May 27 Sources: Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth

You always find your keys in last place you look. When Rational people think they have found something they stop looking, so reaching incorrect conclusions can be worse than mere ignorance since it precludes correct action. Kyoto is like that. It is a wrong answer that exacerbates problems it was meant to address. An Inconvenient Truth for Al Gore counts the ways.

BTW - Al Gore flying around to talk about greenhouse gases has added more than most of us will in a lifetime. And of course, Al is less enthusiastic about the clean energy source that has a chance of making a dent in greenhouse gas emission.

Below are other sources I thought were interesting this week:

A Climate of Our Own Making
A Plan for Victory in Iraq
Progress Report on UN Reform
Bush Killed His Own Doctrine
Early Review for Election 2006
Ethanol Lessons From Brazil
Ethanol: Myths and Realities
Europe Faces Globalization
Even Partisans Give Their Parties Bad Reviews
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Is European Enlargement Dead?
Larry, Curley and Osama: Ridiculing the Terrorists
Four in Ten Drivers Cutting Back due to High Prices
Releasing Guantanamo Prisoners Would Endanger World
The Bravest President
Trial Lawyers are Down. Let’s Kick Them
Where Terrorism Finds Support in the Muslim World

Posted by Jack at May 27, 2006 1:32 AM
Comments
Comment #151848

So the Polar Bears and Seals AREN’T dying out?

So we aren’t having record Hurricanes with each one stronger than the last?

So we didn’t have the hottest winter on record?


By the way, none of the articles you cited have been Peer-Reviewed.

Jack. Is smoking bad for your health?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 2:02 AM
Comment #151850

Aldous

I have no need to respond to what you said, since you are once again arguing with yourself. I am not arguing about the reality of global warming and if you bothered to read some of the sources you would see that they are not either. The question is what to do about it. Kyoto leads us down the wrong road.

Your problem is that you are so much into your own views that you really cannot see any other. You prefer to fight opponents you create yourself to the real ones. I bet you like video games a lot.

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #151851

Jack:

And your problem is that you so want the perfect method that you end up doing nothing.

I never said Kyoto was working or even if its a good idea. It is, however, SOMETHING.

In all the Studies and Articles you cited, can you point to a single one that actually IMPLEMENTED something?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 3:31 AM
Comment #151852

well if it must be a alcohol based fuel i will take ethanol, ok we all know by now that the energy output (btus) is less than gas, about 35%. but hello people the octane rating,or (resistance to knock ) is much higher than gas. so what you say, well for every 1 point increase in compression ratio that equals a extra 4-5% increase in horsepower. the limit with gas is about a 10.1 compression. after that knock or ping will happen ,and that is the death of a motor.with ethanol i can build a 18.1 compression ratio motor, 8 points higher than gas, that would equate to 36% more horsepower than a gas engine,let’s take a honda 3.5 litre v6 with gas it makes 255 net horsepower, add the extra 8 points of compression ratio and 255times 36% = 92 extra horsepower. 92 + 255 = 347 net horsepower or about 100 horsepower per litre. now here’s the punchline, now i can reduce the size of the motor down 1 full litre to 2.5 litres and get the same power as the 3.5 liter gas engine and now i can get about 15% better mileage than the gas motor from reduced displacement!and the same power! we went from a -23% less mpg to a 15%+ increase in mpg, just from a simple mechanical equation. and science is working on the co2 problem.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 27, 2006 4:36 AM
Comment #151854

Popular Mechanics did an article reviewing possible alternative fuels. Wood and grain alcohol were both considered. Both have a higher octane rating than gasoline, both burn cleaner, and both are renewable. The problem was that both would require some gasoline (around 30%) to be able to run in colder weather, such as the Northeast in winter. Hydrogen was also discussed, which is cleanest of all in and of itself (the only byproduct of burning hydrogen is steam) but would require large amounts of energy to create (probobly using electricity to seperate the hydrogen from oxygen in water) which would require increases in our power generation. Coal would be a good option, we have more BTUs of coal in the US than Saudi Arabia does of oil, and new technology makes coal cleaner. However, the net increase in coal powered boilers could actually increase greenhouse emissions overall. Nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, but creates problems of its own.

Foriegn Policy also did an article linking higher oil prices to rollbacks in political freedoms. Basically, the largest consuming nations of oil, such as the US and the EU are also the most responsive to the anger of their own people. Sky high oil prices and the threats of embargo lessen the credibility of Western threats against oil regimes over human rights violations while the extra money they earn can be used to help increase the standard of living for their people, reducing calls for democracy.

Popular Mechanics probably got it closest to right. We in the West won’t go back to the 1800s and reject the internal combustion engine. Meanwhile, nations such as China and India will continue to industrialize. We should work on several things simultaneously. The first would obviously be to improve efficiency at all levels of the economy. Stricter standards for housing, offices, and automobiles could go a long way in reducing greenhouse emissions and simultaneously lower our dependence on foreign oil. We should also work to transition from oil to coal or nuclear power for our electrical needs. Beyond this, were practical, alternative energy sources, such as wind, tidal, or hydroelectric power should be developed. These probobly won’t generate enough on their own to free us from hydrocarbons, but could reduce our dependence.

A final step would be rethinking our automobile choices. There is no need for a Hummer outside of the military, short of to stroke an ego or compensate for anatomical deficiencies. Popular Mechanics again gave a good solution. Since many American households own multiple vehicles already, they suggested vehicle purchases based on efficiency factors. For instance, a short daily commute of a few miles could see the use of an elctric car, hybrid, or alcohol fueled vehicle with a standard gasoline powered vehicle for longer trips where these other fuels might not be available.

The most important thing we can do is work as individuals to lower our own consumption. Try driving less and riding a bike or walking for short distances. Carpool when possible. Turn off the lights when you leave a room. Make sure you have your house well insulated. Drive a little slower and dont’ accelerate so fast off of the line. Part of being a conservative, to me, is to be a conservationist and a good steward of the earth as God commanded. Economic realities dictate that we won’t go back to horse drawn carriages, but we can do alot collectively by even small changes in our behavior individually. We owe it to ourselves, our security, and our future generations to do just that.

Posted by: 1LT B at May 27, 2006 5:33 AM
Comment #151861

I likely like nuclear power more than Gore, but still, I understand his reservations. Until we solve the waste problem, or get Fusion working, Nuclear power is always going to be problematic, and for good reason.

Some on the right might find this an alarmist stance, but the stakes are higher. Accidents can and do happen, and with nuclear materials, the lethality can be far greater than any normal industrial accident at a plant would be.

Nuclear plants must be situated with great care, and constructed equally so. I don’t get the impression yet that Nuclear proponents here are taking these problems seriously, or addressing the nuclear waste problems properly.

