70 ggt
Hey Lizards, again.
I finally finished the audio version of Nixon and Mao by Margaret McMillan. I didn’t really know much about this part of our history and found this book to be a great primer. It might be boring for those who have already studied it.
The intracacies of Cold War Foreign Relations and the impossibility of what Nixon and Kissinger accomplished in secret was fascinating.
At the end she quotes Mr. Spock: “Only Nixon can go to China”. I thought that worth an upding on it’s own.
Also, the entire text of the Shangai Communique is at the end of the book. A significant document, of which I knew nothing. Really, significant.
I was intrigued by the motives and words used by Nixon —it’s almost as if he was ahead of his time.
Man, I didn’t realize we were so early in the thread, SORRY for the OT.
| 91 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:01:47pm |
re: #84 Bagua
Wrong video Ludwig, wrong thread and anything I said was my observation, I may be mistaken, but I do not lie.
What did he cherry pick?
| 92 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:13pm |
re: #33 imp_62
LVQ: Are you a yeshiva trained scholar? The member of a bet din, perhaps? If not, please be very careful about expounding on “Torah Law”, much the same way a layman with no legal training would be careful about making claims under civil or criminal law. It does no one any good to kick off a discussion about Jewish legal precepts or biblical legal frameworks in the context of a message board discussion. As a lawyer might say: forum non conveniens
One need not be a yeshiva trained scholar to understand the basics of jewish law. This non-jew can attest that the precepts put forward are indeed both jewish law, and as a result of the incorporation of Torah into the Bible, christian law.
Glenn Beck has no excuse. But he’s an entertainer masquerading as a pundit; he evidently thinks these rules don’t apply to entertainment.
| 93 |
Coracle Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:23pm |
re: #79 Bagua
My impression is he is he is an advocate, not a scientist.
Then your impression is inadequate.
| 94 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:26pm |
re: #89 G.W.
I am not even sure what you mean by “evil” under Torah law. Do you mean רשע?
Can you prove it?
Excuse me? Excuse me?
Which part of lying to harm another is a sin is missing from your understanding?
Charles please ban this troll now. He is disgracing and mocking.
| 95 |
bosforus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:29pm |
re: #88 Dark_Falcon
I would like to see Romney get the Rep. nomination but I must agree with those who have said the religious right won’t have it. The whole “Mormons vs. Bible belt” issue is the reason.
| 96 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:42pm |
re: #66 LudwigVanQuixote
If you are a Jew then you understand that by definition, what those guys did in the video is evil under Torah Law.
Now you are getting insipid.
Ludwig,
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, do you really want to drag religion into the Global Warming debate? Isn’t that feeding one of the “denialist” points?
| 97 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:03:46pm |
re: #80 Mich-again
CO2 is plant food. And true that more plants would eat more CO2. But not true that more CO2 would mean more plants would appear.
Actually, given the right balance of environmental conditons, more CO2 does mean more plant mass.
| 98 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:04:12pm |
re: #95 bosforus
I would like to see Romney get the Rep. nomination but I must agree with those who have said the religious right won’t have it. The whole “Mormons vs. Bible belt” issue is the reason.
They are going to have problems if they try that next time after fawning all over Glnn Bck for 4 years.
| 99 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:04:27pm |
re: #78 Charles
If it’s Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama, I’m voting for Obama unless something inconceivable happens in the meantime to change my mind. I’ve never trusted Romney, and I especially don’t trust him after he appeared at the Values Voters Summit.
Serious question, is there anyone on the right that a viable and sane candidate as we speak ?
| 101 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:04:53pm |
re: #83 LudwigVanQuixote
I am curious then. You are clearly someone who has some learning or at least access to a Jewish website.
Under what circumstances would purposefully distorting the words of another, to the detriment of others not be considered evil?
The fact that you are making this argument is making me very suspect of you.
You misunderstand. I am not arguing that there is no evil in purposefully distorting the words of another. I am simply exhorting you to please stay away from building halachic arguments - or the appearance of halachic arguments - and interpretations of Jewish law unless you are truly qualified to do so. Unless you qualify your statements very carefully as being your very subjective opinion. I am asking this of you for reasons I am sure you understand, given your background as described by yourself.
| 102 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:05:45pm |
re: #96 Bagua
Ludwig,
Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, do you really want to drag religion into the Global Warming debate? Isn’t that feeding one of the “denialist” points?
NO I want these creeps to deal with the consequences of falsely advertising their Jewishness in a way that harms others.
This has nothing to do with you.
On the other hand, you I would like to tell me exactly what Sinclair ever cherry picked and back up your statements.
| 103 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:05:46pm |
I do think there are (ahem-snort) scientists out there capitalizing on GW. I’d like to think everyone out there with a PhD in the hard sciences also has a strong moral or at least philosophical understand of him/herself and the world, but I don’t think all the science geeks are that deep.
I’ve known one or two who couldn’t balance a checkbook —too simple. Not that checkbooks have anything to do with philosophy, per se. I think you understand my meaning.
It’s like any other highly charged emotional issue —why science is emotion, I don’t understand. What I do understand is that I get highly suspicious when there is a lot of money involved. And with this issue there is A LOT of money involved. —politicians too!
| 104 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:06:33pm |
re: #94 LudwigVanQuixote
Chill bro.
I know you have very strong feelings about this subject. Stick to facts and logic. It works (it worked with me).
| 105 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:06:40pm |
re: #99 avanti
Serious question, is there anyone on the right that a viable and sane candidate as we speak ?
If there is, I haven’t seen him or her. Every single one of the current front runners is in the pocket of the religious right.
| 106 |
PT Barnum Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:06:59pm |
re: #98 ArchangelMichael
I would have been willing to consider Romney if he hadn’t proceeded to flip flop all over the place in order to pander to the SoCons. I fear that anyone sensible enough to focus on pragmatic solutions versus ideology is going to get primaried before they have a chance to get to the general.
That being said, I also thought Romney reminded me too much of a used car salsesman.
If he gets away from supply side economics and focuses on balancing the books, I’d be willing to vote for him.
| 107 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:07:07pm |
re: #104 Racer X
Chill bro.
I know you have very strong feelings about this subject. Stick to facts and logic. It works (it worked with me).
Fine enough. I am out of here shortly.
| 108 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:07:08pm |
re: #97 Danny
Actually, given the right balance of environmental conditons, more CO2 does mean more plant mass.
I would love to see more of this type of discussion and a little less cheder playground mudslinging. Religion and science only mix well under influence of a catalyst. I like to call mine “bourbon”.
| 109 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:07:50pm |
re: #80 Mich-again
CO2 is plant food. And true that more plants would eat more CO2. But not true that more CO2 would mean more plants would appear.
Ok. The biggest “plant” in the world is… the ocean. Increased CO2 means greater plant gowth, and that’s a fact…
BUT!!!
The global warming theory does not say simply that the earth will warm…It says that the cooler areas will warm more, leading to a more EVEN temperature across the globe.
So less agitation in the oceans..Leading to stagnation.
If the gulf stream, and all similar currents stop…
Finito, Benito.
| 110 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:08:03pm |
re: #99 avanti
Serious question, is there anyone on the right that a viable and sane candidate as we speak ?
Other than Romney, not that I know of. Hopefully, someone will emerge. But he’s the only one I know of right now. None of the rest could command a national majority.
| 111 |
redshirt Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:08:29pm |
re: #105 Charles
If there is, I haven’t seen him or her. Every single one of the current front runners is in the pocket of the religious right.
So let’s move down to the “B” list? Who do you like there?
| 112 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:08:50pm |
re: #99 avanti
Serious question, is there anyone on the right that a viable and sane candidate as we speak ?
I don’t think so. Mitt is questionable but it’s going to take some time for new viable Republican candidates to rise to the top. The GOP farm league stinks which is fine because the “conservative” base won’t accept real world leadership at this point. This is going to take time.
| 113 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:09:12pm |
re: #97 Danny
Actually, given the right balance of environmental conditons, more CO2 does mean more plant mass.
It certainly does, which does not in any way argue that it doesn’t also lead to warming which may be bad. The problem is, the Warmists must claim that everything about CO2 is all bad under all circumstances. If the plants get bigger then there will be worse bugs, a plague in fact. This may be true on balance, or in individual cases, but it is a facile argument and shows an agenda.
The science stands on its own merits and is weakened by propaganda, not supported.
| 114 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:09:21pm |
re: #107 LudwigVanQuixote
Fine enough. I am out of here shortly.
We need a Global Warming Troll Hammer. I know someone mentioned it before, but it would eliminate having the same argument over and over again.
| 115 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:09:52pm |
| 116 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:09:54pm |
re: #88 Dark_Falcon
We’ll see. There’s more than 2 years before we know for sure. I think that dissatisfaction with Obama will get some more moderate voters looking rightward. When they do, plans need be laid to get them to support sane candidates. Mitt Romney can scoop up such voters and win the nomination. That’s a road back for the GOP and that is a course I intent to pursue.
If and when there is real dissatisfaction for Obama other than on the right. After the post honeymoon dip, he’s been rock steady in the 51-56% area, and that’s enough for a second term.
Lots could go wrong to make him unpopular, but lots could get better and help.
| 117 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:10:00pm |
re: #105 Charles
If there is, I haven’t seen him or her. Every single one of the current front runners is in the pocket of the religious right.
Early days yet. I think that a candidate will emerge and will ultimately be marginalized by the right wing and forced to run as an independent. That is where the serious conservative money will have to be spent if there is to be any hope of defeating Obama in the next election. This person may even emerge from the Blue Dogs and jump ship from the Democratic party.
| 118 |
Pythagoras Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:10:24pm |
re: #56 LudwigVanQuixote
Umm did you notice that the fit under the curve was an exponent? Please do watch the video again. Exponents are not linear.
OK, I did. The exponential used in ~1:30-3:00 struck me as a hypothetical since the vertical axis in unscaled and it is at great variance with the later plots and they are clearly referred to as real. (Note, we all know that changing the scale can change the appearance but that really doesn’t seem to be the case here.) The later plots were the subject of my point. If the counter-point is actually earlier plots from the same briefing, then I got issues with the presentation.
Folks, I really am in WDW and have to make the opening of Disney’s Hollywood Studios @ 9am tomorrow, so I’m only on ‘til 12:30 eastern or so.
I’d really love to stay for the Torah stuff too. Sorry if my transliteration sucks but here goes — leetrau oat.
| 119 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:10:34pm |
re: #19 LudwigVanQuixote
Since you are bearing false witness through distortion and so were BEck and Hannity et al - to the risk of millions of lives, yes that actually does come under the Torah definition of evil.
I did no such thing. Does that make you “evil”?
| 120 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:10:36pm |
re: #97 Danny
Actually, given the right balance of environmental conditons, more CO2 does mean more plant mass.
Not true implies not necessarily true. It could happen I’m sure. One thing is sure. Deforestation doesn’t help reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. Any effort to reduce AGW has to take that into account.
| 121 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:10:58pm |
re: #111 redshirt
I like Jon Huntsman. That’s a place to start.
| 122 |
redshirt Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:11:01pm |
| 123 |
Boyo Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:11:16pm |
Charles,the video brought up a point,agw denial is done out of malice or ignorance..whats your take?
| 124 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:11:34pm |
re: #117 imp_62
Early days yet. I think that a candidate will emerge and will ultimately be marginalized by the right wing and forced to run as an independent. That is where the serious conservative money will have to be spent if there is to be any hope of defeating Obama in the next election. This person may even emerge from the Blue Dogs and jump ship from the Democratic party.
I doubt it. I see the GOP pushing ever harder for ideological purity, and driving out all moderates as the religious right gains total control. I don’t see the Republican Party coming back into power for a long, long time.
| 125 |
Coracle Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:11:37pm |
re: #113 Bagua
It certainly does, which does not in any way argue that it doesn’t also lead to warming which may be bad. The problem is, the Warmists must claim that everything about CO2 is all bad under all circumstances.
That’s patently false. The fact that climate will still be regionally variable means that some areas will experience relatively little change, or change in a different direction.
| 126 |
Spare O'Lake Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:12:05pm |
re: #66 LudwigVanQuixote
If you are a Jew then you understand that by definition, what those guys did in the video is evil under Torah Law.
Now you are getting insipid.
Do the sages not agree that one who is drooling batshit crazy lacks the capacity to form the guilty intent to commit evil?
This is known colloquially as the “drooling batshit crazy” defence.
///
| 127 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:12:18pm |
re: #106 PT Barnum
I would have been willing to consider Romney if he hadn’t proceeded to flip flop all over the place in order to pander to the SoCons. I fear that anyone sensible enough to focus on pragmatic solutions versus ideology is going to get primaried before they have a chance to get to the general.
That being said, I also thought Romney reminded me too much of a used car salsesman.
If he gets away from supply side economics and focuses on balancing the books, I’d be willing to vote for him.
Catch 22. You can’t get the nomination without the religious right, and you can’t win the election by catering to them.
| 128 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:12:36pm |
re: #123 Boyo
Charles,the video brought up a point,agw denial is done out of malice or ignorance..whats your take?
