Axis Mundi X discussion
Global warming: not science, but mass neurosis
Mod
Mod
Bingo Nick. Best bet I ever made. Of course, as long as I'm not senile by then.
Mod
Dammit Nick, that's awesome!Only 29 years to go.
Mod
That's a really interesting article, NB. I especially liked this point, because I am a capitalist pig:Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism.
Aw, c’mon, global warming is great. It’s the answer to everything.Q: Why’s it so hot?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why’s it so cold?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why are there earthquakes?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why are there hurricanes?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why have shark attacks increased off the coast of Florida?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why does little Johnny have to repeat the third grade?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why do my boxer briefs keep riding?
A: Global warming.
Q: Why did I eat two gyros when one would have sufficed, and they really weren’t that good, because that sauce was too sweet, and someone put a tomato on there even after I expressly asked them not to?
A: Global warming.
Mod
I think I have to trade in my Global Warming Decoder Ring for a Monkey Pox Cipher Disc. Maybe someone will trade me for their Zombie Plague CryptoStick.
think of all the great nuclear holocaust movies. from "dr. strangelove" to "road warrior". but global warming just doesn't inspire the same high drama.
Mod
I know, I know... I just proved your point. : )
Charissa, Varmint, you are so right. Annihilation by zombie is much cooler than death by global warming. I’m going to seek a modest grant of $5 mil. for research into the prevention of what seems like an inevitable zombie plague. If five years pass and you don’t see any zombies, you’ll know my efforts have been successful. But you don’t need to thank me, I’m just doing my job. Actually, I’ve already started my research – I’m reading World War Z right now.
never saw the day after tomorrow. the south park parody was pretty good. not sure i'd be able to watch it now.water world was an abortion from the first kevin costner pee drinking scene.
i pity the scrren writers. how are you supposed to make a movie out of a two degree temperature rise?
Mod
I don't know, but I still think we should recycle. It feels right.
*weeps*Oh my gosh. I have found a home.
Mod
Rusty... WWZ RAWKS!!! I read that book and couldn't sleep for 3 days. The ones that come out of the Pacific Ocean and crash through people's plate glass windows in Southern California are the BEST. fucking god i would never survive a zombie plague. i'd have to take copious amounts of drugs and party myself to death just to give my life meaning.
Varmint... I had gratefully forgotten about Kevin Costner drinking his own pee. Thanks so much for that mental reminder. :::stabz self:::
I like recycling Jackie... I can fold my cardboard boxes neatly and stack them inside a grocery bag. I feel so prim, like teacher loves me best. But on my bad days I throw cans into the trash barrel and flip off the neighborhood. Ha! Arrest me motherfuckers!!! I threw away a Coke can!!!! : P
Ha ha ha ha ha... Sarah... ::::hug::::
Hellooooooooooooooo! I can have internetz! Fukkin' Comcast. Anyhoos, WWZ most indeedy rawks the house (all thanks to DakChar for the clue in to that). I'm still waitin' to see zombies comin' outta the fire haze that's hangin' over our 'burgs here in NorCal. Break out yer salmon bats!
Sooo, back to the topic... now I'm curious: Is NOAA wrong? It seems like the data indicates an upward trend in the global temperature... or is this thread (and the article it references) just generally meant to denigrate left-leaning liberal propaganda about being more responsible with how we treat our surroundings (environs, planet, etc - take your pick)?
Mod
Cool, just making sure I understood correctly that up had been redefined as down. ;)
I think it’s important for those who are diehard believers in global warming to understand that there remain many, many authorities in the scientific world who do not buy into what Al Gore and others are preaching as hard science. There are many who believe GW is set in stone, like gravity, but that is far from the case. The founder of the Weather Channel has no problem with gravity.
I've never said anything to the contrary in regards to proper stewardship of the Earth. I'm merely pointing a finger at shoddy science and the idea of "consensus". Science is based on rigorous debate. If a particular theory cannot stand up under argumentation, then it really isn't good science. If something deserves the poo-poo treatment, it should get it.
Mod
Mod
#28“But if we start conserving, the environmentalists win.”
- Homer Simpson
Mod
edit: heeee... Rusty yer funny.
Taking action is all fine and good. For now, I'd prefer it be done on the part of the private citizen, and not through govt. mandate.
Homer Simpson...hmmm did he write the Illiad?
Mod
Amen, NB – all we need is to have the government encroach upon another aspect of our lives.
Well, actually that's precisely the point Bunny. I've heard some pretty lame stuff come out of DC, and when it comes to GW it gets real kooky, as when McKinney and Watters call for nationalizing the oil industry. Whoa! What next, a Reichstag fire?
I apologize, I thought we were steering towards facts, my bad. I'm not calling GW the harbinger of doom, just pointing out that - according to science (schmience) - the global temperature is on the rise.Maybe I'm missing your whole point... if you're just going after the zealots by telling them that facts are incorrect, don't mind me.
I hadn't noticed our government even attempting to do anything about it... but if you have, then I suppose you have a point that you'd like less government interference in your life. I understand you don't want them telling you what common-sense already suggests.
Global temps may be on the rise or they may not. What only is known is that the climate changes. Always has, always will. The question for science is, does human activity have any effect? This has not been clearly demonstrated. For a quick check, refer back to that NOAA article. Go to each section and reread the last 3 or 4 sentences and you'll see what I mean. As for govt attempts - wasn't that what Kyoto was all about? Isn't that what Cap and Trade is all about? But I agree, I don't need any govt telling me what common sense suggest. As a whole, citizens undertaking in their own lives, actions that contribute to the greater good of the environment is a far more efficient model than anything the govt could concoct.