The latter is crucial. Without it, Nuclear becomes a problem by simple accumulation. You can talk about dumping the waste in ocean trenches, or in Yucca Mt., but until you have a solution that keeps people safe from the waste in some permanent and foolproof manner, nuclear’s going to be a problem to sell.

Nuclear proponents that bluff and bluster through the safety and waste disposal issues will find themselves having a hard time on building additional nuclear plants. Come right out and say what the potential issues are, then tell people what you’re going to do about those issues. Then, once you have the thing built, don’t hesitate for a moment to put in procedures and protocol to keep that plant running in tip-top shape. There is no upside to cutting corners at a Nuclear Plant.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2006 7:35 AM
Comment #151866

Jack

I really do not understand conservative thinking on this issue of global warming. I understand Gore is not well liked by conservatives. But isn’t global warming real? The majority of the scientific community says so. Why isn’t that enough?

What will it take for conservatives to accept global warming as real and be motivated to take action? Why are conervatives in constant denial? Why are they attaching themselevs to bogus science supported by the oil industry to discredit global warming? We all share this planet, and if global warming is true, then you and your family will suffer as well as liberals.

The only explanation I can see is that you want to protect the oil industry and big business. But that doesn’t make sense - why would you do that? Or are you afraid of government regulations to start limiting emissions would be too much of a burden on the economy? It really bogels my mind. I cannot find a rationale reason

Can you explain it? I really want to know…

Posted by: Jerseyguy at May 27, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #151867

Disregarding a treaty we sign for minimal gains is arrogance, which Bush has in Spades. Disregarding Global Warming is just stupid. When you think we could have had Al Gore, it boggles the mind. I wonder what the interest would be now on our saved surplus he was going to invest?

Posted by: Max at May 27, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #151868

When it comes to global warming peer review doesn’t mean much. Global warming is dogma, not science. Debunking it ends careers.
Gore picked an appropriate name for his movie. He leaves out some truths that are very inconvenient for him.

www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse

It’s better to do nothing than to do something stupid and make things worse.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #151872

Max

Disregarding a treaty we sign for minimal gains is arrogance
It isn’t just arrogance. It also violates Bush’s oath of office, to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution says in part
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
By disregarding a signed treaty, Bush is failing to defend the constitution. Who knows? Maybe Bush thinks the Constitution, like the Geneva Convention, is “quaint”.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 27, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #151876

What treaty are you accusing Bush of disregarding?

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #151877

The last time I checked, we never signed the Kyoto Protocal. Clinton treated it, as he did everything else, with an eye on the polls and his “legacy.” He knew in Kyoto that that treaty would probably never even see the light of day in committee to say nothing of the Senate floor. Even if it did, a treaty requires the ratification of the Senate, which wasn’t going to happen. All Bush did was say plainly what had been the case since before Clinton made any promises on the issue.

As for the Geneva Convention, the idea of it being applied to these terrorists we’re fighting is an insult. I am a Soldier, I wear a uniform, carry my arms openly, act under a lawful chain of command of a nation state, and am subject to military discipline. The terrorists are none of these things. As far as I’m concerned, extending them the same priviliges as soldiers is a slap in the face to us. I won’t lose a wink of sleep if we boil them alive in pig’s blood. Of course, I am sure that these same activists who decry our “brutal occupation” will protest just as loudly should I be captured and beheaded on TV.

Posted by: 1LT B at May 27, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #151883

Indeed. We should go house to house and shoot 18 terrorists for every dead GI.

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #151884

Jerseyguy,
Global warming is a hoax. The climate is changing but The so called greenhouse effect isn’t the cause. What we’re experiencing is natural variability.
If you look at the “remedies” being proposed and who’s pushing them the agenda becomes clear. Global warming’s proponents are misanthropic collectivists pushing a world authoritarian regime. Exaggeration and lies are their stock in trade. Measurable phenomena don’t support their claims. Science doesn’t support their conclusions. Fear mongering best describes their tactics.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #151885

1LT B,

Everyone expected us to sign Kyoto since we set it up, and all but signed. However, if you need more examples, Bush ignored the Geneva conventions and disregarded the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Also, he decided to permit India to start using nuclear power without talking to anyone else, contrary to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

So you’re an American soldier? You don’t sound like it. You sound like a terrorist.

Posted by: Max at May 27, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #151888

traveller,

“Global warming is a hoax. The climate is changing but The so called greenhouse effect isn’t the cause. What we’re experiencing is natural variability.”

So, what you’re saying is that you have absolute, incontrovertible proof, that you would be willing to stake your life, the lives of your children, nay, the lives of the whole world on, that global warming doesn’t exist.

Posted by: Rocky at May 27, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #151893

traveller:

NASA does not agree with you. In fact, noone agrees with you. Polar Bears will be extinct in 20 years at most.

How do you explain that?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #151896

Rocky,

What bothers me is that the people who support the global warming position talk like it’s all about to happen (breathlessly) TOMORROW!!!!!

Actually, if you read what most (sensible) scientists say, global warming…if we do nothing at all about it…will smack us right in the face in about a 1,000 years.

It will NOT trash your children…your grandchildren…your great-great granchildren (etc.).

As far as Al Gore is concerned…there is only ONE “Inconvenient Truth”.

That truth is that he was soooooo concerned about what cutting down trees was doing to the environment…that he cut down trees to write a book about…(drum roll)…NOT cutting down trees.

Has Al Gore ever heard about e-books? I mean…after all…he INVENTED the internet. Oh yeah, I forgot. He can’t make a pile of money writing e-books.

Has anyone here read all the completely IDIOT things Al Gore has said over the years? And they call Dan Quayle an idiot. Compared to Al Gore, Dan Quayle is Einstien…and to give Al Gore any credability is nothing short of lunacy.

Here’s an Inconvenient Truth. If you want to take global warming seriously…get someone OTHER than Al Gore to be a spokesperson.

Posted by: Jim T at May 27, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #151898


Jack: Although I am disdainful of nuclear energy, I am willing to discuss the issue including tax payer funding of a major nuclear research project. However, I believe the first step is a wholesale conversion by the right on the issue of global warming. Unless we as a nation are willing to admit that global warming poses a grave threat to future generations we will acomplish nothing.

Posted by: jlwilliams at May 27, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #151899

Jack, the Kyoto Treaty implemented will not solve the global warming problem. But, then, that is not the issue regarding the treaty. The treaty moves governments and the people of the world toward making the sacrifices that will be needed to reduce the human effect on global warming. And that my friend, is the first, only, and real concrete step toward dealing with the issue - making it mandatory for follow through until something better is devised and adopted.

Even a 5 foot, let alone 20 foot, rise in sea levels will devastate economies around the globe. Kyoto treaty gets mankind to take its first real step toward facing the future of global warming and enrolling the human species in the activity of resolving and adapting to that future.