Malice by the talking heads and politicians (for malice, read: money) and ignorance by the GOP base who blindly follow along with whatever the Becks and Hannitys say.
| 129 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:13:17pm |
re: #122 redshirt
Jon Kyl
In February 2009 Kyl invited the Dutch right wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders to show his anti-Islam film Fitna in the Capitol building in Washington.[21]
Fuck him. No future in American politics. None.
| 130 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:13:21pm |
re: #101 imp_62
You misunderstand. I am not arguing that there is no evil in purposefully distorting the words of another.
So your problem is?
I am simply exhorting you to please stay away from building halachic arguments - or the appearance of halachic arguments - and interpretations of Jewish law unless you are truly qualified to do so. Unless you qualify your statements very carefully as being your very subjective opinion. I am asking this of you for reasons I am sure you understand, given your background as described by yourself.
Actually I don’t understand. Are you saying that one needs to be a rabbi in order to point out obvious things that are against the Law? Do you need a poskin to know that murder is a no-no?
Now, this fellow was purposefully claiming, as a Jew, that willfully distorting the words of others to the harm of others does not qualify as evil. Now, do we really need to pull out all of Chofetz Chiam to point out all of the ways this qualifies as evil, or is it sufficient to simply say, Do not put a stumbling block before the blind, and do not bear false witness?
Now I readily admit, that there may be ones more learned than me who would make a more tight Halachic argument. Perhaps indeed, I am missing a stronger way to say that this speech is considered evil under Torah Law. Fair enough.
But since we both agree that it is. If you know better than I do what is wrong with it Halachicly, then why not stick up for Torah yourself, and tell him what is wrong with it?
| 131 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:13:49pm |
re: #121 Killgore Trout
I like Jon Huntsman. That’s a place to start.
Huntsman has been excommunicated by the religious right already. He doesn’t stand a chance.
| 132 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:13:54pm |
re: #127 avanti
Catch 22. You can’t get the nomination without the religious right, and you can’t win the election by catering to them.
I say its like this.. you vote for who you like the most in the primary and you vote for who you dislike the least in the general.
| 133 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:14:05pm |
re: #114 Racer X
We need a Global Warming Troll Hammer. I know someone mentioned it before, but it would eliminate having the same argument over and over again.
I wrote the start of one on a thread downstairs today.
| 134 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:14:29pm |
re: #108 imp_62
I would love to see more of this type of discussion and a little less cheder playground mudslinging. Religion and science only mix well under influence of a catalyst. I like to call mine “bourbon”.
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
Personally, I would like to see the Rabbis and Priests advise on religious matters and the scientists advise on science. We also rely on the journalists to report on both, but I have a low opinion of them in general.
Education and debate requires cool heads, reason and patience.
| 135 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:14:38pm |
re: #117 imp_62
Is this not a third party would emerge? If / when it happens for real in a winning way, unlike the Libertarians?
| 137 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:15:23pm |
re: #131 Charles
Huntsman has been excommunicated by the religious right already. He doesn’t stand a chance.
That’s why I like him. The future of conservatism has nothing to do with what’s going on today. This is all bullshit and interlude until we get back to business.
| 138 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:15:24pm |
Is this not HOW (sorry) a third party would emerge? If / when it happens for real in a winning way, unlike the Libertarians?
| 139 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:15:29pm |
re: #124 Charles
I doubt it. I see the GOP pushing ever harder for ideological purity, and driving out all moderates as the religious right gains total control. I don’t see the Republican Party coming back into power for a long, long time.
Not through the existing party machinery, certainly. But ideologically, the centre right which is being has been disenfranchised will find another outlet. Not through a formally organised political party, but through an independent candidacy driven by the money of disillusioned party centrists. I can see this starting to happen on a local level - fragile shoots of grassroots resentment of where the party has gone being expressed in an expressed desire to see a different kind of candidate emerge. But the mechanisms are not in place, and it will be a challenge to create them in time.
| 140 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:15:41pm |
re: #124 Charles
I doubt it. I see the GOP pushing ever harder for ideological purity, and driving out all moderates as the religious right gains total control. I don’t see the Republican Party coming back into power for a long, long time.
I hope you’re wrong, for all our sakes. I’m scheduled to attend a Republican event in Wheeling (North Suburb of Chicago) on the 18th. Any suggestions as to what I can do to test the waters or steer people in the right direction?
| 141 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:15:53pm |
| 142 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:16:16pm |
re: #119 G.W.
Great savior on a stick!
“Evil” is not the major issue here.
Aside from the vilification, are the facts, as presented valid?
You can get in a pissing contest, anywhere. This place is a great opportunity to learn and share. Don’t waste your time dancing with pigs. This is like using an encyclopedia to prop open a door.
| 143 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:16:31pm |
re: #136 redshirt
Jeff Flake?
He also serves on the Liberty Caucus (sometimes called the Liberty Committee), a group of libertarian-leaning Republican congressmen.[4] Other members include Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, Ron Paul of Texas, Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina.[5]
No dice, he’s a fuckhead.
| 144 |
redshirt Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:17:02pm |
| 145 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:17:05pm |
| 146 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:17:05pm |
| 148 |
Kosh's Shadow Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:17:42pm |
re: #124 Charles
I doubt it. I see the GOP pushing ever harder for ideological purity, and driving out all moderates as the religious right gains total control. I don’t see the Republican Party coming back into power for a long, long time.
Then the country is doomed, because the Democrats will push everything further and further under government control, leaving innovation to other countries. It will probably be a slow decline, but it will be a decline.
Not that I’m sure that anyone else can stop it.
| 149 |
Killgore Trout Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:17:43pm |
re: #136 redshirt
Look for the candidates that aren’t asshole. Those are the one you want to get behind.
| 150 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:04pm |
re: #134 Bagua
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
Personally, I would like to see the Rabbis and Priests advise on religious matters and the scientists advise on science. We also rely on the journalists to report on both, but I have a low opinion of them in general.
Education and debate requires cool heads, reason and patience.
Bagua, you can call me all names all you want. However there is not a single thing off or fanatical about the science I bring. Therefore, would you please do me the kindness of not jabbering any more and backing up your claim that Sinclair cherry picked?
| 151 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:05pm |
| 152 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:19pm |
re: #140 Dark_Falcon
I hope you’re wrong, for all our sakes. I’m scheduled to attend a Republican event in Wheeling (North Suburb of Chicago) on the 18th. Any suggestions as to what I can do to test the waters or steer people in the right direction?
It’s hard for me to give that kind of advice. I have to be honest — the GOP has completely lost me.
| 153 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:41pm |
re: #148 Kosh’s Shadow
Then the country is doomed, because the Democrats will push everything further and further under government control, leaving innovation to other countries. It will probably be a slow decline, but it will be a decline.
Not that I’m sure that anyone else can stop it.
You’re harshing my buzz.
;-)
| 154 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:53pm |
re: #149 Killgore Trout
Look for the candidates that aren’t asshole. Those are the one you want to get behind.
Didn’t we decide on a previous thread that the “type” of person who can actually go thru the process and get elected has to be an “asshole” of sorts?
| 155 |
redshirt Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:55pm |
re: #149 Killgore Trout
Look for the candidates that aren’t asshole. Those are the one you want to get behind.
Somehow what you said comes across as vaguely homoerotic…
| 156 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:18:59pm |
re: #142 swamprat
I have to say that since I am not an expert, most of the video had me convinced me until I heard that description of the pundits as “evil” which immediately made the material before sound like propaganda. Too bad!
| 157 |
researchok Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:19:09pm |
| 158 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:19:18pm |
The one thing I don’t like about using the term “denier” for global warming doubters is that it dilutes the word. Eventually we will hear about Laffer curve deniers, gambling odds deniers, low-carb diet deniers, maybe even Glen Beck deniers.
| 159 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:19:26pm |
re: #152 Charles
That’s how I got here!!
| 160 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:20:43pm |
re: #153 Racer X
You’re harshing my buzz.
;-)
On the positive side, the legalization of marijuana will come just in time for me to be able to avoid dealing with the next 8 years or so.
| 161 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:20:51pm |
re: #131 Charles
Huntsman has been excommunicated by the religious right already. He doesn’t stand a chance.
Somehow that explains why he potentially could have had my vote if Obama screws up. I liked what little I knew about Huntsman.
| 162 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:21:19pm |
I’m back to the old Pro-Choice vs. 2nd Amendment dilemna. That generally puts me in the Liberatarian camp but I don’t go for legalized pot (or Luap Nor).
What to do?
I’m going to be reading a lot of novels for the next few years.
| 163 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:21:52pm |
re: #152 Charles
It’s hard for me to give that kind of advice. I have to be honest — the GOP has completely lost me.
Well, that comment will go viral. /
| 164 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:21:59pm |
BTW: I agree that it is evil to intentionally lie and distort facts. I also agree that there is a great deal of distortion. But some of it is not intentional lies, it is either misunderstanding or embellishment which has as its source the human tendency to have bias and beliefs.
| 166 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:22:39pm |
Gotta get out of here guys.
Bagua for the record there was no cherry picking.
You talk a lot about over speaking. You over spoke to say the least. In fact you lied.
| 167 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:22:43pm |
Lizards, I need a book (or two) recommendation:
Topic: Cold War Politics for non-majors —not too military, if possible.
Help!
| 168 |
Boyo Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:22:55pm |
re: #164 Bagua
BTW: I agree that it is evil to intentionally lie and distort facts. I also agree that there is a great deal of distortion. But some of it is not intentional lies, it is either misunderstanding or embellishment which has as its source the human tendency to have bias and beliefs.
so why speak when you dont have an understanding of the issue?
| 169 |
Charles Johnson Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:23:28pm |
| 170 |
PT Barnum Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:23:41pm |
re: #149 Killgore Trout
Look for the candidates that aren’t asshole. Those are the one you want to get behind.
That leaves Cantor out..
Seriously, why don’t the remaining sane Republicans become Democrats, push the really extreme leftists out into their own fringe and we end up with a centrist party that focuses on actually solving problems rather than all the pissy little games that make up politics now?
| 171 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:24:23pm |
re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote
Gotta get out of here guys.
Bagua for the record there was no cherry picking.
You talk a lot about over speaking. You over spoke to say the least. In fact you lied.
So go back to the thread and dispute me on the actual points I made, I am always happy to defend my side with reason and be proven wrong.
| 172 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:24:35pm |
re: #165 Rightwingconspirator
Pro choice vs 2nd? Huh?
Yep, I’m for choice all the way around —except when it comes to drugs and very, very weird sex (children etc).
There will never be a party or a candidate that fits my needs. When I was younger I voted for the Pro-Choice candidates, now I vote for those firmly behind the 2nd Amendment. Nowadays, that’s getting harder to do —I won’t vote in a theocracy.
| 173 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:24:59pm |
re: #78 Charles
If it’s Mitt Romney vs. Barack Obama, I’m voting for Obama unless something inconceivable happens in the meantime to change my mind. I’ve never trusted Romney, and I especially don’t trust him after he appeared at the Values Voters Summit.
Is it the venue or the content that you object to? I went back and reread his speech. There is not a lot there that I object to.
| 174 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:19pm |
re: #167 ggt
Lizards, I need a book (or two) recommendation:
Topic: Cold War Politics for non-majors —not too military, if possible.
Help!
We All Lost the Cold War by R.N. Lebow
| 175 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:21pm |
re: #112 Killgore Trout
I don’t think so. Mitt is questionable but it’s going to take some time for new viable Republican candidates to rise to the top. The GOP farm league stinks which is fine because the “conservative” base won’t accept real world leadership at this point. This is going to take time.
There have been times when only one party had a chance. Primaries are then the election.
| 176 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:28pm |
| 177 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:52pm |
How science reporting works:
They both make pretty much the same point. Explaining complex topics to ordinary people will almost inevitably end up with a pants on head retarded interpretation (thanks, ZP). And that’s assuming there’s no underlying agenda to how they choose to interpret information.
We’re lucky if people in general remember the Earth is spherical, really.
| 178 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:55pm |
re: #170 PT Barnum
The party of Gavin Newsome and Nancy Pelosi? (sound of .45 being loaded then bang)
Just kidding about the gun!
| 179 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:25:56pm |
re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote
Gotta get out of here guys.
Bagua for the record there was no cherry picking.
You talk a lot about over speaking. You over spoke to say the least. In fact you lied.
Prove it jerk! Right or wrong I most certainly did not lie!
You really are a die hard fanatic Ludwig.
| 180 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:26:36pm |
re: #152 Charles
It’s hard for me to give that kind of advice. I have to be honest — the GOP has completely lost me.
Still, I’d let you know that these events I attend tend to feature fairly moderate people. The religious right is not much to be seen where I live. And with Obama’s old seat open, we have a real chance to put Mark Kirk, who is a sane person, in the Senate in 2010. Further, if Jan Scharkowsky runs against him, there’s a small chance we could swipe her House district as well. It’s worth trying, and it would move the GOP in your preferred direction.
| 181 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:26:41pm |
re: #120 Mich-again
re: #156 G.W.
I have to say that since I am not an expert, most of the video had me convinced me until I heard that description of the pundits as “evil” which immediately made the material before sound like propaganda. Too bad!
