Wrong Side of History

  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 12:22 PM #61

    firestorm - 30 November 2009 03:52 PM
    danthemason - 30 November 2009 09:07 AM

    I can argue facts with you all day long on global warming, deregulation, stupid wars, and the rest of conservatism?s legacy,

    Let’s hear a couple.

    Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.

    The results of complex human endeavors sometimes yield unintended consequences.

    History is a wonderful chain of these endeavors with complete analysis of goals and consequences.

    “Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.”

    I agree with this statement, and that is why I have been so vehement about disagreeing with all the nodding heads here who believe that global warming is bunk.  I see the glaciers retreating all over western North America (soon, Glacier National Park will be a national joke!).  I’ve been to Antarctica and have seen the ice sheets breaking up.  The fact is, global warming is occurring, man caused it, and it threatens to cause major sea level rises that will drown low countries.  That is my opinion, and it is backed by the work of thousands of scientists.

    But the fact remains that all we can do here is spout political opinions, because few of us have the scientific background to fairly evaluate all the data being published. 

    That is why all of us turn to the political realm:  it is all we really have to simply present our beliefs.


    Nobody disputes that the ice sheets are breaking apart. What is in dispute is wether man caused it. I also agree that man harms the environment and corporations should be punished for abusing this place we call home. What is more bothersome is that someone like yourself will not spell out any solutions. Let me give you a little insight, I live in middle Georgia, 200 miles from the coast. Sharks teeth are a common find around here and the area I live is mostly sand. Hmmm, I wonder if there was ever water in my backyard, besides the pool, lol.

    Bt the way, when did you go to Antarctica? Which part? How long? & last but not least, the purpose of your trip.

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 12:33 PM #62

    Meanwhile, California is closing its recycling centers and eliminating “green jobs.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-recycling30-2009nov30,0,34531.story

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 12:34 PM #63

    mbeauch - 30 November 2009 04:22 PM
    firestorm - 30 November 2009 03:52 PM
    danthemason - 30 November 2009 09:07 AM

    I can argue facts with you all day long on global warming, deregulation, stupid wars, and the rest of conservatism?s legacy,

    Let’s hear a couple.

    Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.

    The results of complex human endeavors sometimes yield unintended consequences.

    History is a wonderful chain of these endeavors with complete analysis of goals and consequences.

    “Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.”

    I agree with this statement, and that is why I have been so vehement about disagreeing with all the nodding heads here who believe that global warming is bunk.  I see the glaciers retreating all over western North America (soon, Glacier National Park will be a national joke!).  I’ve been to Antarctica and have seen the ice sheets breaking up.  The fact is, global warming is occurring, man caused it, and it threatens to cause major sea level rises that will drown low countries.  That is my opinion, and it is backed by the work of thousands of scientists.

    But the fact remains that all we can do here is spout political opinions, because few of us have the scientific background to fairly evaluate all the data being published. 

    That is why all of us turn to the political realm:  it is all we really have to simply present our beliefs.


    Nobody disputes that the ice sheets are breaking apart. What is in dispute is wether man caused it. I also agree that man harms the environment and corporations should be punished for abusing this place we call home. What is more bothersome is that someone like yourself will not spell out any solutions. Let me give you a little insight, I live in middle Georgia, 200 miles from the coast. Sharks teeth are a common find around here and the area I live is mostly sand. Hmmm, I wonder if there was ever water in my backyard, besides the pool, lol.

    Bt the way, when did you go to Antarctica? Which part? How long? & last but not least, the purpose of your trip.

    Yes, water covered huge parts of every continent over millions and billions of years (assuming you believe that the world is over 6,000 years old).  That is not what is at issue. 

    I think it strains credulity to think that we can burn up a huge portion of the planet’s stored carbon within a relative few years (geologically speaking), without impact.  The theory of global warming by the greenhouse effect is nothing new; I learned about it as a freshman in college in 1968.  But now the data are there to support the theory, perhaps not to the absolute level that would allow absolute agreement, but strong trends are there.