Until you can get the world’s people to back a better, more cost effective alternative to the Kyoto Treaty, Kyoto is putting our best foot forward on the issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #151900

Max,

You proved my point about Clinton. He knew that the Kyoto Protocal would never pass the Senate and still pushed it. I like to call this letting your mouth write a check your ass can’t cash. Sorta like how he promised justice against the terrorists who blew up our embassies and attacked the U.S.S. Cole. Real effective.

How did Bush violate the Geneva Conventions? I suppose our own laws against cruel and unusual punishment would be made to apply in this case, but illegal combatants are not entitled to any protections under the Geneva Convention. We would be legally within our rights to shoot every single person we hold in Gitmo in the head. Besides, our enemy doesn’t follow them. Bush is actually being far more generous than military law dictates.

The Geneva Convention was designed to protect Soldiers and civilians alike in the midst of war. These terrorists do not apply to the definitions of a Soldier or a civilian. By giving them the same protections, you devalue the status of Soldiers and civilians alike.

If you don’t like what I have to say about what should be done to these motherless bastards and feel you might be better, I have a few suggestions. Go to your nearest military recruitment center and enlist in the Army or Marines. I’ll assume you physically and mentally qualify. Then get sent to Iraq. Spend day after day walking the streets in 110+ degrees in body armor. Then watch a friend get shot and killed by a sniper. Watch a little girl die in your arms from wounds from shrapnel, not from one of your bombs, but from a suicide bomber who blew himself up in a market. Kill a person or two yourself. Then look in the mirror at what you’ve become and see if you don’t feel the same way about the cowards we fight.

The difference between us and them is really simple. With the exception of a few sick people, we don’t deliberately kill civilians. It does sometimes happen, but this isn’t something we celebrate. Unfortunately, they are just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our enemies blow up themselves, sometimes thier vehicles, into markets, job lines, any large group of people. They claim to hold Islam sacred, then try to snipe us from mosques. They are sick psyochiopaths who can best serve the world by leaving it, and if the leave on an American bullet, so much the better.

Posted by: 1LT Barr at May 27, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #151902

Jim T,

“And they call Dan Quayle an idiot.”

Well, yeah.

Have you actually heard Quayle speak?
I mean in person?

I was a McCain supporter, but I don’t totally disagree with what Gore has said.

Personally, I would have to say that doing something about the even the remotest possibility, is better than sitting around on our collective thumbs.

As for your Internet claim;

http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/internet.htm

“Gore never claimed that he “invented” the Internet, which implies that he engineered the technology. The invention occurred in the seventies and allowed scientists in the Defense Department to communicate with each other. In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, ‘During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.’”….

“But the real question is what, if anything, did Gore actually do to create the modern Internet? According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who’s been called the Father of the Internet, ‘The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator.’”….

“The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore’s High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania’s Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet ‘would not be where it is today.’

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore ‘was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?’”….

Are we done with this baloney yet?

Posted by: Rocky at May 27, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #151908

traveller,
I was referring to the ABM treaty and to the Geneva Convention.

1LT Barr,
Thank you for your service to our country.

You mentioned the Cole attack. I will remind you that the Cole attack happened in October 2000, less than three months before the Clinton Administration left office. So if you are upset that they didn’t apprehend those behind the Cole attack in three months, I expect you are as absolutely FURIOUS as I am at the Bush administration’s failure to find Osama bin Laden or the leaders of the Taliban who sheltered him in the four years plus since 9-11.

And if you don’t think the Geneva Convention applies to “enemy combatants”, perhaps you can tell us all what the meaning of “is” is.

Look. We’re supposed to be the good guys. The good guys play by the rules. The Geneva Convention is the rulebook and we are supposed to obey it, because we signed it. If we don’t play by the rules, then we have no real claim to being the good guys.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 27, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #151912

Rocky,
The earth’s climate is definitely changing. Some of the changes will cause major disruptions in what we consider normal ways of living. Empirical (non politicized) science simply doesn’t support the fear mongering of chicken littles like Al Gore.
For instance, the “imminent” collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

“For someone who is such a self-professed stickler for science, Gore leaves out all the complications in the glacier picture, as Jason Lee Steorts argues in the latest National Review. The world’s two largest ice sheets cover Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic Peninsula has indeed been melting, but it constitutes only 2 percent of Antarctica’s total area. A 2002 study in Nature found that two-thirds of the continent actually got colder from 1966 to 2000. A 2005 study published in Science looked at about 70 percent of Antarctica’s surface area and reported that the East Antarctic ice sheet had gained—yes, gained—45 billion tons of ice annually between 1992 and 2003.

A more recent Science article argued that Antarctica has been losing ice over the past three years. But Steorts notes, “2002 was a high-watermark for Antarctic ice, so it’s not too surprising to see some decline since then.”

In Greenland, warmer temperatures are also causing the ice to melt at the edges, but the ice sheet is building up in the interior. A study in Science showed that the ice sheet had gained 5.4 centimeters of elevation annually between 1992 and 2003. If that increase is taken into account, the loss of ice in Greenland becomes too small to terrify anyone.

A central conceit of Gore’s film is that C02 is basically the only important driver of climate change. It’s not so. Climate is astonishingly complex. Greenland’s rising temperature might be mostly the result of a pattern of changes in the oceans’ surface temperature known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Greenland experienced just as much warming between 1920 and 1930 as it has in the past ten years—except the warming 80 years ago happened at a faster rate. Since CO2 wasn’t a major factor then, this datum steps on Gore’s message and doesn’t make his PowerPoint presentation”

Rich Lowry, National Review (he believes global warming is real)

I don’t know how to prove a negative.

Aldous,
You might try checking some annoying little things called “facts” sometime.
Polar bears may very well go extinct in 20 years, or maybe even 10. I wonder if the jet streams moving toward the poles might be a factor. www.livescience.com

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #151914

In the original article excerpted above the sentence reads “…the East Antarctic ice sheet gained, yes gained, 45 billion tons of ice annually between 1992 and 2003.”

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #151915

ElliotBay,
The ABM treaty is void because it was between the US and a country that no longer exists.
The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply because a Convention, in this context, is a treaty between different countries. We are not at war with a signatory country.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #151918
In Greenland, warmer temperatures are also causing the ice to melt at the edges, but the ice sheet is building up in the interior.

Which is entirely consistent with the predictions of Global Warming. The interior was traditionally too cold for snow. Because of warmer temperatures, more snow happens. Although it’s counter-intuitive, you’re proving the point you’re trying to disprove.

Here’s a rebuttal of the National Review article you quoted.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 27, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #151919
The ABM treaty is void because it was between the US and a country that no longer exists.