All the vids are like that. Lotta drama. You must do your own research. Not everyone will be happy with you.
| 182 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:26:44pm |
| 185 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:27:50pm |
| 186 |
PT Barnum Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:28:28pm |
re: #178 Rightwingconspirator
Note I said drive the extreme left wing out to the Green Party or something like that.
The bottom line is there needs to be a party that understands that while government shouldn’t solve all problems, it should actually work for the governed.
| 187 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:28:43pm |
Got this in email - not sure if all “facts” are real.
GEOGRAPHY FACTS:
Alaska
More than half of the coastline of the entire United States is in Alaska .
Amazon
The Amazon rainforest produces more than 20% the world’s oxygen supply.
The Amazon River pushes so much water into the Atlantic Ocean that, more than one hundred miles at sea off the mouth of the river, one can dip fresh water out of the ocean. The volume of water in the Amazon river is greater than the next eight largest rivers in the world combined and three times the flow of all rivers in the United States .
Antarctica
Antarctica is the only land on our planet that is not owned by any country.
Ninety percent of the world’s ice covers Antarctica . This ice also represents seventy percent of all the fresh water in the world. As strange as it sounds, however, Antarctica is essentially a desert. The average yearly total precipitation is about two inches Although covered with ice (all but 0.4% of it, ice.), Antarctica is the driest place on the planet, with an absolute humidity lower than the Gobi desert.
Brazil
Brazil got its name from the nut, not the other way around.
Canada
Canada has more lakes than the rest of the world combined. Canada is an Indian word meaning ’ Big Village .’
Chicago
Next to Warsaw , Chicago has the largest Polish population in the world.
Detroit
Woodward Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, carries the designation M-1, so named because it was the first paved road anywhere.
Damascus, Syria
Damascus, Syria, was flourishing a couple of thousand years before Rome was founded in 753 BC, making it the oldest continuously inhabited city in existence.
Istanbul, Turkey
Istanbul, Turkey, is the only city in the world located on two continents.
Los Angeles
Los Angele’s full name is El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula — and can be abbreviated to 3.63% of its size: L.A.
New York City
The term ‘The Big Apple’ was coined by touring jazz musicians of the 1930’s who used the slang expression ‘apple’ for any town or city. Therefore, to play New York City is to play the big time - The Big Apple.
There are more Irish in New York City than in Dublin , Ireland ; more Italians in New York City than in Rome, Italy ; and more Jews in New York City than in Tel Aviv, Israel .
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.
Pitcairn Island
The smallest island with country status is Pitcairn in Polynesia , at just 1.75 sq. miles/4,53 sq. km.
Rome
The first city to reach a population of 1 million people was Rome , Italy in 133 B.C. There is a city called Rome on every continent.
Siberia
Siberia contains more than 25% of the world’s forests.
S.M.O.M .
The actual smallest sovereign entity in the world is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (S.M.O.M). It is located in the city of Rome, Italy, has an area of two tennis courts, and as of 2001 has a population of 80, 20 less people than the Vatican. It is a sovereign entity under international law, just as the Vatican is.
Sahara Desert
In the Sahara Desert , there is a town named Tidikelt , Algeria , which did not receive a drop of rain for ten years.
Technically though, the driest place on Earth is in the valleys of the Antarctic near Ross Island . There has been no rainfall there for two million years.
Spain
Spain literally means ‘the land of rabbits.’
St. Paul , Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota , was originally called Pig’s Eye after a man named Pierre ‘Pig’s Eye’ Parrant who set up the first business there.
Roads
Chances that a road is unpaved in the U.S.A : 1%, in Canada : 75%
| 188 |
Racer X Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:29:21pm |
re: #160 imp_62
On the positive side, the legalization of marijuana will come just in time for me to be able to avoid dealing with the next 8 years or so.
We’re gonna need it.
Pass the bong.
| 189 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:29:22pm |
re: #134 Bagua
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
Personally, I would like to see the Rabbis and Priests advise on religious matters and the scientists advise on science. We also rely on the journalists to report on both, but I have a low opinion of them in general.
Education and debate requires cool heads, reason and patience.
There’s zero chance that Ludwig’s on a crusade. :-)
| 190 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:30:25pm |
re: #187 Racer X
Got this in email - not sure if all “facts” are real.
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.
This one seems suspect.
| 191 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:30:29pm |
Now for my next question:
Is the Cold War really over and if so, do you think the GOP has realized it —if not, do you think the Democrats know?
| 192 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:31:13pm |
re: #156 G.W.
I have to say that since I am not an expert, most of the video had me convinced me until I heard that description of the pundits as “evil” which immediately made the material before sound like propaganda. Too bad!
Agree strongly. This thread is a case in point, I have now been called a lair, not wrong, not mistaken, not ignorant, but dishonest. That sort of over the top demonisation reeks of propaganda.
I most certainly do not lie and do not intentionally spread misinformation. I may well be wrong on many things, but to suggest immorality is absurd.
| 193 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:31:39pm |
re: #190 Danny
This one seems suspect.
It was some evil non-native American who did something they shouldn’t have a million years ago.
or Slartibartfast.
/
| 194 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:32:01pm |
re: #152 Charles
I have to be honest — the GOP has completely lost me.
The USA’s political system is designed around the concept of a two-party system. (see: Constitutional tiebreakers) So to completely abandon either major party is to essentially pledge loyalty to the other. I say any point of view has more leverage sitting on the fence to wait and see than by pledging any loyalty to either. If the vote is up for grabs, both sides will try to attract it. If the vote is in the bag, one side will take it for granted and the other will just ignore it.
I hope to disrupt the loons from the GOP from destroying the party if for no other reason than to try to keep the loons from the other side in check. We know Obama has the 2012 nomination for the Dems. As for the other side, its still wide open. And I don’t want to sit back and watch Ron Paul and Sarah Palin drive the GOP into the ditch.
| 195 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:33:06pm |
re: #187 Racer X
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.
In Texas there is only one natural lake.
| 196 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:33:45pm |
re: #187 Racer X
Got this in email - not sure if all “facts” are real.
You got an unsourced list of random “facts” in your e-mail? I don’t want to be skeptical, but it seems as likely to be true as me growing larger member with to satisfy female in 5 days!!!.
Those exercises really hurt. :(
| 197 |
MtnCat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:34:17pm |
What if C4 plants are NOT disadvantaged on the basis of physiology to high CO2 levels? re: #80 Mich-again
| 198 |
Political Atheist Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:35:01pm |
re: #186 PT Barnum
Point Taken. I have been a anti incumbent guy for years now on the basis that we need less lobby money influenced folks in there. I’ll take rookie mistakes over lobbyist bought decisions from anyone-Congressman, Senator or Pres. I read openpolitics.com and want to scream. Health industry money all over both sides…
| 199 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:35:35pm |
re: #195 The Shadow Do
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.In Texas there is only one natural lake.
Interesting. What lake is that?
| 200 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:36:05pm |
re: #198 Rightwingconspirator
Point Taken. I have been a anti incumbent guy for years now on the basis that we need less lobby money influenced folks in there. I’ll take rookie mistakes over lobbyist bought decisions from anyone-Congressman, Senator or Pres. I read openpolitics.com and want to scream.
Health industry moneyOur Money all over both sides…
FTFY
Important not to lose site of that fact, IMHO.
:)
| 201 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:37:02pm |
re: #195 The Shadow Do
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.In Texas there is only one natural lake.
You can’t swing a dead cat around here without violating the airspace over some kind of pond or Lake.
| 202 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:37:06pm |
re: #183 swamprat
No more coffee.
Took me a while to find this. One of my favourite Far Side cartoons.
[Link: www.lechatnoirboutique.com…]
| 203 |
shutdown Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:37:54pm |
re: #201 Mich-again
You can’t swing a dead cat around here without violating the airspace over some kind of pond or Lake.
You can’t swing a dead cat here without attracting the attention of my Rottweiler.
| 204 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:38:01pm |
re: #166 LudwigVanQuixote
Gotta get out of here guys.
Bagua for the record there was no cherry picking.
You talk a lot about over speaking. You over spoke to say the least. In fact you lied.
Jeepers, coming from a guy who writes several essays on every thread that is quite the comment, talk about mote and beam!
| 205 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:38:12pm |
| 206 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:38:34pm |
re: #195 The Shadow Do
Ohio
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.In Texas there is only one natural lake.
Oof!
I think I just strained my credulity!
| 207 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:38:57pm |
re: #194 Mich-again
The USA’s political system is designed around the concept of a two-party system. (see: Constitutional tiebreakers) So to completely abandon either major party is to essentially pledge loyalty to the other. I say any point of view has more leverage sitting on the fence to wait and see than by pledging any loyalty to either. If the vote is up for grabs, both sides will try to attract it. If the vote is in the bag, one side will take it for granted and the other will just ignore it.
I hope to disrupt the loons from the GOP from destroying the party if for no other reason than to try to keep the loons from the other side in check. We know Obama has the 2012 nomination for the Dems. As for the other side, its still wide open. And I don’t want to sit back and watch Ron Paul and Sarah Palin drive the GOP into the ditch.
My sentiments exactly.
| 208 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:39:05pm |
| 209 |
avanti Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:39:37pm |
| 210 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:39:41pm |
re: #198 Rightwingconspirator
Point Taken. I have been a anti incumbent guy for years now on the basis that we need less lobby money influenced folks in there. I’ll take rookie mistakes over lobbyist bought decisions from anyone-Congressman, Senator or Pres. I read openpolitics.com and want to scream. Health industry money all over both sides…
You don’t seriously think that a serious challenger to office is unsullied by lobbyists, special interests do you?
There are those who though incumbent are not necessarily compromised you know. I give you John McCain for one.
| 211 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:40:55pm |
| 212 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:42:16pm |
re: #195 The Shadow Do
There are no natural lakes in the state of Ohio , every one is manmade.
My wife’s aunt has a spring in her backyard. They dug a big hole around it and turned it into a small lake. So its man made I guess, but now that the big hole is there, its natural.
| 213 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:43:31pm |
re: #134 Bagua
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
Personally, I would like to see the Rabbis and Priests advise on religious matters and the scientists advise on science. We also rely on the journalists to report on both, but I have a low opinion of them in general.
Education and debate requires cool heads, reason and patience.
Ah. The accepted science = religion meme. Sadly, untrue. Science is subject to separate studies to reproduce similar results, subject to peer review, and put out there for a healthy whacking if anyone has a problem with the paper. Religion? Not so much.
| 214 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:43:48pm |
re: #212 Mich-again
My wife’s aunt has a spring in her backyard. They dug a big hole around it and turned it into a small lake. So its man made I guess, but now that the big hole is there, its natural.
A candidate for a State Park?
| 216 |
KingKenrod Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:45:44pm |
re: #204 Bagua
Jeepers, coming from a guy who writes several essays on every thread that is quite the comment, talk about mote and beam!
I pointed out what I felt were some weaknesses in the last Sinclair video - not to accuse Sinclair of being intentionally misleading (I don’t believe that for a second), I just felt he didn’t make the case he set out to address.
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]
| 217 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:46:04pm |
re: #211 The Shadow Do
Caddo Lake, a beauty.
I’ll have to check it out someday. Looks like a great bass lake.
| 218 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:47:08pm |
| 219 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:47:32pm |
re: #214 The Shadow Do
A candidate for a State Park?
Ha. Not hardly. Maybe the pond is an acre in size. My point was that the only difference between a lake and a spring that feeds a creek that feeds a river that dumps the water somewhere else is the local topography.
| 220 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:48:24pm |
re: #211 The Shadow Do
Caddo Lake, a beauty.
Man, you’re not kidding! Just found these pics of Caddo on Flickr.
[Link: www.flickr.com…]
| 221 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:50:04pm |
re: #219 Mich-again
Ha. Not hardly. Maybe the pond is an acre in size. My point was that the only difference between a lake and a spring that feeds a creek that feeds a river that dumps the water somewhere else is the local topography.
Okay, National Park then. What shall we name it? How many Park Rangers will we need to hire to jack up the economy?
| 222 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:52:27pm |
re: #221 The Shadow Do
Okay, National Park then. What shall we name it? How many Park Rangers will we need to hire to jack up the economy?
We don’t have the money to hire new rangers.
| 223 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:53:52pm |
re: #217 Danny
I’ll have to check it out someday. Looks like a great bass lake.
Just don’t eat what you catch. It is in the shadow of a couple of lignite-fired power plants (the coal is locally mined). One of them puts out 1,900 pounds of mercury a year. There are several others. California, which has no coal fired plants, puts out 170 pounds a year, state wide.
| 224 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:54:25pm |
re: #222 Dark_Falcon
We don’t have the money to hire new rangers.
If less than a trillion, no one will notice.
| 225 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:55:20pm |
re: #223 austin_blue
Just don’t eat what you catch. It is in the shadow of a couple of lignite-fired power plants (the coal is locally mined). One of them puts out 1,900 pounds of mercury a year. There are several others. California, which has no coal fired plants, puts out 170 pounds a year, state wide.
Where did you get that stat?
| 226 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:55:36pm |
re: #222 Dark_Falcon
We don’t have the money to hire new rangers.