The Kyoto protocol our current administration pulled us out of in 2001? Did we finally ratify that?I'm not sure I get what you're trying to tell me by directing me to re-read the last few sentences... are you assuming I'm leaving no room for change in the current trends and don't understand that there is research still to be done?
It doesn't really matter, I get what you're driving at (no matter my opinion of its logic based on the original article in the Wall Street Journal). Just an interesting topic.
That would have been congress refusing to ratify the treaty. I believe it went down to defeat under both Clinton and Bush admins. Currently, it has not been ratified. Indeed, a most interesting subject.
Okay, now I'm confused. The news tonight (in the UK) is"The UK is to slow its adoption of biofuels amid fears they raise food prices and harm the environment, the transport secretary has said.
Ruth Kelly said biofuels had potential to cut carbon emissions but there were "increasing questions" about them.
"Uncontrolled" growing of fuel crops could destroy rainforest, she told MPs.
A government-commissioned report recommends ministers "amend not abandon" biofuel policies. "
So it turns out, apparently, that the drive towards biofuels has driven food prices up up up, been a factor in causing rice scarcities in some countries which has led to rioting, and is now implicated in rainforest destruction. Ouch. The road to hell is fuelled with good intentions, huh?
Also - the price of regular fuel - gas to you, petrol to us, is rocketing too. Now - is that good or bad? If it persuades us to drive less, cycle or walk more, then that's good, right? Less carbon in the atmosphere, more exercise for us all. But higher fuel bills makes all other prices inflate, and slows the economy, and brings recession ever closer. So that's bad.
Gee whiz, this ecological stuff is really hard. So glad I'm not a politician.
Chairman Mao said "let a hundred flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend". Well, he was just teasing the Chinese people as we know, but now, that's just what we have here in the west, a thousand politicians and pressure groups all of whom drag around their favourite scientists like kids with their comfort blankets, all shouting the odds, all convinced they're right. All of which makes me want to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpripw...
The solution is simple - as I explained to DakChar the other day:We will drill and drill and drill
We will develope and develope and develope
We will produce and produce and produce
AND we will conserve and conserve and conserve
It need not be a mutually exclusive equation, and in fact it must not. There are serious considerations other than GW / environment for energy conservation and self sufficiency.
Except that battement and tendu are the same step.
I'd like a mocha battement frappe with whipped cream, please.
Mod
I'm not sure that's a solution so much as a continuance.
Back on track Gary...excellent. Ignore the tea party over there. It is definitely not a continuance. At the moment we are not drillling nor are we producing. We are barely developing, and are just beginning to conserve. Our energy policy is a failure across the board, particularly on the production side. We are the only industrialized nation in the world not developing its own petroleum resources. A good example: Congress killed a bill that would have provided for drilling off the Florida coast at a distance no closer than 90 miles. Absolute lunacy, because the Chinese and Cubans have teamed up and will be drillilng at a distance of 60 miles, if they haven't already started to.
Drilling in ANWR? We've already done it (when the area was under the jurisdiction of the US Navy, post WWII) with no harm to the environment. And we did it with what would be considered archaic technology by today's standards. Total exploration was 37 test wells and 45 shallow core holes. No negative impact was observed.
Mod
The whole argument about the animals is nothing new. "They" said the same thing 30 years ago when the slope was first developed.
What happened? Well it wasn't what was supposed to happen. Caribou are thriving,tundra squirrels are having a 20 year population boom, wolves are well fed because of all the caribou and tundra squirrels. The Grizzles are getting larger every year. The mountain sheep (Which are suppose to all be dead right now) are also thriving. I have a PowerPoint Presentation about ANWAR and the Alyeska pipeline in relation to the impact on wildlife and ecosystem. If anyone wants it let me know and I will e-mail it out.
All these arguments for the most part are crap. Very little facts, and a lot of party propaganda. The Facts are the Climate is changing. The evidence shows that it has always done this.
Conserve you bet.
Develop new cleaner, more efficient technologies, you bet.
Enact policies that will further stall our already bruised economy, not so fast.
I would like to see the government contribute moneys to hydrogen infrastructure. lets say 40/60 top side private investment. This would fast track a REAL solution not some red herring like Bio fuels.
Nick yer makin' a whole lotta good sense there.This next bit shows just how far we've gone off the rail with the global warming fear mongering:
http://www.topix.com/world/australia/...
Al Gore should be made to crawl on hand and knee over broken glass in order to offer a bedside apology.
Global warming is a fact and all the cherry picking of random opposing propaganda by the right wing poopooing the notion is just that...a lot of poo. On the other hand, yes, the climate has always changed and will continue to do so, whether or not we conserve energy and develop cleaner sources of fuel and power. No, we cannot permanently "destroy" the environment, anymore than a meteorite capable of causing a worldwide mass extinction event can permanently destroy the environment. What can happen, however, is that the environment can be so altered as to make Earth uninhabitable for us humans, most mammals, birds, and reptiles, flowering plants, cereal crops, fish, etc. So, given that change is inevitable, given that at least five mass extinctions have already occurred on Earth and likely will occur again, does it make more sense to try to slow down this process of change or at least not add to it, or do we keep driving Hummers and setting our air conditioners on high to cool off our ridiculously large suburban homes while mocking Al Gore and hope it is our grandchildren who pay the eventual price and not our own, selfish, self-absorbed selves? Gee, I dunno...thats a tough one... it's so much more fun to mock the lefties, ain't it.
Axis Mundi X
Books mentioned in this topic
Dreamsbane of Tamalor (other topics)World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War (other topics)
Break out yer meds...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12148...