Russia accepted all rights and obligations of the Soviet Union in international law. Your argument is false.

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 27, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #151921


Here is my list of possible Manhattan or Tennessee Valley Authority type projects.

1) A project which has as it’s goal the conversion of all land based transportation to electric power within the next 30 years.

2) A project which has a goal of developing a high tech computerized grid which can be imbedded in our interstate, U.S. routes and state highways. A series of recepticals which are computer activated and provide electrical energy to a vehicle as it passes over the recepticals and is deactivated until the next vehicle passes over. This project should also have a 30 year goal.

3) A project with a goal of producing a very safe and effective nuclear fission reactor which can be used as a stop gap electrical generation measure and which could be mothballed and brought back on line quickly in an emergency situation. This project should have a implementation goal of not more than 5 years and a online goal of 20 years or less.

4) A project for nuclear fusion reactors which has a potential for large scale electrical generation for the millennia. This project has many scientific and technological hurdles to overcome and should be considered as a very long term goal.

5) A project with a goal of building a low earth orbit space based solar energy power generating station. This should be a pilot project only because LEO will be impractical for large scale generation of energy. The long term goal should be Clark, L point orbits, or moon based generating stations. Although spaced based generation of energy and microwave or laser beam projection have enormous potential, like nuclear fusion, there are major obstacles to overcome. One obstacle is the cost of placing men and materials into space. Microwave or laser beam projectors have a potential to be used as weapons and the stations could be vulnerable to attack in case of war. I believe that before this thecnology can be utilized, a cooperation treaty is necessary. Originally, the treaty could begin with the nations who have space capabilities and eventually involve all the nations of the Earth.

6) Space elevator.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #151926

jlw, I was impressed with 1 to 5, really impressed. #6 had me cracking up! Thanks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #151927

1ltb,you made some good points , but when was the last time you seen pure alcohol freeze? the freezing point of alcohol is - 117 C or - 179 f. the cold weather is not a factor. now gas will collect water, and back east there can be problems with the water. icing, in the gas lines. so to cure that they add pure alcohol to remove the water. i made my calcs on e85 ethanol, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gas.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 27, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #151928

Traveller

If global warming is a hoax, Who is behind it? what is their agenda? What is the reason or motive?

If you agree the climate is changing naturally; (what is your basis for this?), then should we not still be concerned? What does this change mean? why is it changing? What impact will it have? how do we prepare for it? There must be scientific data to support your claims.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at May 27, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #151929

elliotBay,

You make a very valid point about bin Laden. It is frustrating, but the fact is that Bush really can’t do anything about that. We’ve had special forces teams hunting him since before we ever formally invaded Afghanistan. The problem is this, he is an elusive target and our technology doesn’t do much good. Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain makes it impractical for military vehicles other than helicopters or old fashioned leather cadillacs. He also pays the locals very well to hide him, and many of them are sympathetic to him anyways. Finding one person in this large an area is not easy, as bin Laden proves by still being at large.

You’re also correct about saying we’re supposed to be the good guys. However, the rules of war are designed to be fair. For instance, while it is against the rules of war to bomb historic and cultural sites, as well as hospitals etc, you also can’t use these sites to protect or hide military personnel or equipment. By the same token its illegal to deliberately target civilians, but its also illegal to use civilians as human shields. I misspoke when I said enemy combatants. I should have said illegal combatants. These are people who engage in military activities who are not uniformed members of a military force. Because they are not soldiers engaged in legal combat, ie active military operations in a uniformed manner with a lawful chain of command and operating under the rules of war, they are not entitled to the protections of legitimate Soldiers.

The largest problem we have is the fact that we always have to be the “good guys.” Right now, we are a de facto global empire. We are the only nation that can project conventional military power worldwide. We are the largest economy in the world and cutting our trade off from any single nation would almost certainly collapse its economy. Just look at Cuba. However, part of the burden of empire is imposing your will on those you fight. We have not done this. Part of the reason the post WWII insurgency in Germany was so ineffective was that every German city had been bombed almost to ruins. The Germans feared us and were broken. Also, insurgents were shot on the spot. We did the right thing and didn’t bomb Iraq into the ground, but the people here are more afraid of the insrugents than us. As Machiavelli said, it is good to rule through love but it is better to rule by fear. We have the worst of both worlds. The Iraqis neither fear nor love us. That needs to change. Whether or not it will is debatable, but until it does, nothing will really improve. Seeing how it would seem the world hates us anyway, a healthy dose of fear might be just what the doctor ordered. I can’t wait to see how I get crucified for this one.

Posted by: 1LT B at May 27, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #151937

1 LTB,

I disagree. Bush could have “stayed the course” and not been distracted by Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9-11. With those additional forces available to him, he very well could (and in my opinion should) have hunted down OBL. And the Taliban leaders.

As far as the Geneva Convention goes, can you name one other signatory nation who has said that it doesn’t apply to them?

Regarding your final paragraph, I find it ironic that some Americans are now saying we should become a global empire, 62 years after celebrating the defeat of the last country to attempt that feat.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 27, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #151940

Aldous

If you are doing the wrong thing and in that way no longer searching for the right thing, it is worse than nothing. And if - as in the case of Kyoto - it is going to cost you a lot to do, it is even worse than that. Kyoto creates the illusion of progress while leaving out the sources of most of the world’s future pollution. It mixed environment with the idea of state driven development and ended up with a mix that wouldn’t work and would cause trouble

If you are planning to visit Chicago, are you better or worse off trying to use a map of New York to find your destinations? Sometimes something is worse than nothing.

Jersey

I believe that the preponderance of the evidence is that global warming is happening and that it is affected by human activity. The question is what to do about it. Please see above. Gore has that map of NYC and is trying to find his way around Chicago. I don’t disagree with his destination, but his plan will not get us there.

I wrote several posts on this, which you can look up. The key to success is higher oil prices (which will encourage alternatives and conservation) and more nuclear power. These are the simple but hard choices.

Max

We are not disregarding global warming. Things like Methane to Markets and the Asia Pacific Partnership have real potential. The very best thing we can do right now is encourage India in its nuclear power program and advance our own. All this Kyoto crap is ineffective.

1LT B

You are right. Clinton never has any intention of honoring Kyoto. The Senate voted it down (before they were even asked) 97 to zero. Democrats too.

David

You know I am concerned about the environment. Kyoto is the wrong thing to do. It is based on the same government run development and aid ideas that have made Tanzania so prosperous.

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #151945

In case you guys don’t know…

A Space Elevator is actually quite viable as a serious project. It would allow non-stop construction in space. We could build the reactors up there and just mass driver the waste into the sun.

Why do I get the feeling most of you aren’t Asimov readers?