Neither does the National Parks Service. IIRC.
| 227 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:55:50pm |
re: #221 The Shadow Do
How many Park Rangers will we need to hire to jack up the economy?
Ha. Spring water in 1/2 liter bottles costs more than gasoline, per fluid ounce.
| 228 |
FemNaziBitch Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:57:20pm |
re: #227 Mich-again
Ha. Spring water in 1/2 liter bottles costs more than gasoline, per fluid ounce.
And it might not be real Spring Water!
did you see Slumdog Millionaire?
| 229 |
Mich-again Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:57:40pm |
I must be an American, the way I intermingle metric and avoirdupois units like that.
| 230 |
Danny Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:57:53pm |
re: #223 austin_blue
Just don’t eat what you catch. It is in the shadow of a couple of lignite-fired power plants (the coal is locally mined). One of them puts out 1,900 pounds of mercury a year. There are several others. California, which has no coal fired plants, puts out 170 pounds a year, state wide.
OK good to know, thanks.
| 231 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 9:58:07pm |
re: #223 austin_blue
Just don’t eat what you catch. It is in the shadow of a couple of lignite-fired power plants (the coal is locally mined). One of them puts out 1,900 pounds of mercury a year. There are several others. California, which has no coal fired plants, puts out 170 pounds a year, state wide.
California is a power importer. Clean only on paper.
| 233 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:02:47pm |
| 234 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:02:56pm |
| 235 |
lostlakehiker Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:03:36pm |
re: #223 austin_blue
Just don’t eat what you catch. It is in the shadow of a couple of lignite-fired power plants (the coal is locally mined). One of them puts out 1,900 pounds of mercury a year. There are several others. California, which has no coal fired plants, puts out 170 pounds a year, state wide.
California ought to get “credit” for any coal-fired electricity it buys from neighboring states, to be fair. If CA got most of its electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal, I’d be more impressed. If they just get it from NV, that’s kicking the ball down the road.
| 236 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:03:55pm |
| 237 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:06:22pm |
re: #213 austin_blue
Ah. The accepted science = religion meme. Sadly, untrue. Science is subject to separate studies to reproduce similar results, subject to peer review, and put out there for a healthy whacking if anyone has a problem with the paper. Religion? Not so much.
I never said science = religion. Why do you heckle? I said that Ludwig is on a religious crusade, and that his quoting of religion on this thread does damage to countering the meme that you accuse me of asserting falsely.
| 239 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:08:17pm |
re: #235 lostlakehiker
California ought to get “credit” for any coal-fired electricity it buys from neighboring states, to be fair. If CA got most of its electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal, I’d be more impressed. If they just get it from NV, that’s kicking the ball down the road.
Not my point. Cali replaced almost all of its coal base-power plants with Nukes and natural gas. By not using coal, they have decreased their mercury emissions to less than ten percent of *one plant* in Texas. that’s smart public policy. Coal is filthy, and strip-mined lignite in Texas is the worst of the worst as far as mercury emissions are concerned.
| 240 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:08:26pm |
re: #232 bosforus
Let’s go nuclear.
Obviously it is the only near term solution to carbon emissions, perhaps coupled with clean coal solutions which would be very successful if incentivized. Neither of which will ever, ever happen under a Democratic government. Just won’t. Instead we will deal with year after year of Pollyanna platitudes. Stupid but politically necessary if you are a lib. Slow societal suicide. That is what it is.
| 241 |
bosforus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:09:48pm |
re: #235 lostlakehiker
California ought to get “credit” for any coal-fired electricity it buys from neighboring states, to be fair. If CA got most of its electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal, I’d be more impressed. If they just get it from NV, that’s kicking the ball down the road.
They get power from as far away as Utah.
More specifically, from here. I can’t pinpoint the power plant location but that’s the general area.
| 242 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:09:57pm |
re: #235 lostlakehiker
California ought to get “credit” for any coal-fired electricity it buys from neighboring states, to be fair. If CA got most of its electricity from nuclear, wind, solar, and geothermal, I’d be more impressed. If they just get it from NV, that’s kicking the ball down the road.
Mostly they buy it from nasty old Texas, without whose input they would be living in the fricking dark. But they can feel good about themselves while they pay through the wazoo for their juice.
| 243 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:11:12pm |
Can’t believe I jumped in to defend G.W.s’ right to disagree and he pissed his way through the whole thread.
Live and learn.
| 244 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:11:22pm |
re: #236 swamprat
re: #233 austin_blue
re: #234 Dark_Falcon
Nuclear Energy: the great uniter.
Yet the Greenies have blocked every proposed new nuclear plant for approximately the last 30 years. Even windmills get blocked because of the birds.
If we were united and the debate were honest we would not have an energy problem and our CO2 emisions would be much lower.
| 245 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:12:31pm |
re: #241 bosforus
They get power from as far away as Utah.
More specifically, from here. I can’t pinpoint the power plant location but that’s the general area.
I know at least some of my power comes from here.
| 246 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:14:17pm |
re: #244 Bagua
Yet the Greenies have blocked every proposed new nuclear plant for approximately the last 30 years. Even windmills get blocked because of the birds.
If we were united and the debate were honest we would not have an energy problem and our CO2 emisions would be much lower.
Let’s talk about dams!
You realize that this is largely about allowing nuke power?
| 247 |
bosforus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:14:32pm |
re: #240 The Shadow Do
Well, let it be known that any candidate not too far off his/her rocker seriously pushing nuclear energy will get my vote.
| 248 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:15:25pm |
re: #243 swamprat
Can’t believe I jumped in to defend G.W.s’ right to disagree and he pissed his way through the whole thread.
Live and learn.
I didn’t think he was a troll, he just didn’t like having the work evil bandied about. Many people are uneasy with the fact that “deniers” are always painted as evil liars or shills. No doubt some of them are. But many people are honest sceptics, and it is human nature to have bias and to spin things.
re: #246 swamprat
Let’s talk about dams!
You realize that this is largely about allowing nuke power?
I’m assuming you mean the blocking of dams as well?
| 249 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:15:57pm |
re: #244 Bagua
Yet the Greenies have blocked every proposed new nuclear plant for approximately the last 30 years. Even windmills get blocked because of the birds.
If we were united and the debate were honest we would not have an energy problem and our CO2 emisions would be much lower.
For nuvlear power to proceed, we need to bring moderate Dems together with the GOP to push the issue. We need new laws that reduce the legal avenues to object to new nuclear plant construction. Groups should have a chance to object and even sue, but not repeatedly and for the sole purpose of preventing action. There needs to be a way to say: “This plant passes muster. No further challenges will be heard.”
| 250 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:16:26pm |
re: #244 Bagua
Yet the Greenies have blocked every proposed new nuclear plant for approximately the last 30 years. Even windmills get blocked because of the birds.
If we were united and the debate were honest we would not have an energy problem and our CO2 emisions would be much lower.
I hate to say it because my company makes a ton of money on the windmill thing, but it is just ignorant to think that wind techonolgy will ever amount to a hill of beans in the big picture. Those who argue otherwise do so strictly from a political basis. It is not, I repeat, not a solution. If you do not embrace clean coal technology and nuclear you are an idealogue waltzing about in fantasy land. The cost of which has yet to be measured.
| 251 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:16:53pm |
re: #248 Bagua
Meant dams in general.
Didn’t think he was a troll. Just a sore-tailed cat.
| 252 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:17:55pm |
re: #243 swamprat
I am new to this and I am not sure what you mean by “pissed” my way through this thread. I defended myself against the most egregious accusations of Ludwig.
Regarding the use of the “evil” I still think it was wrong. In fact, rereading Charles answer at the top, he was careful to say that he would have no problems calling the behavior “evil”. The video calls the men “evil”, a much stronger use of the term.
| 254 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:19:16pm |
re: #249 Dark_Falcon
For nuclear power to proceed, we need to bring moderate Dems together with the GOP to push the issue. We need new laws that reduce the legal avenues to object to new nuclear plant construction. Groups should have a chance to object and even sue, but not repeatedly and for the sole purpose of preventing action. There needs to be a way to say: “This plant passes muster. No further challenges will be heard.”
PIMF
| 255 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:19:45pm |
re: #237 Bagua
I never said science = religion. Why do you heckle? I said that Ludwig is on a religious crusade, and that his quoting of religion on this thread does damage to countering the meme that you accuse me of asserting falsely.
Because of this:
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
You cannot invoke religion and attack science if you don’t accuse a scientist of being on a religious crusade. It is a beautiful, completely bullshit, circular argument.
Well played, shill!
| 256 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:20:01pm |
re: #249 Dark_Falcon
For nuvlear power to proceed, we need to bring moderate Dems together with the GOP to push the issue. We need new laws that reduce the legal avenues to object to new nuclear plant construction. Groups should have a chance to object and even sue, but not repeatedly and for the sole purpose of preventing action. There needs to be a way to say: “This plant passes muster. No further challenges will be heard.”
Exactly, and the net result of building the nuclear plants would be a reduction in CO2, a significant reduction. Yet, we are only permitted to dream about Solar, Windmills, Unicorns, and other grossly infective substitutes.
Cheep plentiful electricity from nuclear would not only replace Gas, Coal and Oil, it would make electric cars irresistible on purely economic terms.
| 257 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:20:21pm |
re: #250 The Shadow Do
I hate to say it because my company makes a ton of money on the windmill thing, but it is just ignorant to think that wind techonolgy will ever amount to a hill of beans in the big picture. Those who argue otherwise do so strictly from a political basis. It is not, I repeat, not a solution. If you do not embrace clean coal technology and nuclear you are an idealogue waltzing about in fantasy land. The cost of which has yet to be measured.
Clean Coal Technology is under the bus, wedged between The very Reverend Wright, and Iranian human rights.
| 258 |
bosforus Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:20:23pm |
re: #254 Dark_Falcon
PIMF
Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you may have been talking about nublear power. Cloud power.
| 259 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:20:55pm |
Austin, you tossed out a stat on mercury emissions, please link.
| 261 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:21:25pm |
| 262 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:24:02pm |
re: #253 Infidelica
Karma: -7
Infidelica
(Logged in)
Registered since: Feb 4, 2007 at 3:44 pm
No. of comments posted: 4
No. of links posted: 0
I smell socks…
| 263 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:24:15pm |
All of the Wind Farms in California combined produce about 1.7 GW of electric power. All of the ones I have seen are placed in optimal (usually very windy) areas.
The San Onofre Nuclear plant alone produces 2.2 GW of electric power. It takes up far less space too.
| 264 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:24:19pm |
re: #252 G.W.
I am new to this and I am not sure what you mean by “pissed” my way through this thread. I defended myself against the most egregious accusations of Ludwig.
Regarding the use of the “evil” I still think it was wrong. In fact, rereading Charles answer at the top, he was careful to say that he would have no problems calling the behavior “evil”. The video calls the men “evil”, a much stronger use of the term.
We have had a large number of trolls, stalkers and banned posters lately poisoning many of the discussions. As a result there is a great deal of suspicion on new posters until they have established their intentions. Most of the time the suspicion proves accurate, in your case I don’t see it, but it is suspicious that you registered in 2004 and only now decide to post. Many with similar circumstances have proven to be problems.
| 265 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:24:46pm |
re: #257 swamprat
Clean Coal Technology is under the bus, wedged between The very Reverend Wright, and Iranian human rights.
I’ve seen one clean coal experimental plant in my life. It’s owned by Golden Valley Electric Association in Alaska - it’s to the south, and it’s really really clean. You can’t see anything coming out of the stack.
You know why? Because it’s not running - after millions spent, they figured out that coal’s not clean. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that coal can be totally clean except in pipe dreams.
| 266 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:25:46pm |
re: #253 Infidelica
Not buying your story, sorry. Try peddling it elsewhere.
| 267 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:26:46pm |
re: #263 ArchangelMichael
All of the Wind Farms in California combined produce about 1.7 GW of electric power. All of the ones I have seen are placed in optimal (usually very windy) areas.
The San Onofre Nuclear plant alone produces 2.2 GW of electric power. It takes up far less space too.
It is also worthwhile to note that wind produced energy if not in immediate demand must be stored or lost. Nuclear and hydrocarbon generators can dial up or down on demand. Nothing more inefficienct that wind, unless it is solar.
| 269 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:27:35pm |
re: #259 The Shadow Do
Austin, you tossed out a stat on mercury emissions, please link.
Sorry, I was wrong. It’s 2000 pounds:
[Link: www.ewg.org…]
| 273 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:29:49pm |
Here’s the final report on the Healy clean coal project that I mentioned above.
[Link: www.netl.doe.gov…]
| 274 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:30:33pm |
re: #253 Infidelica
Another sleeper.
Anyone one have a can of “raid”?
P.S. I don’t believe you. It is a shame, too. This is wonderfully obscure, because since they don’t discuss it, you can’t provide any hardcore facts, which I would welcome.
No you come into here with 4 posts total after 2 years, post late at night with no verifiable facts, just some vague dismissals, and you think anybody is going to take you seriously.
Fail.