    What to do?  Exactly what Obama is doing:  provide research and financial support for wind and solar energy, encourage battery development and electrical grid improvements, and all the rest.  A huge and fast shift away from fossil fuels is our best defense.

    I was on the Antarctic Peninsula for a brief time as a photographer in 2001.  The 15 mile long iceberg that broke off the ice sheet was amazing.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 12:57 PM #64

    Here is a good editorial cartoon re climate change:

    http://www.seattlepi.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=2014

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 12:58 PM #65

    firestorm - 30 November 2009 04:34 PM
    mbeauch - 30 November 2009 04:22 PM
    firestorm - 30 November 2009 03:52 PM
    danthemason - 30 November 2009 09:07 AM

    I can argue facts with you all day long on global warming, deregulation, stupid wars, and the rest of conservatism?s legacy,

    Let’s hear a couple.

    Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.

    The results of complex human endeavors sometimes yield unintended consequences.

    History is a wonderful chain of these endeavors with complete analysis of goals and consequences.

    “Opinions generated and reinforced within a group of like minded souls do not rise to the level of facts.”

    I agree with this statement, and that is why I have been so vehement about disagreeing with all the nodding heads here who believe that global warming is bunk.  I see the glaciers retreating all over western North America (soon, Glacier National Park will be a national joke!).  I’ve been to Antarctica and have seen the ice sheets breaking up.  The fact is, global warming is occurring, man caused it, and it threatens to cause major sea level rises that will drown low countries.  That is my opinion, and it is backed by the work of thousands of scientists.

    But the fact remains that all we can do here is spout political opinions, because few of us have the scientific background to fairly evaluate all the data being published. 

    That is why all of us turn to the political realm:  it is all we really have to simply present our beliefs.


    Nobody disputes that the ice sheets are breaking apart. What is in dispute is wether man caused it. I also agree that man harms the environment and corporations should be punished for abusing this place we call home. What is more bothersome is that someone like yourself will not spell out any solutions. Let me give you a little insight, I live in middle Georgia, 200 miles from the coast. Sharks teeth are a common find around here and the area I live is mostly sand. Hmmm, I wonder if there was ever water in my backyard, besides the pool, lol.

    Bt the way, when did you go to Antarctica? Which part? How long? & last but not least, the purpose of your trip.

    Yes, water covered huge parts of every continent over millions and billions of years (assuming you believe that the world is over 6,000 years old).  That is not what is at issue. 

    I think it strains credulity to think that we can burn up a huge portion of the planet’s stored carbon within a relative few years (geologically speaking), without impact.  The theory of global warming by the greenhouse effect is nothing new; I learned about it as a freshman in college in 1968.  But now the data are there to support the theory, perhaps not to the absolute level that would allow absolute agreement, but strong trends are there.

    What to do?  Exactly what Obama is doing:  provide research and financial support for wind and solar energy, encourage battery development and electrical grid improvements, and all the rest.  A huge and fast shift away from fossil fuels is our best defense.

    I was on the Antarctic Peninsula for a brief time as a photographer in 2001.  The 15 mile long iceberg that broke off the ice sheet was amazing.

    The increase of green house gases promotes plant growth. I’m not an activist but I did just order this T-shirt.

    I recall watching a show about people drilling ice cores in the Arctic. They explained that each dark zone in the ice was a year gone by. Then, in another show, a group of WWII aircraft were forced to land in Greenland. The recovery focused on one particular P38 Lightning which was found under 25 stories of ice and had drifted over a mile away from its original location. According to the scientists’ thesis from the first show, the aircraft was under thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years of ice but only 50 years had passed since the aircraft had been forced down. I grew suspicious of the scientists’ ice core thesis and later learned that each dark ring in the ice core represented a thaw cycle and each season may have dozens of thaw cycles.

    This ice core isn’t years as the thesis proposed.



    The recovery team melted hundreds of feet down to the P-38 and then melted out a cave around the aircraft to begin recovery.

    [ Edited: 30 November 2009 01:04 PM by Eric Landstrom ]

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 30 November 2009 05:20 PM #66

    I think it strains credulity to think that we can burn up a huge portion of the planet?s stored carbon within a relative few years (geologically speaking), without impact.