Posted by: Aldous at May 27, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #151947

traveller,

The Geneva Convention doesn’t apply because a Convention, in this context, is a treaty between different countries. We are not at war with a signatory country.
The Geneva Convention says “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it”.

Posted by: ElliottBay at May 27, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #151948

Lawnboy,
EVERYTHING is consistent with the predictions of global warming. No matter what happens (or is claimed to happen) it is attributed to global warming. The rebuttals you reference were made by utterly politicized organizations. Many of their statements are nothing more than assumptions.
I haven’t denied that the climate is changing. (we’re in a warming phase right now) What I deny is that man is causing it.
So called greenhouse gasses are a tiny fraction of 1% of the atmosphere. The forces and interactions that drive weather and climate are so complex and poorly understood that no definite predictions can be made. Weather predictions 1 week in advance are notoriously inaccurate. I’m not going to bet the house payment that predictions for the next century are any better.

Jerseyguy,
The desire to rule the world isn’t something that only happened in antiquity. We had two major conflicts over it in the 20th century. (WWII and the cold war, in case you’re wondering)
To answer your question I ask you to think about what restrictions on human activity are being proposed, who is making these proposals, and who will gain power from their implementation.
As for your other questions, I can answer three. I’ve always had an interest in weather and climate and have studied it all my life. I used to be a “weather geek” and have even done some storm chasing. Yes, we should be concerned. We prepare for it by doing what life has always done. We adapt.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #151949


1 LT B: Speaking as a veteran, I can tell you that I think that the invasion of Iraq has been disasterous for the United States. Never the less we did invade so I will give you a couple of what if’s to consider.

What if we had invaded Iraq with overwhelming force in personel ( 500,000 troops), weapons and equipment. Had we done this, we would have had the manpower to not only defeat the Iraq army but, also had the manpower to secure the country and keep the peace. Our job of rebuilding the country and establishing a new government would have been far more successful with a lot less loss of lives on both sides.

What if our military had vigorously sought and destroyed the massive stockpiles of conventional artillary shells rather than, at the insistance of the administration, leaving these stockpiles unguarded so that the search for WMD’s could continue unabated. These shells have been incorporated into many of the IED’s which have killed or maimed many of our troops and Iraqi civilians.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #151950

1LT B,

Clinton knew that the Kyoto Protocal would never pass the Senate and still pushed it. I like to call this letting your mouth write a check your ass can’t cash.

Look who’s talking? Bush said we would have a free Iraq and to expect it to happen in months, not years.

How did Bush violate the Geneva Conventions? I suppose our own laws against cruel and unusual punishment would be made to apply in this case, but illegal combatants are not entitled to any protections under the Geneva Convention. We would be legally within our rights to shoot every single person we hold in Gitmo in the head. Besides, our enemy doesn’t follow them. Bush is actually being far more generous than military law dictates.

The Geneva Convention was designed to protect Soldiers and civilians alike in the midst of war. These terrorists do not apply to the definitions of a Soldier or a civilian. By giving them the same protections, you devalue the status of Soldiers and civilians alike.

Bull. When we fought against the Nazis we didn’t torture and they did. When we fought against the VietCong (also an “illegal” entity) we didn’t torture and they did. When we fought the Koreans we didn’t torture and they did. Historically, this is the difference between us versus them.

If you don’t like what I have to say about what should be done to these motherless bastards and feel you might be better, I have a few suggestions. Go to your nearest military recruitment center and enlist in the Army or Marines. I’ll assume you physically and mentally qualify. Then get sent to Iraq. Spend day after day walking the streets in 110+ degrees in body armor. Then watch a friend get shot and killed by a sniper. Watch a little girl die in your arms from wounds from shrapnel, not from one of your bombs, but from a suicide bomber who blew himself up in a market. Kill a person or two yourself. Then look in the mirror at what you’ve become and see if you don’t feel the same way about the cowards we fight.

I wouldn’t want to be tortured if I was a captured, so I would not do it to another.

The difference between us and them is really simple. With the exception of a few sick people, we don’t deliberately kill civilians. It does sometimes happen, but this isn’t something we celebrate. Unfortunately, they are just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our enemies blow up themselves, sometimes thier vehicles, into markets, job lines, any large group of people. They claim to hold Islam sacred, then try to snipe us from mosques. They are sick psyochiopaths who can best serve the world by leaving it, and if the leave on an American bullet, so much the better.

Yes. But the difference between us and them would be sooo much clearer to the Arab world if a couple hundred soldiers weren’t being indicted right now for systematically torturing Iraqis. I know we don’t try to torture innocents, but it happened in way too many incidents for me to believe it was just a few hooligans. I’m sorry, but the policy of torture hurts US soldiers reputations, and hasn’t led anywhere. That’s unnacceptable to me and I hold those policymakers and implementers responsible. Sorry you don’t feel the same way.

Posted by: Max at May 27, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #151952


David R. Remer: I appreciate your comment. My suggestions were just off the top of my Si. Fi. oriented head. But, science fiction has always been a driving force of our technological advancements.

Aldous: Thanks for clarifing the potential of a space elevator for me. But we should add Arthur C. Clark to the necessary reading list.

Vision is a sorely lacking commodity in our society. I believe that if we humans are going to be successful as a species in the future we must get beyond the short term high profit idealogy that is the driving force of our economy.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #151954

Traveller

For a long time some people have denied global warmer was real. Especially the business community. Their fear has been government regulations to cut back emissions will hurt business. Now that the scientific evidence is undeniable, the new mantra is global warming is real, but a natural Phenomenon.

This way if humans are not the cause, then there is no justification for imposing regulations on business to cut emissions.

This sounds like there is an agenda and bad science being funded by the oil comapnies. The CEO of Exxon has already admitted to funding anti-global warming research. Why would he do that? It reminds me of the tabacco comanpies denying cigarettes casue cancer.

Are you familiar with anti-global warming ad campaigns by the Competitive Enterprise Institute - Funded by the oil companies? Seems like mis-information is on both sides.

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/globalwarmingad.htm

Posted by: jerseyguy at May 27, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #151955


Jack: I think that arguing for or against Kyoto is a waste of time. Without the backing of the U.S. the treaty is doomed. Had Clinton and Bush persued it vigorusly the outcome might have been different. In my opinion, what Kyoto has shown is that the corporate takeover of our government is a done deal.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #151959
The rebuttals you reference were made by utterly politicized organizations. Many of their statements are nothing more than assumptions.

Do you have anything to refute them besides an ad hominem attack? Yes, the link was to a biased group (unlike the National Review???), but the sources they used and cited were solid and non-partisan.

I find it curious that you accept the statements from the National Review’s rebuttal without critique, but you refuse to accept the rebuttal’s rebuttal. Why accept the input that disagrees with the vast majority of evidence and science and reject the input that follows the vast majority of evidence and science?