Adios.
| 275 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:30:36pm |
re: #265 Thanos
I’ve seen one clean coal experimental plant in my life. It’s owned by Golden Valley Electric Association in Alaska - it’s to the south, and it’s really really clean. You can’t see anything coming out of the stack.
You know why? Because it’s not running - after millions spent, they figured out that coal’s not clean. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that coal can be totally clean except in pipe dreams.
False, I don’t know the design details of the plant you reference but CO2 can be captured for use in O&G production or sequestered. It most certainly can be clean but there is very little investment in the technology.
| 276 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:32:27pm |
re: #255 austin_blue
Because of this:
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
You cannot invoke religion and attack science if you don’t accuse a scientist of being on a religious crusade. It is a beautiful, completely bullshit, circular argument.
Well played, shill!
So now I’m a shill?
Pay attention, I am not commenting on the science, I am commenting on Ludwig having read hundreds of his posts. There are people in every industry who go overboard. I believe Ludwig is one of those. His passion blinds him personally and his emotional outbursts prove that.
| 277 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:32:37pm |
| 278 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:32:56pm |
re: #275 The Shadow Do
False, I don’t know the design details of the plant you reference but CO2 can be captured for use in O&G production or sequestered. It most certainly can be clean but there is very little investment in the technology.
See the pdf above, show me where a coal plant produces zero emissions in the real world or stop with the “False” bit.
| 279 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:33:58pm |
re: #265 Thanos
That’s another thing I wish the GOP would stop peddling… “Clean Coal”. They can reduce the icky chemical pollutants and particulates only so much. They can NOT reduce the amount of CO2 emitted unless they somehow change the laws of physics. They should be advocating replacing all these damn coal plants with nuclear plants. Every… single… one… Build the new 5th-gen Nuc plant right in the spot where the coal one was if possible. Convert the rest of the coal industry into producing LPG or coal gasification. That way none of these precious coal jobs are lost and the GOP and others can stop pandering to coal industry lobbyists.
IMO this is a clear win-win even if AGW was not an issue.
| 280 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:36:11pm |
Little known coal fact: 30-50K people die every year worldwide due to coal power generation. (it fluctuates - the figures dropped for awhile during the period when coal was being phased down, but is rapidly rising again as coal usage is increasing dramtically. In 1978 >48,000 died.
| 281 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:37:12pm |
re: #279 ArchangelMichael
They can NOT reduce the amount of CO2 emitted unless they somehow change the laws of physics.
How so?
| 282 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:37:41pm |
Good Night all.
It has been entertaining and informative.
| 283 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:38:11pm |
re: #278 Thanos
See the pdf above, show me where a coal plant produces zero emissions in the real world or stop with the “False” bit.
Agreed. It is far from proven that Carbon Capture can be deployed economically on a large enough scale to be considered at this time.
Where progress has been made is in the reduction of the pollutants.
And Thanos,
While that may be true, many people also die worldwide from not having electricity. So the 30 - 50k must also be balanced by the lives that are saved.
| 284 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:38:25pm |
re: #259 The Shadow Do
Austin, you tossed out a stat on mercury emissions, please link.
See my 269 and really, don’t be so freaking lazy. Google is your friend. Why do you demand that someone else do your research for you? If the subject is so important that you demand that another Lizard provide you with chapter and verse, why don’t you do it yourself?
I’ve been on this board long enough that everyone who has sparred with me here should damn well know that the one thing I do *not* do is post bullshit science.
I leave that for shills and those soon to flounce.
| 285 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:38:59pm |
Little known coal fact: Any coal plant puts more radiation into the atmosphere every year than all of the nuclear plants in the US combined ever have in their life cycles.
| 286 |
swamprat Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:39:44pm |
re: #279 ArchangelMichael
Oil produces CO2 also. Combustion=CO2
Unless you burn hydrogen.
goodnight
| 287 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:39:46pm |
re: #276 Bagua
Pay attention, I am not commenting on the science, I am commenting on Ludwig having read hundreds of his posts. There are people in every industry who go overboard. I believe Ludwig is one of those. His passion blinds him personally and his emotional outbursts prove that.
I think he might suffer from the same disease that plagues people who try to refute the same 10 talking points for years on the internet (be it antivaxers, creationists or whatever). After a while the people questioning the basics stop being new people in need of information (or with legitimate concerns) and start becoming a nasty blur of uninformed or disinformation spreading bastards who need a stern talking to (or just be called an asshat).
It’s not right, but maybe it’s understandable?
| 288 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:39:49pm |
re: #278 Thanos
See the pdf above, show me where a coal plant produces zero emissions in the real world or stop with the “False” bit.
I think I was clear in that it can be done, and in fact prototype plants are drawn up but not funded. That is the real world. The real world will have no brook with coal in this contentious climate.
| 290 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:41:03pm |
re: #281 The Shadow Do
LVQ would probably be better at answering this but basically coal power, oversimplified works by this:
C + O2 + a little bit of energy -> CO2 + a lot of energy
There are also some hydrocarbons in coal too but, to keep it simple I’ll leave it at that. Nothing you can do will make the equation different. You cant magically get more energy or less CO2 on the right side.
| 291 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:41:12pm |
re: #283 Bagua
Yes, but deaths from Nuclear in the US are zero last year. Nuclear is much safer in terms of human lives.
| 292 |
The Shadow Do Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:41:40pm |
re: #284 austin_blue
See my 269 and really, don’t be so freaking lazy. Google is your friend. Why do you demand that someone else do your research for you? If the subject is so important that you demand that another Lizard provide you with chapter and verse, why don’t you do it yourself?
I’ve been on this board long enough that everyone who has sparred with me here should damn well know that the one thing I do *not* do is post bullshit science.
I leave that for shills and those soon to flounce.
Good grief, since when is it the responsibility of the reader to research the claims of the writer?
Bass ackwards. Good night Blue.
| 293 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:42:23pm |
re: #288 The Shadow Do
It’s a hypothesis that it can be done, just as it was a hypothesis when they spent millions on the Usibelli white elephant in Healy.
| 294 |
Kronocide Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:42:51pm |
re: #284 austin_blue
Results 1 - 10 of about 689,000 for stat on mercury emissions. (0.28 seconds)
OK I found some stats on mercury emissions. Which one were you speaking about?
| 295 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:44:32pm |
re: #277 swamprat
You ran the same thing for the whole thread. No change.
Right. That’s all I had to say.
I don’t know enough about the subject itself to voice an expert opinion.
However, I do notice that Mojib Latif says on the video: “we all believe that this long term warming trend is anthropogenic in nature…” Scientists rarely “believe”; they mostly have “evidence” for certain things. The anthropogenic nature of global warming must not be on as solid a ground as the actual warming.
| 296 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:45:04pm |
Time for me to get some sleeps
| 297 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:45:36pm |
re: #291 Thanos
Yes, but deaths from Nuclear in the US are zero last year. Nuclear is much safer in terms of human lives.
Absolutely! I’d love to see a massive roll-out of nuclear power. We would quickly reach a point where coal is no longer much of an issue.
| 298 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:47:47pm |
re: #290 ArchangelMichael
The idea is that CO2 could be sequestered, either chemically or stored underground. In either case, the efficiency of the overall production scheme (i.e., the amount of usable energy sent to the grid per mass of coal) is reduced because energy has to be expended to put the CO2 somewhere.
| 299 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:48:30pm |
re: #291 Thanos
Yes, but deaths from Nuclear in the US are zero last year. Nuclear is much safer in terms of human lives.
That’s a very odd way of reasoning. Echoes of the Concorde being the safest plane ever.. until one crashed. Just as wrong as saying nuclear energy is terribly unsafe because of Chernobyl?
| 300 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:48:32pm |
re: #295 G.W.
Do note that English is not his mother tongue.
| 301 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:48:48pm |
re: #290 ArchangelMichael
And I’ll add to that. A lot of the pollution produced by coal plants comes from impurities in the coal, inefficient combustion, the fact that nitrogen is 80% of air, etc. If you are able to reduce or eliminate these so that the reaction is more “pure” you increase the energy output but also the amount of CO2. Making it “cleaner” technically makes it worse as far as AGW is concerned.
Also coal power plants do not help us give the finger to the Saudis. There is not enough of them to sustain a massive rollout of electric vehicle or to power Hydrogen generation.
| 302 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:50:24pm |
re: #299 cenotaphium
That’s a very odd way of reasoning. Echoes of the Concorde being the safest plane ever.. until one crashed. Just as wrong as saying nuclear energy is terribly unsafe because of Chernobyl?
Nuclear has been safe for almost half a century, can you point me to some news articles detailing deaths from Nuclear energy in the US?
| 303 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:51:01pm |
re: #298 freetoken
I don’t think ‘Carbon Sequestration’ is what Sarah Palin was yammering about last year during speeches when she mentioned Clean Coal.
| 304 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:51:37pm |
re: #276 Bagua
So now I’m a shill?
Pay attention, I am not commenting on the science, I am commenting on Ludwig having read hundreds of his posts. There are people in every industry who go overboard. I believe Ludwig is one of those. His passion blinds him personally and his emotional outbursts prove that.
Sweet! Now are the “sane voice of reason” who is trying to marginalize a single poster on this board. Please include include Charles and myself in your attacks.
This is talking point number xxx in the skeptics playbook. Isolate the most cogent commenter and then marginalize him or her.
That’s what makes you a shill.
| 305 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:52:48pm |
I picked the Bangles song to part with because it’s from a time when I first started having this debate with the “clean coal and biomass” crowd more than 20 years ago in alt.sci.energy. My arguments and facts have not changed in all that time and have never been refuted, but some just will not see reality. Nuclear is inevitable, the sooner the better for all of us.
| 306 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:53:23pm |
re: #287 cenotaphium
I think he might suffer from the same disease that plagues people who try to refute the same 10 talking points for years on the internet (be it antivaxers, creationists or whatever). After a while the people questioning the basics stop being new people in need of information (or with legitimate concerns) and start becoming a nasty blur of uninformed or disinformation spreading bastards who need a stern talking to (or just be called an asshat).
It’s not right, but maybe it’s understandable?
I agree, and I’m not trying to demonise Ludwig, in fact I tend to agree with him more than 98% percent of the time (in my estimation) on a whole range of issues. I also never have accused his of lying, intentional dishonesty or any form of immorality.
| 307 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:55:01pm |
re: #303 ArchangelMichael
Oh, I agree… Sarah Palin (and the rest of the yammering politicians) don’t really know what they are talking about when uttering “clean coal”. Nevertheless, there are approaches to using coal other than those we currently use.
For example, underground coal gasification (UCG). That is, you don’t dig up the stuff, but burn it partially, while it is in place. One drills holes into the coal seam, pump in air, start a fire, then pump out the combustion gases which include not only CO2 but also CO (and perhaps some others). The gases that aren’t CO2 can be used (with the input of energy, of course) to make liquids via a gas to liquids (GTL) process.
The net energy of such a process is only a fraction of current coal burning, but nearly all the nasty stuff (such as mercury) is left in situ.
| 308 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:56:53pm |
re: #303 ArchangelMichael
I don’t think ‘Carbon Sequestration’ is what Sarah Palin was yammering about last year during speeches when she mentioned Clean Coal.
Sarah backs clean coal because Alaska was built on it. Most of the plants up there are coal. It’s the one thing in Alaska that’s relatively cheap and plentiful.
| 309 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 10:58:58pm |
re: #302 Thanos
Nuclear has been safe for almost half a century, can you point me to some news articles detailing deaths from Nuclear energy in the US?
My point was that as it is a comparatively low source of energy, it stands to reason that the amount of accidents and deaths would also be low, even if the rates of accidents and deaths were the same.
Wiki says the following about the Three Mile Island accident:
The nuclear power industry claims that there were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects from the accident,[11] but a peer-reviewed study by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were 2 to 10 times higher downwind of TMI than upwind, and also showed that there was plant and animal chromosomal damage, but without considering the effects of stress or improved screening.[12] In addition, the Radiation and Public Health Project reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.
Now, the point here (which you might have guessed from the Chernobyl comment) wasn’t that I think nuclear energy is deadly and should be avoided. I think nuclear energy is the way forward.
I was just commenting on the statistics problem in your statement.
| 310 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:00:11pm |
re: #307 freetoken
Oh, I agree… Sarah Palin (and the rest of the yammering politicians) don’t really know what they are talking about when uttering “clean coal”. Nevertheless, there are approaches to using coal other than those we currently use.
For example, underground coal gasification (UCG). That is, you don’t dig up the stuff, but burn it partially, while it is in place. One drills holes into the coal seam, pump in air, start a fire, then pump out the combustion gases which include not only CO2 but also CO (and perhaps some others). The gases that aren’t CO2 can be used (with the input of energy, of course) to make liquids via a gas to liquids (GTL) process.
The net energy of such a process is only a fraction of current coal burning, but nearly all the nasty stuff (such as mercury) is left in situ.
That is one of the things I was advocating. Replace the normal coal burning plants with nuclear (pebble bed reactors or some other “meltdown” proof setup) and then convert the rest of the coal industry to do exactly what you suggested among other alternative uses for coal.
| 311 |
martinsmithy Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:01:01pm |
The real issue that these nimrods should be exploring is NOT whether global warming is a “hoax.” It’s not.