    That’s what the warmists thought. But the scientific method doesn’t start with a premise and then find data to support the premise. The scientific method starts with a premise and then goes about disproving it.

    The white swan theory was illustrated to me in junior high school. If you lived your entire life having only seen white swans and your father told you that all he’d ever seen were white swans you could postulate that all swans were white. You and your children could go about counting all the white swans you could find, building your data and you would be doing what the IPCC warmists were doing. The scientist would go about searching for the black swan, to disprove the postulate.

    This junk science involves another sin by the warmists. That is applying human generational time frame to geologic process. It’s like trying to explain a football game from one highlight photo of a great reception.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 09:40 PM #67

    The ClimateGate Smoking Gun . The computer modeling source code.

      Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering.  Granted, many of these ?alterations? run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding).  But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).

      In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 ?divergence problem?, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code.  So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer?s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module ?Uses ?corrected? MXD - but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.?


    :apple:

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 30 November 2009 10:46 PM #68

    Apples stance on global warming and the Chamber of Commerce prevarication makes me proud to be a shareholder of the company.
    They are not alone.  I think GE resigned as well.  For a hilarious caper related to the Chamber of Commerce google the Yes Men and COC..  They held a fake news conference in which they posed as members of the Commerce saying that they were reversing their stance on the bill in Congress which briefly was broadcast as real by the AP. 

    Apple is a forward thinking LIBERAL company in most all respects including their stance on gay rights and global warming and if this bothers you or is at odds with your world view, you should invest in some other company wink

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 December 2009 12:52 AM #69

    Bryanyc - 01 December 2009 02:46 AM

    Apples stance on global warming and the Chamber of Commerce prevarication makes me proud to be a shareholder of the company.
    They are not alone.  I think GE resigned as well.  For a hilarious caper related to the Chamber of Commerce google the Yes Men and COC..  They held a fake news conference in which they posed as members of the Commerce saying that they were reversing their stance on the bill in Congress which briefly was broadcast as real by the AP. 

    Apple is a forward thinking LIBERAL company in most all respects including their stance on gay rights and global warming and if this bothers you or is at odds with your world view, you should invest in some other company wink

    Bryan.  you confuse Apple with AAPL.  I despise Apple, I am a big fan of AAPL. What does AAPL have to do with Gay rights and GW? You are right in that Apple is Liberal, many in this forum are also. Your comment about investing in another company is typical of the Liberal mentality, you want us to go away.

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Posted: 01 December 2009 06:39 AM #70

    Let’s sum up. The Global Warming movement has been shown to be based on fiction, not science. The movement’s fundamental assumption is that human activities, mainly burning hydrocarbon fuels for over 100 years, has and will continue to contribute to uncontrolled warming of the planet leading to all manner of catastrophes. Millions of real, warm bodied, walking, talking individuals have assimilated these assumptions into their belief structure, subsequent world view, and political activities. These assumptions call for dramatic reduction in the use of energy. The most influential mechanism being taxes levied on fuels to curtail their use.

    It is irony that today’s warmist movement shows the same defensive characteristics as those of the church in the trial of Galileo so long ago. You remember, Galileo was the scientist and the church insisted, in the face of observations to the contrary, that the earth was the center of the universe. Maybe with the internet we can move along a little faster than our ancestors. But stubborn bishops like Apple will surely delay the light.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 December 2009 08:01 AM #71

    MacCube - 26 November 2009 02:43 AM
    CaptainBoom - 25 November 2009 09:45 PM

    It’s easy to complain that there isn’t really a problem from one’s desk in the USA, breathing heavily regulated relatively clean air. I just spent 3 weeks in China on business, and the air pollution was insidious. It burned my eyes, nose and throat the whole time I was there. Even inside my various hotel rooms. It was bad, really bad. No blue sky, no stars at night, just gray air. I visited fireworks factories out in the hinterlands, and it struck me that there were very few birds, and virtually no birdsong. Kind of scary.