Posted by: LawnBoy at May 27, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #151960

Jerseyguy,
My position is that global warming is a hoax. No caveats, no “buts”.
Nothing stays the same forever, including the earth’s climate. The system contains natural variability and that’s what we’re seeing.
We’re in a warming phase right now. Stick around a while. It will get cold again.

I’m aware of the oil companies funding anti global warming research. So, what? That doesn’t automatically make the conclusions of the scientists conducting the research invalid. The funding for the other side is equally suspect and probably even more agenda driven.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #151961

Lawnboy,
Those sources may be non partisan in the sense of Dems and Reps but they certainly are not objective. As I said, they’re utterly politicized. They won’t commit heresy no matter where the evidence leads.
Apparently, you didn’t bother to pay attention to whom the author in the NR piece cited.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #151963

jwl

Think of where most of the new emissions will come from (China, India, Brazil etc) Now think of which countries are not under Kyoto limits.

Are other countries doing so well hitting their targets (besides all the excommie states that are just closing down communist era inefficient industries)?

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #151967


Traveller: The corporations will say anything, do anything to discredit anyone or any evidence that threatens their products or their profit margins. If you chose to stand with them in this war, so be it. Make no mistake about it, this has been a long and bitter war. But, I truly believe that those of us who want to see a human society that is self sustaining and has respect for all humans, the Earth and all that dwell within it will prevail in the long run.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #151969


Jack: Yes, I have agreed that Kyoto is flawed. But as i said, had the U.S. used it’s big stick and dangled its carots a better agreement could have been reached and better progress could could have been achieved.

And yes, corporate America has been very busy converting the communist government officials and their children into good little capitalists. These new capitalists will exploit their people with little regard for health, safety or pollution just like they did when they were commie socialists.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #151972

max

If memory serves me, that’s what those of us who fought in Vietnam were called: Terrorists, among other things even more horrible.

I know nothing about your military background or if you even have one.

But I know from “walking the walk” that war changes a person forever, both emotionally and intellectually.

LT Barr speaks from the heart and soul of a man who has seen horrors beyond the average person’s imagination.

Combat veterans have seen the worst of man’s inhumanity to man.

I would respectfully suggest you consider this the next time you feel like calling someone a terrorist.

Posted by: vietnam_vet at May 27, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #151977

jlw

We did in essence do that in Kyoto. Our negotiators (and Gore) gave away the farm. We were going to subsidize the whole system.

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #151979

If the old men who run this world had to place themselves in the front line and be the first to charge into the battle I think we would find a way to do without war. Alas this is not the case. The old men use up the youth of their nations.

We in America expect our troops to excell in battle and to do so with the highest moral standards and within the parameters of law with little regard for what war is truly like and without little regard for the second by second stresses which they must endure.

Anyone who wishes to condem the few who have gone beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior or even worse, implicate all of our troops in the actions of a few (as many did during the Vietnam war) should hop on the next flight to Iraq, strap on the body armor and walk the streets of Bagdad.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #151980


Jack: That is what leadership is all about. You seem to want to suggest that had we entered into Kyoto it would have resulted in the demise of the United States as the preeminent world leader in economics. If so, then I disagree completely. Where would much of the technology and manpower to achieve the Kyoto protocols have come from? Who stood to gain the most from the technologies?

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #151982

vietnam-vet,

Shit happens in a war I understand. But when it’s not an isolated incident, and instead the official policy of our government to torture, that hurts how our troops are going to be seen around the world. It blurs the line that’s historically existed between “us” and “them”.

I didn’t call LT1 B a terrorist - I said he sounded like one when he said captured Iraqis can be boiled in pig’s blood for all he cares. It’s something a terrorist would say about us too, but the difference should be that we don’t really do it.

Finally, being a soldier doesn’t automatically make your comments exempt from criticism. If you’re going to say something like that, and post it to a blog then don’t be surprised if someone else disagrees.

That said, I mean no disrespect to LT 1B. What I meant to call out was that this official policy blurs the line between us and them. Seriously, I have nothing but respect for the incredibly hard, honorable, and sometimes necessarily dirty job our soldiers do for us.

Posted by: Max at May 27, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #151988


Max: It blurs the line that has historically existed between “us” and “them”.

That line is a figment of the imagination. These kind of actions have occured in every war that has ever been fought. And they have been perpetrated by both sides in every war. If there is any distinction to be made it is that we dont like it when our troops are involved and we try to the best of our ability to keep such actions to a minimum. The differences that much of the world has is with our leader. I think that most of the world can distinguish between the actions of a few of our troops and the actions of the insurgents.

Posted by: jlw at May 27, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #151990
That line is a figment of the imagination.
Maybe so, but it is the same line that Bush has been using to justify the invasion of Iraq—at least ever since the WMD fiction was debunked. If we are not the “good guys”, spreading freedom and democracy around the world, then we are just an empire trying to control the world. Posted by: Introspective at May 27, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #151996

Max

I agree with you that no one is above criticism of remarks with which someone may take umbrage.

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that LT B is exempt from criticism just because he is a member of the Armed Services and a combat veteran.

But, as a combat veteran of a war that killed over 58,000 of my comrades-in-arms, physically and psychologically crippled tens of thousands more and nearly tore this country apart, I certainly can understand why he said what he did.

As to the terrorist comment, if I misread your remark, you have my apology

Posted by: vietnam_vet at May 27, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #152004

jlw,
I can’t make any sense of your post. What do you mean?

vietnam_vet,
You didn’t misread Max’s remark. I was offended by it, too. It was a cheap dig and completely uncalled for.

Posted by: traveller at May 27, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #152019

jlw

The U.S. supplies leadership on many things. On this one, the world community is not ready for our leadership. Unfortunately, Kyoto is related to the general development agenda, as I mentioned above. Most of the world just has this wrong. They want to supply more resources to third world klepocracies. We know that the only way to develop is through market forces.

Kyoto has some good aspects, but it is fatally flawed with the heavy dose of old fashioned command and control and redistrution. Even propoents know it won’t do very much good EVEN if it works exactly as advertised.

You are blaming the U.S. for not being able to stop others from going down the wrong way. We could not. So we opted out and are now doing better things.

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #152024

Aldous, space elevator? Why do I get the feeling that you were never a strong supporter of SDI?

Posted by: scolex at May 27, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #152028

Jack, like Sarbanes-Oxley and the McCain-Feingold laws, the Kyoto Treaty is far from perfect. But it is a first step toward doing something instead of sitting around doing nothing. Improve it. Or drop it when another better agreement can be found. But, doing nothing is far far worse.

Besides, the Kyoto Treaty gives the U.S. new technologies to invent and export. If you haven’t noticed, we are running a bit low on things to export besides war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #152043

Hey! I did not call the guy a terrorist. But my answer was kind of cheap - I apologize.