The real issue they should be exploring is: is the cure worse than the disease? Will more people suffer because of economic dislocations associated with climate change, or because of economic dislocations associated with effectively combatting climate change?
It’s a much closer question.
By ignoring the real question, Beck et. al. show their true intellectual unseriousness. As do their defenders on this thread.
| 312 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:04:37pm |
re: #311 martinsmithy
The real issue that these nimrods should be exploring is NOT whether global warming is a “hoax.” It’s not.
The real issue they should be exploring is: is the cure worse than the disease? Will more people suffer because of economic dislocations associated with climate change, or because of economic dislocations associated with effectively combatting climate change?
It’s a much closer question.
By ignoring the real question, Beck et. al. show their true intellectual unseriousness. As do their defenders on this thread.
The cure is worse than the disease if we let the left-wing eco-con artists “own” this issue and ram-rod their horrible solutions through. Realistic solutions to the problem which do not turn us into a giant Amish country or a 3rd world communist cesspool are discussed here at length. Step one to any of this requires nuclear power adoption on a great scale. Anything else is just jerking off.
| 313 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:08:14pm |
re: #312 ArchangelMichael
The cure is worse than the disease if we let the left-wing eco-con artists “own” this issue and ram-rod their horrible solutions through. Realistic solutions to the problem which do not turn us into a giant Amish country or a 3rd world communist cesspool are discussed here at length. Step one to any of this requires nuclear power adoption on a great scale. Anything else is just jerking off.
Ah. “Realistic solutions”. What would you suggest? Nuclear power is a step I agree with to provide base power. What would you do in the transportation sector?
| 314 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:08:37pm |
re: #309 cenotaphium
The Wing study was bought by plaintiff’s attorneys trying a bigger shakedown, and it has been debunked. Correlation is not cause, there are only potentially caused minor increases in the Wing study.
A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the Steven Wing studies that claim that the health records of people who lived near the facility indicate patterns that would be consistent with much higher radiation releases than were reported.
It is important to note that Wing does not present any evidence that those higher releases occurred. He ASSUMES that the cancer rates that he teased out of health records are accurate and cannot be explained by any other phenomenon.
[Link: atomicinsights.blogspot.com…]
It’s one outlier, now can you show me a death directly attributable to Nuclear energy, as I can show you obituaries for p silicosis, mine cave ins, suffocation deaths, methane explosions in tunnels, projected deaths from pollution from coal plants etc.
| 315 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:09:40pm |
And if you reply I”ll have to check tomorrow, it’s way past my bedtime.
| 316 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:11:49pm |
re: #304 austin_blue
Sweet! Now are the “sane voice of reason” who is trying to marginalize a single poster on this board. Please include include Charles and myself in your attacks.
This is talking point number xxx in the skeptics playbook. Isolate the most cogent commenter and then marginalize him or her.
That’s what makes you a shill.
Why should I attack Charles? If he made an assertion I disagreed with I would note my position as I did on this thread. The fact is I rarely find anything he says or posts disagreeable.
As to you, we sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, in fact we are often in disagreement as you tend to take a liberal view of many issues (in my biased and slanted opinion) and I tend to take a more conservative view.
As far as any “playbook” I find your insinuation to be overly suspicious. Ludwig gets more of my attention because he is by far the loudest and shrillest voice in the room, with by far the most to say on the issue. I also spend more time chatting with him on a wide variety of issues, most of which we agree on.
You seem to see “shills” a lot, I recall you said something similar to Salamantis. If I may indulge in your method, I note that it is a standard Warmist playbook technique to insinuate that every AGW sceptic or agnostic is automatically immoral, dishonest, or corrupt. It may be true in some cases, Glenn Beck certainly fits those labels, but methinks you carry this a bit too far.
| 317 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:12:36pm |
Here for instance is just one chart from the UK
Image: coal-1.gif
| 318 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:15:12pm |
re: #315 Thanos
And if you reply I”ll have to check tomorrow, it’s way past my bedtime.
Well, Chernobyl is the obvious case, but that was Russian tech, and really bad tech. Did TMI result in any confirmed deaths? Not yet, that I know of, but the jury is still out..
Again, I am a huge advocate of 3G and 4G nuclear power stations. The more, the merrier.
| 319 |
cenotaphium Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:15:24pm |
re: #314 Thanos
Dear me. Did you completely miss out on what I’ve been explaining for two posts now?
Better let this one rest for now.
| 320 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:20:21pm |
re: #295 G.W.
Right. That’s all I had to say.
I don’t know enough about the subject itself to voice an expert opinion.
However, I do notice that Mojib Latif says on the video: “we all believe that this long term warming trend is anthropogenic in nature…” Scientists rarely “believe”; they mostly have “evidence” for certain things. The anthropogenic nature of global warming must not be on as solid a ground as the actual warming.
That is not at all a reasonable point at all. The word “believe” is not only an indication of faith. One could “believe” something to be accurate based solely upon facts and evidence.
| 321 |
Randall Gross Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:22:03pm |
re: #319 cenotaphium
Dear me. Did you completely miss out on what I’ve been explaining for two posts now?
Better let this one rest for now.
No, I don’t consider 20 percent of US electric generation a “low source”, now I really am going to bed.
| 322 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:26:17pm |
re: #320 Bagua
I never heard a physicist say that he believes that the Newtonian force of gravity is an inverse square law, or that he believes spacetime is 4 dimensional.
| 323 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:28:03pm |
re: #322 G.W.
Repeat what I said above: English is not his mother tongue! Don’t try to sort out the subtleties of connotations in the words of someone who is speaking to them a foreign language.
| 324 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:30:15pm |
re: #134 Bagua
Agreed, sadly Ludwig is such a fanatic on this issue that he can’t help himself and he most certainly is on a religious crusade on the issue of Global Warming. (Right or wrongly.)
Being pissed off at charlatans and know-nothings does not make you a fanatic. It just means you’re angry. There’s no “sadly” about it, we need more people like him.
| 325 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:30:58pm |
re: #316 Bagua
Why should I attack Charles? If he made an assertion I disagreed with I would note my position as I did on this thread. The fact is I rarely find anything he says or posts disagreeable.
As to you, we sometimes disagree and sometimes agree, in fact we are often in disagreement as you tend to take a liberal view of many issues (in my biased and slanted opinion) and I tend to take a more conservative view.
As far as any “playbook” I find your insinuation to be overly suspicious. Ludwig gets more of my attention because he is by far the loudest and shrillest voice in the room, with by far the most to say on the issue. I also spend more time chatting with him on a wide variety of issues, most of which we agree on.
You seem to see “shills” a lot, I recall you said something similar to Salamantis. If I may indulge in your method, I note that it is a standard Warmist playbook technique to insinuate that every AGW sceptic or agnostic is automatically immoral, dishonest, or corrupt. It may be true in some cases, Glenn Beck certainly fits those labels, but methinks you carry this a bit too far.
Ooh! Mentioning Glen Beck in a negative sense gets you brownie points! Well played!
Attacking LVQ’s position is attacking Charles’ position. You post no links to support your bias. You just throw sand in the gears. Back up your position with facts. If you can’t do it without incurring the wrath of the Head Lizard, then understand that you bring nothing to the conversation.
You are just a shill.
| 326 |
Kronocide Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:31:00pm |
I believe anybody who says ‘believe’ is a raging creationist. Unless you’re an atheist, then you’re just assuming.
| 327 |
Jack Burton Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:32:15pm |
re: #313 austin_blue
Ah. “Realistic solutions”. What would you suggest? Nuclear power is a step I agree with to provide base power. What would you do in the transportation sector?
Convert as much of the transportation (private vehicles, commercial trucking and trains, etc) sector to electric as possible. Convert the coal industry to LPG and Coal Gasification for areas that cannot go electric. Increase domestic petroleum production while decreasing petroleum demand (to tell the Saudis and Chavez to Kiss our asses). If we have enough surplus energy to make use of hydrogen at that point for things such as aircraft fuel, then do that as well.
I don’t believe we will stop global warming because on a long term scale (which global avg temp fluctuates between 12°C and 25°C) we have been naturally on the uptrend for thousands of years. I believe GHG emissions by industry are accelerating it, not causing it. We can slow it down so we have more time to adapt to the changes without armageddon ensuing.
| 328 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:32:27pm |
re: #322 G.W.
I never heard a physicist say that he believes that the Newtonian force of gravity is an inverse square law, or that he believes spacetime is 4 dimensional.
I disagree. I have heard many scientists say “believe” when giving their best opinion based entirely on sound science and sound analysis.
| 329 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:34:21pm |
re: #323 freetoken
Doesn’t he write most of his papers in English? English is in fact practically the “scientific mother tongue” of most scientists. I don’t think the use of “believe” was accidental. For example, would he never say “I believe global temperatures show a rising trend”?
| 330 |
austin_blue Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:35:57pm |
Arrgh. 1:40. Goodnight, all! Sweet dreams.
| 331 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:37:06pm |
re: #324 WindUpBird
Being pissed off at charlatans and know-nothings does not make you a fanatic. It just means you’re angry. There’s no “sadly” about it, we need more people like him.
I agree, and please note that most of the anger and invective was targeted at me, so I feel justified in being a little snippy myself. When was the last time you were called a liar repeatedly and didn’t push back a bit. As far a “needing” Ludwig, I agree, he adds a great deal to many discussions, please note that I only dispute him on a small fraction of what he says. Most of the fire comes at me, not from me.
| 332 |
William Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:39:55pm |
Given the scale of planet Earth, looking at “climate change” over a 30-year period is folly.
Check the chart at 5:17 in the video. A sharp cooling followed the Industrial Revolution, and the temperature remained virtually unchanged from 1900 to 1960 — this is also mostly meaningless.
Earth is too large to measure changes in this way.
This is basic stuff learned in Geology 101. There has never been “Climate Constant” here on Earth, but rather periods of cooling and warming, as the planets do not have perfect orbits, unchanging axes, or unchanging magnetic fields. Mort importantly, the output and behavior of the Sun also varies.
Humans, in their arrogance, tend to think everything as we know it ‘today’ is as it’s always been. In reality, we are flying precariously through space at 67,000 miles per hour on a massive molten rock, interacting with other bodies and events in the Solar System.
The context of these charts is that of a flea noticing how it’s getting warmer as noon approaches, and becoming alarmed at the crisis, when there’s a whole day, week, month, year, decade, century, and millennium, of weather to follow.
| 333 |
freetoken Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:40:07pm |
re: #329 G.W.
First, writing and speaking are two different skills, and there are technical editors that help with published papers if needed.
Secondly, I was referring to connotations, not denotations. You are trying to read into his use of “belief” an idea that, in American contemporary English while common, may not have been his intent.
Among the denotations of “believe” is “have confidence in”… and I propose that when used in a scientific context that is how “believe” is often used.
In a religious context, especially in America, “believe” often means “accept without the need for evidence”. I suggest that is not what Latif meant.
| 334 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:41:26pm |
re: #325 austin_blue
[…]
You are just a shill.
Whatever austin, you are just being a troll at the moment and trying to stir things up. I am always happy to argue my side and happy to be proven wrong. I’ll not engage you on such a juvenile level.
| 335 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:44:15pm |
re: #332 William
Geeze, have you been paying attention? Charles and Ludwig have been posting chapter and verse on this topic and all you counter with is worn adages and debunked talking points. Do your homework before you try your hand at refuting.
| 336 |
G.W. Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:44:30pm |
re: #328 Bagua
Perhaps, but not when the evidence is solid enough.
re: #333 freetoken
In a religious context, especially in America, “believe” often means “accept without the need for evidence”. I suggest that is not what Latif meant.
I don’t think that’s what he meant either, only that the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of global warming is much weaker than the actual warming itself.
Again, I am not a climate scientist (and I don’t have the time to become an expert), so I cannot judge the science itself. This is simply my subjective impression.
| 337 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:46:37pm |
re: #276 Bagua
So now I’m a shill?
Pay attention, I am not commenting on the science, I am commenting on Ludwig having read hundreds of his posts. There are people in every industry who go overboard. I believe Ludwig is one of those. His passion blinds him personally and his emotional outbursts prove that.
Man oh man. This is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. And you still haven’t answered the guy’s question. Because you can’t. He riddled you, you got no answer.
I see no argument or evidence that LVQ’s passions “blind” him at all. I see him becoming angry, because he’s confronted with shills, misdirections, and outright lies. You don’t “win” an argument because you succeed in frustrating the other party with lies and ad hominem attacks. The truth doesn’t stop being the truth because the messenger is emotional and frustrated.
And a liar and a shill is still a liar and a shill no matter how smooth and calm he appears.
| 338 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:48:20pm |
re: #331 Bagua
I agree, and please note that most of the anger and invective was targeted at me, so I feel justified in being a little snippy myself. When was the last time you were called a liar repeatedly and didn’t push back a bit. As far a “needing” Ludwig, I agree, he adds a great deal to many discussions, please note that I only dispute him on a small fraction of what he says. Most of the fire comes at me, not from me.