    Whether or not the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming, I don’t know. What I do know is that we humans *are* having a deleterious effect on the environment through the burning of said fuels, and I applaud Apple’s recent efforts, whatever the motivation.


    Take a good look at the former USSR and the environmental damage caused by that government. What does the USSR and China have in common? Communism? A state where the central government controls everything? If you are fearful that we may become a polluted nation like China, then you should be fearful of a government even similar to theres.


    :apple:

    I call baloney on this one… having a government that exercises some form of control is what has allowed us to improve our air quality and decrease our pollution by dictating strict rules defining what industry can or cannot do. Back in the days when industry in the United States was free to do whatever it wanted, pollution in the US was rising at frightening speeds. We also had child labor, abhorrent sanitary standards and all sorts of nasty stuff. Had we continued down that road of lax regulation and laissez-faire for industry, China would look like a green paradise in comparison to the United States (remember that we got a 100 year head start).

    The main issue surrounding pollution in China isn’t, as you say, one of complete government control. It’s the exact opposite. China might seem very tight and under complete govt. control from the outside, but on a day-to-day basis, the resemblance to late 19th Century/early 20th Century America is striking. Things are extremely lax for businesses as well as individuals, as long as you stay out of the realm of politics. Even the world of the internet, whilst still heavily moderated and monitored (something that I am personally against) has been incrementally growing freer over the last few years. Ever wonder why debacles like tainted milk and lead-covered toys spring out so often from this country? It’s certainly not due to overly strict official control and supervision. In quite a few ways ways, there is more freedom here than there is back in the US. Is that a good thing, necessarily? I personally don’t think so. The lax enforcement of traffic rules results in more accidents and deaths. The freedom that manufacturers enjoy results in cars that crumple like tin cans and toys containing lead. It puts more responsibility on the individual and on businesses, which is pretty much the pure capitalistic spirit.

    Can businesses and individuals handle that responsibility to push themselves to be responsible for the environment and what they manufacture? If all companies were like Apple, then it wouldn’t be an issue. Unfortunately, many are not, simply seeking to cut corners or ignore common sense for short-term benefit without considering long-term implications. That’s what certain major financial companies did in the US in the years leading up to the current financial situation. It’s what the milk manufacturers over here did when they decided to add melamine to milk, which resulted in the death of quite a few infants. It’s what GM did when they decided to traded making quality cars to making as many cheap cars as possible. It’s what happened when the city Niagara Falls allowed Hooker chemical to bury tons of toxic waste in the Love Canal without taking the proper environmental precautions, then allowing a school to be built on the very site a few years later. The control you speak of isn’t responsible for increased pollution. It’s the exact opposite. We can let things be and hope that people and businesses will live and learn (which is perhaps possible, but it does come at a potentially catastrophic price), or we can institute a moderate level of control and supervision to ensure that things like this don’t happen in the first place.

    [ Edited: 01 December 2009 08:12 AM by MaxW ]      
  • Avatar

    Posted: 01 December 2009 04:06 PM #72

    Thank you, fellow moderates and liberals of America, for speaking up here.  I was beginning to think that the only investors in Apple were deniers, birthers, and other associated species of the right-wing.

         
  • Posted: 01 December 2009 05:30 PM #73

    So max you seem to have called baloney and gone about supporting the premise you argue against. We care for the commons with a representative democracy. sometimes better than others . If you believe that the socialist states mentioned above have exercised stewardship of their commons in a better fashion than the US, then I fear you need more reading. The point made was that our government appears to be taking on more and more characteristics of those socialist states. Those states have a poor record of environmental preservation and the assumption can be rightly made that more socialism leads to a crappy environment. To list the accomplishments of a representative, two party republic is to ignore the point.

    And if I may should any of our members be so inclined to argue environmental issues they should start that topic. This topic remains Apple’s leaving the C of C over the cap and trade/global warming policy of the organization.

    If energy use were equal to pollution levels it would be relative. The US however uses quite a lot of energy per capita and we seem to have a cleaner record than many who use much less.

    Take the tree hugging to it’s own topic. There’s lots of room.