I understand where LT1 J is coming from too, because I agree with the sentiment. I wake up and go “I wish we could just nuke these bastards”. But I am comforted, at the end of the day, with the thought that even though we do what we need to when we need to, we make a point of officially standing for something more than that. I always knew we were as as prone to accidents as other countries, I just thouught we aspired to more than them. Again, no offense here. I love the armed services.

Posted by: Max at May 28, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #152045

David

I think Kyoto is worse than nothing. Its big government/development aid focus will be counter productive. It is not a step in the right direction. It is like using a map of NYC to find your way around Chicago.

Gore is one giant non sequitur. He give us details from his extrapolation of climate change. Then he says his solution is the one we need. He is mistaken and his mistake is pernicious. Good intentions pave the road to hell. We know hell is hot. We don’t need to follow Al Gore down that road.

Keep the price of oil high, and we will invent. Make it profitable for a market economy and we will innovate. The government is not good at managing such things.

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #152066

Aldous, for the first time, I think we agree about something: a space-elevator is a great idea! Several companies are already working on “Bean Stalk” technology, including sophisticated composite cables necessary to lift and support such a structure. Just because a concept is science-fiction at the moment, doesn’t mean it won’t become tomorow’s reality. Jules Verne imagined space ships, submarines and practical flying machines in his day…and the people of the day delighted in making fun of his ideas. Today, all those things exist. The trick is remembering the long term. A bean-stalk type elevator may take decades to construct. Think of the high altitude necessary for the base, the new building technologies that would emerge from the challenges and difficulties of the construction. Then think about the industrial and military consequences of ownership of such a massive structure. If you think there is satelite weaponry in orbit now, just think about what the future might hold!
HHH

Posted by: HardHatHarry at May 28, 2006 2:57 AM
Comment #152076

Ok, someone explain this to me. What’s wrong with Al Gore’s view of global warming? So far I have read that he flies (like most of us), writes bestselling books (like those of us who are smart enough), and that he is “mistaken”. What is he mistaken about?

Posted by: Woody Mena at May 28, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #152093

Woody Mena,
He is mistaken in his assertion that global warming is causing catastrophic changes that will destroy life on Earth in a short period of time if we don’t heed his panicked call to curtail industry and surrender our liberty.

Posted by: traveller at May 28, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #152125

Stick around for the next 25 to 1000 years and check out the next ice age then talk about global warming.
Somebody put a cork in the volcano’s around the world to stop current global warming.
Yours in truth The-right-view.blogspot.com

Posted by: Brian Henry at May 28, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #152139

traveller,

Based on your other posts the only source you’re using to refute Gore’s claims is JunkScience.com.

The publisher of JunkScience, Steven J. Milloy, is hardly scientific or unbiased in his counter-claims, as summarized in Internet Bunk: The Junk Science Page:

Milloy’s so-called junk science page is full of misinformation and misleading claims, and makes little effort to separate science from policy claims made by scientists…. In short, the Junk Science page has some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive.
I don’t see any reason to believe Gore is more “mistaken” than this guy.

Posted by: Introspective at May 28, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #152142

Jack, Are you aware that several states have implemented the Kyoto protocols on their own with great success? Their economy, environment and personal lives have improved incredebly. You right-wingers have a long history of pooh-poohing an idea without ever giving it a chance. Just look at the illigallity of marijuana. MANY solutions to the problem have been proposed over the years yet you guys do not even want to TRY one! How about trying a solution with a sunset provision on it? Give it a whirl for about 5 years. If it doesn’t work, you can always go back to your facist way of doing things. sk

Posted by: sk at May 28, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #152148

Introspective,
Did you read the referenced article, taking note og the sources for the information in it? Or did you simply shoot the messenger?

Posted by: traveller at May 28, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #152149

SK

you are mistaken. No states have implemented Kyoto. What they have done is sensible attempts to lower emissions and encourage alternatives on case by case basis. Kyoto is a comprehensive agreement that includes global redistribution and costs. If I cut my gas consumption, I am not implimenting Kyoto.

You should read what I write more carefully. I advocate alternatives and replacing CO2 producing power with nuclear (as the French and the Finns are successfully doing).

Some parts of Kyoto make sense. It just that the totality of the thing is wrong. Is that to subtle for leftist to understand? Maybe I can put it into the type of terms you used in yoru post. German fascists built good highways and established extensive nature preserves. Do you need to accept their whole package if you advocate those things?

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #152156

traveller,

Did you read the referenced article, taking note og the sources for the information in it? Or did you simply shoot the messenger?
Well, since you asked… Yes, I read the referenced article, and noted the sources of misinformation in it. No, I did not simply shoot the messenger. Did you?
Posted by: Introspective at May 28, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #152196

Introspective,
The sources for the article I referenced in my earlier post.

Goddard Institute for Space Studies

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Climate Research Unit

Hadley Centre

“Physics Today”

National Climatic Data Center

Global Historical Climatology Network

Heat Island Group

Scripps Institution

Yeah, there’s no reliable information to be found anywhere in that bunch, is there?
Since the conclusions in the article don’t agree with your uninformed conclusions it must all be misinformation.
You used a biased article that was nothing but an opinion piece to rebut a heavily referenced report.
As I said before, global warming isn’t science, it’s dogma. I will also add that’s it’s pursued with a religious fervency that’s scary.
We’re supposed to ignore all the factors that affect the earth’s climate and their complex interactions and believe none of that matters. Instead we’re supposed to believe that a gas that comprises a small fraction of 1% of the earth’s atmosphere is causing the climate to change and it will destroy all life if we don’t adopt draconian restrictions on human activity.
That this imbecilic premise is almost universally, unquestioningly accepted as fact with such religious zeal makes me weep for the future.
Open your mind and think for yourself.

Posted by: traveller at May 28, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #152199

Jack, Please address the fact that you guys refuse to try anything new or with a different approach. You guys have historically been unwilling to give anything different a fair chance. If you can’t beat it into submission, threaten it into submission or come up with some ridiculously punitive law, you’re not happy. For some reaon, you guys have to be the boss. Ya’all hate it when most of us are happy with a given situation. Look at Social Security. Most of us “leftys” are aware that the problem can be corrected with a few adjustments. But because your moron fearless leader (and basically all Republicans) hate it so much, you want us to gamble our money away and enrich all of your Wall Street buddies, as if they really need it. Total control is your game. Sorry, it won’t work. It never has. You really have to reincorporate a word back into your vocabulary that was lost when you had your great Republican revolution. COMPROMISE. sk

Posted by: sk at May 28, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #152238

SK

What are you talking about? Read my posts, then we can talk. If you still don’t understand, we won’t.