Then push back with facts! Right now, what I am watching is you crowing about how LVQ has gone “overboard” because he’s pissed off.
| 339 |
Bagua Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:52:02pm |
re: #332 William
[…]
Earth is too large to measure changes in this way.This is basic stuff learned in Geology 101. There has never been “Climate Constant” here on Earth, but rather periods of cooling and warming, as the planets do not have perfect orbits, unchanging axes, or unchanging magnetic fields. Mort importantly, the output and behavior of the Sun also varies.
[…]
.
Right! Perfect example of a simplistic and bogus statement. If you think you can refute a huge and complex body of science by citing “Geology 101” and a little prose you are all wet.
(I see I have to fill in for Ludwig now)
re: #337 WindUpBird
What are you even talking about Windupbird? What point did I lie on? Yes I am a bit cross with Ludwig because he called me a liar. And don’t pull the “Ad Hominem” fallisy on me, I doubt you even understand it.
| 340 |
Dark_Falcon Wed, Oct 7, 2009 11:54:57pm |
| 341 |
Jack Burton Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:00:24am |
| 342 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:05:20am |
re: #340 Dark_Falcon
Ok I’ll be quiet. But just for the record, there should be a different butthurt level for people that are just pissed at being called a liar and a shill. How about “stroppy?”
| 343 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:07:36am |
re: #342 Bagua
Ok I’ll be quiet. But just for the record, there should be a different butthurt level for people that are just pissed at being called a liar and a shill. How about “stroppy?”
Ask iceweasel. She and Jimmah are the keepers of the meter.
| 344 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:42:36am |
re: #316 Bagua
Bagua, You whine a lot and pontificate a lot about not insulting people and yet, you call accurate assessments of the science alarmist, and fanatic and all sorts of other words that would dismiss it. Then you even use words like warmist.
How precisely is that not going to piss people off. Particularly when you bring no facts of your own to ever balance out your wildly wrong claims.
You seem to miss the point that in a science debate no one cares about how you feel or what your opinion is. It simply does not matter. The science is accurate and my representation of it is accurate.
You also make these derisive wide sweeping claims without backing them up whatsoever.
When called on this, you play whiny semantic games.
It got very old a long time ago.
I am not calling you out on this.
How and when did Sinclair ever cherry pick?
| 345 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:47:46am |
re: #179 Bagua
Prove it jerk! Right or wrong I most certainly did not lie!
You really are a die hard fanatic Ludwig.
You lied when you said that Sinclair has cherry picked.
Back it up. You have had a whole thread to do so. You continue to fail to do so.
| 346 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:49:05am |
re: #2 Bagua
In his last video, Sinclair used his own crockery to dispute crockery, while his videos are well done and it is important to debunk nonsense, this makes one very suspicious of their agenda and accuracy.
And what is crockery here?
Back it up.
I am so tired of your crap.
Just back up a single thing you say with a fact rather than just calling it names.
| 347 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:50:32am |
re: #342 Bagua
Ok I’ll be quiet. But just for the record, there should be a different butthurt level for people that are just pissed at being called a liar and a shill. How about “stroppy?”
Well then stop shilling and stop lying.
How did Sinclair cherry pick? You claimed he did. That is a lie.
| 348 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:57:54am |
re: #336 G.W.
Perhaps, but not when the evidence is solid enough.
re: #333 freetoken
I don’t think that’s what he meant either, only that the evidence for the anthropogenic nature of global warming is much weaker than the actual warming itself.
This is a completely false statement. Do back it up with some science if you have any. Otherwise you are just shilling. You have seen about 20 threads with me. Do go to the appropriate links I have given. Try actually reading them. Here is a place to start and it answers this false claim of yours quite well.
[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu…]
Before the industrial era, circa 1800, atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 280 ppmv for several thousand of years (that is, between 275 and 280 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); this we know from the composition of ancient air trapped in polar ice. Carbon dioxide has risen continuously since then, and the average value when Dr. Keeling ted his measurements in 1958 was near 315 ppmv. By the year 2000 it has risen to about 367 ppmv (that is 367 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air). Thus, it is higher than pre-industrial values by one third of the pre-industrial era. (You can check the math on your calculator.)
Again, I am not a climate scientist (and I don’t have the time to become an expert),
Then perhaps you should stop calling the experts names and dismissing the seriousness of the facts. Perhaps you should listen to them.
so I cannot judge the science itself. This is simply my subjective impression.And yet you use judgmental language like warmist and alarmist and fanatic. Cut the crap Bagua. And don’t really don’t tell me about how this is not the point. I have ceased to care what you think the point is. The point is that you insult the science and the facts and make false claims that you can not back.
How did Sinclair cherry pick?
| 349 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 1:19:54am |
re: #347 LudwigVanQuixote
Jeepers Ludwig, I was dropping the matter and you come back calling me a liar several more times and even a shill. I never called you a liar mate, play nice.
As to to your question, I said repeatedly that I made my points on the other thread right here on this blog. I based my criticism of Sinclair on those points and referenced the thread, several times. And I said I’d be happy to defend those assertions on that thread but I didn’t see the point dragging them here. How is that lying or shilling or whatever? I expressed a critic of his presentation and cited my arguments.
And what I don’t quite understand Ludwig, is how is it so offensive that I find some fault with Sinclair on his rhetorical presentation? In what way would that invalidate the science of AGW? How is that shilling?
I also clearly said that Sinclair was correct in debunking simplistic anti-AGW hogwash, and that he made better and more valid points. My criticism was that his debunking had some simplistic arguments that lead me to criticise his work as a debunker.
Honestly, does the science require that every word issued by every activist be accepted as infallible? Is no criticism of any sort to be tolerated? Since when does a graphic artist get the status as an infallible scientist?
| 350 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 1:27:43am |
re: #348 LudwigVanQuixote
Do you even realise that on your sixth post you were quoting and responding to what G.W. wrote and yet talking to me as though I wrote it? Did you not note that I disputed the arguments G.W made AGW?
Get a grip man.
| 351 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 1:49:49am |
re: #350 Bagua
Do you even realise that on your sixth post you were quoting and responding to what G.W. wrote and yet talking to me as though I wrote it? Did you not note that I disputed the arguments G.W made AGW?
Get a grip man.
You are right. I misread that one post. It does not take from anything. You brought it to this thread. So don’t back out you called him a cherry picker.
Back it up and stop trying to weasel out.
Either he is or he isn’t.
If he did not cherry pick, and that is a much different claim than being over simplistic, then say you were wrong and i will let it drop.
You can then let that be a lesson to you about not making bold assertions without evidence.
| 352 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 2:00:11am |
re: #351 LudwigVanQuixote
OK Ludwig, Comment by comment. And I respect the fact you conceded that.
On your first reply to my first comment, you did a similar thing #7 You refuted a point I didn’t make. I specificly mentioned the last video posted on the CO2 meme, I didn’t say he was wrong about Latiff, of course he was telling the truth on that.
So that’s another one you were challenging me on something I didn’t say. Please respond while I continue, getting to your question I think next.
| 353 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 2:47:46am |
Link to comment I cited in thread I identified
I said in that thread:
The first part of the video is very good, it highlights the complexity of the issue and the problem with simplistic statements that do not consider all factors.
Yet, it is also clear that the author wants to use his own assumptions to fit his agenda. While the experiment with the beetles and the CO2 enriched plants clearly showed a potentially unexpected consequence, that the beetles enjoyed the lush growth and became more of a pest, this also suggests that in the presence of a chemical or biological or even genetic counter to control the beetles, we would indeed enjoy lusher plant growth with that particular species.
In this case the enriched CO2 can have a range of influence dependent on the pests and the counter measures. A good debunking of simplistic CO2 is all good allegations, but also another example of how enrichment always has to be bad.
Every greenhouse crop everywhere employs active management to elevate the CO2 or counteract its depletion to improve plant growth. This is a fact.
That is the example I said was “cherry picked” in that it is one isolated example that does not apply to all plants and all bugs in all eco systems. Nor does it even employ normal farming practice as a control, which would have been easy to do.
It debunks that CO2 is only good but it doesn’t prove that its only bad. Nor does it address whether the growth would have been greater if the pest was controlled.
I could be wrong Ludwig, and my reasoning could be bad, but it is unfair to say it is an intentional lie. It was also only one of a few examples I gave to back up my assertion.
| 354 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:14:00am |
re: #353 Bagua
It is astonishing how much you back down when forced to actually state your case…
So in his six minute video, he does not have the time perhaps to quote the dozens of studies on such things or the many ecosystems negatively affected by such things… He chose only a few representative examples.
You really only said that you would like more examples… OK
Yet your statement here was that he cherry picked. You are the one doing the distortions. It got old a while ago. Had you asked nicely, I would have gladly given you references.
Try this from PNAS sited over 200 times
[Link: www.pnas.org…]
Despite the coarse scale of the analysis, species from mountains could be seen to be disproportionably sensitive to climate change (≈60% species loss). The boreal region was projected to lose few species, although gaining many others from immigration. The greatest changes are expected in the transition between the Mediterranean and Euro-Siberian regions. We found that risks of extinction for European plants may be large, even in moderate scenarios of climate change and despite inter-model variability.
or this sited over 400 times reviews many different species.
[Link: www.law.arizona.edu…]
Also look at this from NIH
[Link: arjournals.annualreviews.org…]
And this again from PNAS
[Link: www.pnas.org…]
Why not give these a look before claiming that Sinclair is cherry picking and continuing to use your rather slimy language of warmist and alarmist and so forth.
You really have no idea how well we scientists actually know this field or just how certain we really are.
If you would ask questions rather than being insulting then perhaps we could get somewhere. I repeat to you. The one whose tone is consistently exaggerated is yours.
The effects of this, the KNOWN effects of this are vastly worse than you give credit to. Hundreds of millions of people really are facing death from the effects of AGW. We really are causing it. There really is the evidence for it. It really is true.
Do not go and tell me about how you don’t think there is certainty. There is plenty of certainty. This is for real. Next time you think a story is incomplete please ask. Or here is a truly radical idea, consider using google scholar yourself. Look at some papers on your own, and then save yourself from making ignorant remarks.
Next time you call something completely true, fanatical or alarmist or cherry picked or any of your other common derisive terms I promise I will come down on you like a ton of bricks. There are lives at stake. No one has the time for you discrediting the truth.
| 355 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:18:25am |
PIMF
Next time you call something which is completely true, something slimy and derisive like fanatical or alarmist or hysterical or cherry picked or any of your other common derisive terms, I promise I will come down on you like a ton of bricks. There are lives at stake. No one has the time for you discrediting the truth.
| 356 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:27:16am |
Also, Bagua watch this. Your claim that scientists don’t speak in certainties might just be a little shaken.
| 357 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:29:57am |
And while we are at it when I say hundreds of millions will die, I am being optimistic and not alarmist.
Watch this too.
[Link: www.youtube.com…]
| 358 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:30:59am |
re: #357 LudwigVanQuixote
Wrong link previously..
And while we are at it when I say hundreds of millions will die, I am being optimistic and not alarmist.
Watch this too.
[Link: www.youtube.com…]
| 359 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:33:04am |
Lol, OK really here is the link I meant…
| 360 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 3:44:57am |
Also to those who would like to know more about what the models are and how good they are, please look at this.
It also says a lot about James Hansen, who was grossly and unjustly vilified by right wing punditry.
| 361 |
gamark Thu, Oct 8, 2009 6:59:52am |
re: #14 Charles
What would you call it when someone deliberately lies about facts in order to promote an agenda?
Congressional floor debate.
| 362 |
acacia Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:15:59am |
This video is fairly damning. The only possible justification is that some other part of his speech gave credence to their “take.” However, his views are very clear and so I have to go with the dishonest spin. However, the whole global warming debate frustrates me because this issue isn’t about the myriad of data but what, if anything, should be done and how. In my mind cap and trade is ridiculous. It has too high a cost for totally speculative and at best meager returns and, most importantly, does not address the countries today that are truly contributing to the warming - China, India, Russia. It also doesn’t address what “should” our average temperature be and/or what parts of the world we should concentrate on. The only way I can see the problem being “fixed” is with technology.
| 363 |
caution Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:31:40am |
Charles (or other smart people)
Have you seen “[Link: plantsneedco2.org…] ?
I’m not up on this stuff and rarely do I post here, but after reading that site, I’m curious about who all is behind it.
| 364 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:34:46am |
re: #354 ludwigvanquixote
It is astonishing how much you back down when forced to actually state your case… […]
.
Ludwig, that is ridiculous, I didn’t “back down” I repeated what I had written on the prior thread. Your charge was that I “lied” and that I never made my point. Now you’ve changed that to that I am wrong, but you won’t back down from your charge of dishonesty or not “backing up” my opinion on the video.
If there are hundreds of other examples that demonstrate that the added growth from enriched CO2 causes exploding insect populations then it was the video that failed to make that point. The abstracts from the papers you linked appear to be talking about the effects from temperature change, which is a different effect. The video was trying to demonstrate that their would be no added growth from the additional “plant food.” I had already allowed that there could have been other negative factors, such as temperature related ones.
You then jump in with “hundreds of millions will die,” what are talking about, plants or people? The video was about the limited claim that CO2 causes increased plant growth, not the anticipated effect on human populations from other factors such as a rising ocean. You even add a video on ice loss, nothing to do with the issue of increased plant growth. You are lumping in arguments from other threads on other discussions on other points to skirt the one actual point of contention.
You didn’t even acknowledge my point that in comment in comment #352 that in comment #7 you were refuting a point I never made, something you did twice in this thread and admitted once. An indication that you are typing away frantically.
Once again you are taking my point that the video had shortcomings in making its argument that CO2 enrichment does not lead to increased biomass as a personal attack on you and a blanket disputation of the entire AGW theory. Then threatening me with your “ton of bricks” and anger as though this is the Ludwig lecture series and you are some fearsome teacher, not a comment section on a single video presentation disputing a single point. All of this you heap on from my “daring” to write a couple of critical sentences.
You are all over the place Ludwig, you’ve not even addressed the actual issue of CO2 leading to increased biomass or my point on pest management while farming. While you were ranting at me on the thread you were simultaneously lecturing on about Talmudic law, and condemning a “false Jew” and pleading that he be banned.
Your debating style is hysterical and bombastic on this issue Ludwig, that observation stands. You can’t stand even the tiniest bit of dissent on a limited point. My answer to you in the future will simply be *gaze.*
| 365 |
MinisterO Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:39:54am |
re: #362 acacia
This video is fairly damning. The only possible justification is that some other part of his speech gave credence to their “take.” However, his views are very clear and so I have to go with the dishonest spin.
Wow. For those commenting without watching this video, watch the video. Acacia is being charitable. The tv denialists are lying.
| 367 |
Coracle Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:19:49am |
re: #362 acacia
However, the whole global warming debate frustrates me because this issue isn’t about the myriad of data but what, if anything, should be done and how.
The problem is too many people with influence on “what should be done” do think the issue is about the data. They’re wrong, but if they’re going to deny the issue exists at all, no solution is possible.
| 368 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:35:47pm |
re: #364 Bagua
This is what you said that pissed everyone off in #15
My points were not disputed on that thread, as I said, Sinclair was correct in that he was debunking false assertions, but his examples were also cherry picked. (The one I am referring to was the CO2 is food one)
You once again, paint things as something they are not, while attempting to sound like the wounded reasonable one.
You seem to completely miss the point so I will make it again as clearly as I can.
The entire issue of AGW is very serious business. Lives are at stake because of it. Human lives, in the hundreds of millions for certain (and perhaps billions) are at stake (though we are also looking at mass extinctions involving many species). The science is vastly more clear about these things than you imagine.
That is the truth. You would discredit that truth. Whenever someone says something clearly about how dire the actual situations is, when backed by the science, you get slimy in your language. You call it hysterical and alarmist and any number of other things like cherry picking in this case. That discredits the truth. That risks people getting killed.
This is what I am referring to and why you keep getting dings. I stopped caring about however you wish to reframe this perhaps ten posts ago. The only one all over the place is you.
Another tact of yours is to get hyper pedantic and say all kinds of distracting crap. The point of the last thread was that climate change will destroy crops and plantlife. There are many mechanisms by which this will happen, though direct CO2 related ones are also discussed in those links. If you really want to confine it to just beetles there are more papers about that too.
| 369 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 12:42:51pm |
re: #363 caution
Charles (or other smart people)
Have you seen “[Link: plantsneedco2.org…] ?
I’m not up on this stuff and rarely do I post here, but after reading that site, I’m curious about who all is behind it.
I am so glad you mentioned this.
It is a very interesting connection of think tanks and ex scientists that started work for the tobacco companies and then moved on to shill for the Disco institute and now the fossil fuels industry.
It actually, in this case, really is a right wing conspiracy. Now that is strongly stated so please let me back this up.
The person who made this video is a research biologist who got into this by refuting the ID crowd. He discovered who is writing the play book to some level. This is also mentioned by Sinclair in another video.
| 370 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 4:09:05pm |
re: #368 ludwigvanquixote
Whatever Ludwig, I notice that you refused to acknowledge your second mistake in comment #7 in which you condemned me for something I didn’t say.
Then you launch into a screed, the only thing that matters is we are all doomed.
The entire issue of AGW is very serious business. Lives are at stake because of it. Human lives, in the hundreds of millions for certain (and perhaps billions) are at stake (though we are also looking at mass extinctions involving many species). The science is vastly more clear about these things than you imagine.
The fact is, you owe me an apology, you called me a liar without justification, and you condemned me for yet another charge #7 that I did not make. I patiently detailed these and you just ignore them.
So in other words, accuracy doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, the only thing important is the “lives are at stake.” So it is impossible to even concede a minor point such as that enriched CO2 could grow bigger plants under some circumstances, or that a certain video animator may not be making the best points.
The most important thing to you is just focus on the impending and certain disaster, silence all questions and concerns and tolerate zero dissent. The point is the message you say, the intent, never mind the details or the accuracy. A bit like the “fake but accurate” excuse. Good luck with that. I doubt you’ll win over as many converts with that attitude as you would with reasonable discussion.
| 372 |
William Thu, Oct 8, 2009 8:39:47pm |
re: #335 Dark_Falcon
re: #332 William
Geeze, have you been paying attention? Charles and Ludwig have been posting chapter and verse on this topic and all you counter with is worn adages and debunked talking points. Do your homework before you try your hand at refuting.
My “homework” on this topic was performed in college. There are no “talking points” in Geology and Astronomy coursework, just science.
I’ve stated the facts, ignore them if you will…
| 373 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 8:48:42pm |
re: #370 Bagua
Oh spare me the crap Bagua. I am not playing your infantile word games any more. I am very clear about what I will no longer tolerate from you. Consider doing me the courtesy of noticing.
As to your number seven, I do not give a fuck.
I care that you lied when you said that Sinclair cherry picked.
My points were not disputed on that thread, as I said, Sinclair was correct in that he was debunking false assertions, but his examples were also cherry picked. (The one I am referring to was the CO2 is food one)
I care that you belittle the realities of the situation and I care that you sit and snark in slimy ways about those realities. Pay attention.
| 374 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 8:50:12pm |
re: #371 meeshlr
What exactly is an “ex scientist”?
An ex scientist is a scientist who uses his scientific reputation to make money by shilling for anti-science.
| 375 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:03:39pm |
re: #332 William
re: #372 William
My “homework” on this topic was performed in college. There are no “talking points” in Geology and Astronomy coursework, just science.
I’ve stated the facts, ignore them if you will…
No you have stated mistruths and half understandings.
Your assertions are frankly bogus. In your coursework and aquired expertise, had you taken eh time to study basic physics you would know that CO2 absorbs IR and that thermodynamics is real and that energy is conserved.
You would also realize that if you dump gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere year after year then of necessity, your planet must warm.
Had you remembered your undergraduate astronomy better, you would know what happened to Venus. Had you learned your undergraduate Geology better, you woll know that there are many ways to start a cooling or warming trend, and you would know that the current one is indeed caused by us because the others causes from teh geological record had been ruled out. You would also know that from the geological record that teh rapid warming we are experiencing now happened in an eye blink compared to other “natural” causes.
Finally you would know from atmospheric measurements that the atmosphere is heating from the lowest levels out. That proves that the concentrations at the lowest levels - the ones we caused - are doing the heating. Had it been the other way around it might have been the Sun. But, it is not. This is actually a smoking gun.
| 376 |
William Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:06:31pm |
Get a sense for the scale of other bodies in our Solar System, and how minuscule Earth is in relation: The Sun.
Note photo #13, for example, showing Mercury near the Sun. Mercury is about 40% as large as Earth, and is a mere speck when compared to the Sun.
| 377 |
William Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:09:45pm |
re: #375 ludwigvanquixote
Fantastic, insults and non sequitur…
| 378 |
vrwc007 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 9:57:28pm |
ludwigvanquixote
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
You might want to be careful how you reply here.
| 379 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:00:41pm |
re: #377 William
Fantastic, insults and non sequitur…
No actually nothing but the science.
You see I am mopping up your foolish talking points and your even more ludicrous pretentious to being some sort of scientific expert. So I am giving you some evidence based on the “expertise” you claim to have.
Let’s try that again…
Had you remembered your undergraduate astronomy better, you would know what happened to Venus.
In other words, astronomy 101 demonstrates that the greenhouse effect is quite real and devastating.
Had you learned your undergraduate geology better, you would know that there are many ways to start a cooling or warming trend, and you would know that the current one is indeed caused by us because the other causes from the geological record had been ruled out.
In other words you would know from the geological record that small perturbations have caused dramatic climate shifts many times in the past. The present perturbation is caused by us, and the geological record gives no reason to assume it will not be devastating. In fact, quite the opposite.
You would also know that from the geological record that the rapid warming we are experiencing now happened in an eye blink compared to other “natural” causes.
This is one of the ways you would know the science of AGW is real based n the expertise you claim to have.
Finally you would know from atmospheric measurements that the atmosphere is heating from the lowest levels out. That proves that the concentrations at the lowest levels - the ones we caused - are doing the heating. Had it been the other way around it might have been the Sun. But, it is not. This is actually a smoking gun.
These are some more ways.
| 380 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:02:36pm |
re: #378 vrwc007
Some attempt to write something I did not and put my name on it? That’s classy.
| 381 |
vrwc007 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:03:47pm |
I know you did not say that, but I assume you disagree. Correct?
| 382 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:06:56pm |
re: #381 vrwc007
yes of course… What is your point troll?
| 383 |
Bagua Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:13:28pm |
re: #373 ludwigvanquixote
As to your number seven, I do not give a fuck.
Of course you do not care that you were incorrect, you do not care about truth or accuracy, you care about promoting your agenda. “False but accurate is OK.”
You are profane, easily angered, and show great learning but poor reasoning skills. No this does nothing to invalidate AGW science, it invalidates you as a dishonest and rude person.
I repeat, I may or may not have been incorrect in my assertion, but I certainly did not lie.
I am convinced that you are no more than a graduate student or a frustrated graduate. This also does nothing to invalidate AGW science, which I must mention because you constantly attack me with the false assertion. You are not a pleasant person and I regret I took the time to converse with you.
| 384 |
vrwc007 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:21:09pm |
Below is from an interview with Dr Reid Bryson. Bryson earned the 30th Phd in Meteorology granted in American education. He was a member of the UN Global Honor Roll. He also suggested 40 years ago the human activity could effect global climate.
What is normal?
Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
I’ll take Bryson’s opinion.
| 385 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:25:11pm |
Here we go again with the relentless deniers showing up at the end of long-dead threads, trying to get the last comment in, as if that will alter the reality of climate change.
| 386 |
freetoken Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:28:53pm |
re: #385 Charles
And all those talking points from Bryson are either irrelevant, or just plain wrong. Bryson is a well known figurehead for the anti-science crowd, in part because he has a well known past. However, his talking points are merely obfuscation. Like a couple of other retire scientists who have jumped on the anti-AGW bandwagon, Bryson fails to address the issues as presented in the current scientific literature.
I’m always suspicious of people, like Bryson, who simply ignore what has been published over the past few decades, as if their previous notoriety is enough.
| 387 |
vrwc007 Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:32:00pm |
Charles,
Interesting response. You just dissed one of the founders of modern Meteorology as some kind of denier. The man suggested 40 years ago that humans could effect climate and was laughed off the stage, yet when asked about CO2 and climate change he says not likely. He does not deny change, just that CO2 has little to do with it.
I am not looking for the last word on a long dead thread. Just bringing attention to the fact that not all respected scientists agree with CO2-AGW.
| 388 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:34:53pm |
re: #387 vrwc007
Charles,
Interesting response. You just dissed one of the founders of modern Meteorology as some kind of denier. The man suggested 40 years ago that humans could effect climate and was laughed off the stage, yet when asked about CO2 and climate change he says not likely. He does not deny change, just that CO2 has little to do with it.
I am not looking for the last word on a long dead thread. Just bringing attention to the fact that not all respected scientists agree with CO2-AGW.
Funny, because it looks to me like that was exactly what you are trying to do.
| 389 |
freetoken Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:40:43pm |
re: #387 vrwc007
They are not facts, they are talking points. And misleading ones at that.
Whether or not most of the IR is absorbed by water vapor in the first few feet of the atmosphere does not mean that AGW is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t even follow logically.
Likewise, the so called “lag” has been readily explained by people in the 30 years or so after Bryson made his contribution to the field of climatology.
The question “What is normal” is just a read herring… the question isn’t what is “normal”, the question is how the biosphere (including us) will be able to adapt to the rapidly changing climate brought on by man’s behavior.
| 391 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Oct 8, 2009 10:58:42pm |
re: #384 vrwc007
I’m curious.. which propaganda site did you cut and paste that from.
First off, the issue with water vapor is a red herring.
Water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere very quickly. That is called rain.
CO2 on the other hand stays up there for centuries. The statement that you could have the same effect of doubling CO2 just by spitting is utterly stupid.
Just to be clear, at most, when you spit, you exhale a few milligrams of CO2, where as human industry has released teratons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now since this really does have an effect, because it really is a GHG, and moreover, it traps IR bands that water vapor does not, even one as foolishly misguided as you should be able to see why this is a stupid statement.
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