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #152248

Jack, I gotta give it to you. You can dodge with the best of ‘em sk

Posted by: sk at May 28, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #152255

sk,
What dodge? I don’t understand you either.

Posted by: traveller at May 28, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #152263

SK

Let me try.

I believe in higher energy prices to encourage alternatives and conservation. I have given sources and information about alternatives. My favorite is methanol or ethanol from cellulous. I think nuclear power will pick up much of the slack (the French get 78%, we only get 20%). I support the Asia-Pacific Energy partnership, transfers of technology, methane to markets etc.

I really don’t understand what you mean. I think you may have me confused with your stereotype. This happens to be a lot. Most lefties prefer to fight harmless straw men. I tend to be able to kick their asses rhetorically and substantively, as you evidently know.

Posted by: Jack at May 28, 2006 8:50 PM
Comment #152272

any remote possibility that the nuclear station up in space, could fall back to earth like skylab did ?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 28, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #152355

Weary Willy,

I don’t know where the last nuclear reactor in the US was built, but I know we stopped building them shortly after 3 Mile Island. This is unfortunate since new designs make it physically impossible for an accident such as what happened at 3 Mile Island to occur again. I have heard a quote that went “Whoever designs a foolproof plan never fails to underestimate the ingenuity of fools” but these new designs physically preclude some of the worst disasters.

Further, nuclear power is self-sustaining if we let it be. All of this nuclear waste we bicker about could be put in a neutron flux from a running reactor and reconstituted as fuel, which could be used to power more reactors. Furthermore, nuclear power gives off no greenhouse gases, which would lower our emissions. The rolling blackouts in California and the oil shock from Katrina demonstrate that we need a comprehensive energy policy. Bush tried to do just that, but the Democrats threw out the baby with the bathwater over the proposed drilling in Alaska’s north slope. Either way, we need to develop our energy infastructure or these events will become more common in the future.

I tend to question global warming as a theory. While it has been warmer in the US, its been colder in the Sahara over the same period of time. Shouldn’t a global phenomenon have truly global effects? Furthermore, the Krakatoa eruption in 1868 released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a few minutes than humanity has since we learned to make fire.

Max,

I know you weren’t calling me a terrorist, just critiqing what I said. I don’t support killing innocent civilians, but I do not believe that these insurgents are legally entitled to the protections of POWs based on my understanding of the Geneva Convention and the laws of war. My interpretation is open to critique, and I’m not a lawyer, so I’m quite possibly wrong. No matter what I think, my chain of command, acting under the lawful orders of our civilian heads, has stated that the insurgents are to be treated with the same respect as POWs, so that’s what we’ll do. I got a little carried away, but I’d like to believe that I’m not capable of actually boiling someone alive in pigs blood. A case perhaps of letting my mouth write a check my ass can’t cash.

Vietnam Vet,

Thanks for your kind words and for looking out. Its appreciated. Thank you for your service as well.

Posted by: 1LT B at May 29, 2006 7:22 AM
Comment #152400

Gentlemen, It is now obvlous to me that you clowns ARE as stupid as your ideas. Go back and read my post and see if there is anything in there about nucular(sic) energy. When you understand what I’m getting at with the Social Security example, maybe then we can converse. sk

Posted by: sk at May 29, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #152422

This string of posts is an illustration of the fact that global warming is not a scientific issue but a political one. Like all political issues in the United States, it is automatically over-simplified and trivialized.

Whether global warming is a continuation of a timeless string of natural climatic changes or the result of recent human activity, we are fortunate that the spike in the price of fossil fuels makes alternatives economically viable.

Bill Gates, through his venture capital fund, has invested $38 million in Pacific Ethanol (PEIX). Both Goldman Sachs (GS) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) have invested heavily in privately held Iogen, a Canadian company involved in the cellulosic production of biofuels. General Electric (GE) has financed a European company about to install a wave-powered eletric generator off the coast of Portugal. There are many other examples of private enterprise - including the big, evil oil companies - seeking practical ways to free the world economy from the dominance of oil.

These corporations are much more likely to produce practical solutions to global warming/oil dependence than is a coterie of alarmist ‘scientists’ in hot pursuit of virtually unlimited government research grants and all the power and prestige attached to same.

Perhaps we should be grateful that the supply of oil has become so problematic and its price so politically charged.

Posted by: Tom Schofield at May 29, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #152443

SK

Stupid or not, I just don’t understand what you are talking about. You object to which part of what I wrote?

You know if nobody semms to understand you, maybe it is not them.

Posted by: Jack at May 29, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #152465

traveller,

Yeah, there’s no reliable information to be found anywhere in that bunch, is there?
Since the conclusions in the article don’t agree with your uninformed conclusions it must all be misinformation.
I wasn’t disputing every source the article referenced, just the conclusions that were (mis)drawn from them. If you want to discuss specifics here, rather than just saying “my sources are better than your sources”, then be my guest.
You used a biased article that was nothing but an opinion piece to rebut a heavily referenced report.
Just because a report is heavily referenced doesn’t make it less of an opinion piece. Gore’s movie is heavily referenced as well—are you saying this proves the movie’s conclusions? Then why are we discussing this at all…?
As I said before, global warming isn’t science, it’s dogma. I will also add that’s it’s pursued with a religious fervency that’s scary.
I think you’re confusing global warming with Intelligent Design.
We’re supposed to ignore all the factors that affect the earth’s climate and their complex interactions and believe none of that matters. Instead we’re supposed to believe that a gas that comprises a small fraction of 1% of the earth’s atmosphere is causing the climate to change and it will destroy all life if we don’t adopt draconian restrictions on human activity.
Accepting the latter does not mean ignoring the former. The percentage of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is 10,000 time higher than the percentage of ozone. Are you saying that whole “Ozone Hole” scare was 10,000 time more nonsensical than global warming? Draconian restrictions on human behavior? Now who’s exaggerating?
That this imbecilic premise is almost universally, unquestioningly accepted as fact with such religious zeal makes me weep for the future.
Yes, scientists are certainly prone to dogma and ignoring the facts, right? And I’ve been weeping for the future for over five years now—so I’ve got a good head start on you.
Open your mind and think for yourself.
I’ve got a good “head” start on you there as well.

Posted by: Introspective at May 29, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #152489

I understand what sk was saying about the Republicans wanting to screw up SS more than it is now. Just a few tweaks and it’s ok or totally junk it and play the markets. I know where I’m leaning. PS, it ain’t making Haliburton even more profitable.

Posted by: ray at May 29, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #152490

Wasn’t sk talking about global warming and asking about that? I didn’t really catch the shift. We have discussed SS on many other parts of the blog. If either of you are interested, you can look them up.

Posted by: Jack at May 29, 2006 6:52 PM
Post a comment