| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2007 12:13:07 PM |
| Object: |
Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/02/04/35
22923.html
I'm sorry. I know global warming is a serious subject, particularly with
the release of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
But at some point in many big stories, mass hysteria takes over and the
subject, no matter how serious, "jumps the shark" as they say on TV.
For me, that moment happened last week while reading a story in the
Globe and Mail and coming across this hilarious nugget.
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa,
reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most
refused to answer the question directly."
Good gawd! Has it come to this? Are not just global warming "deniers,"
as Stephane Dion calls them, but mere global warming "refusers to answer
the question directly" to be hunted down, as we once did witches?
Just for fun, let's imagine I was one of those MPs, confronted by the
media mob.
Media mob: "Mr. Goldstein, do you believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming?"
Me: "I beg your pardon?"
Media mob: "You heard the question, do you believe it?"
Me: "You're not serious."
Media mob: "You better believe we are."
Me (Sigh): "Okay, get your tapes rolling. Ready? Here we go ... You ask
me if I believe increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
are causing global warming. I will go even further. I will state
categorically that greenhouse gases cause global warming. If greenhouse
gases did not cause global warming, we would all be dead, having frozen
to death. The reason we have not, is called the 'greenhouse effect'. If
any of you kept your Grade 8 science textbooks, look it up.
"Now, I presume that what you would have asked me, if any of you knew
what you were talking about, is whether I believe man-made greenhouse
gas emissions caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels such as
coal, oil and natural gas, and by deliberate deforestation, are causing
a significant increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in
the Earth's atmosphere, and an attendant increase in the earth's
temperature, that cannot be explained by natural causes.
"The answer is I do not know. I am not a scientist. But I accept the
IPCC's conclusion that the earth is warming and that it is "very
likely" -- at least a 90% certainty -- that human activity is the cause.
"However, I am also aware, as a layman, that there is a great deal of
debate within the scientific community on how quickly this is happening,
on how dramatically it will impact on the world's climate and on what we
should do about it, which is where I come in as a policy maker.
"I trust scientists to continue their dispassionate investigations of
these issues, employing the professional scepticism you people think is
a dirty word, but is in fact a fundamental part of what is known as the
'scientific method'.
"Again, if any of you still have your Grade 8 science textbooks, look it
up.
"Finally, responsible scientists are not the people screaming in our
ears that we're all going to die from the weather in a few years, that
the evil western nations and all of us living in them who caused this
must be punished, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a climate
change 'denier,' the implication being that they are little better than
someone who denies the Holocaust -- an absurd, unjust and morally
revolting comparison.
Won't be intimidated
"This is where science has been hijacked by radical ideology and media
hype and I will not let it -- or you -- intimidate me into making rash
statements or decisions about an issue that is so important, not only to
my constituents and their descendants, but to all of us who live on
Earth.
"One final thing. Please, look up 'carbon dioxide' in your Grade 8
science textbooks, so that you will understand how essential it is to
all life on Earth. Then, look up 'carbon-based life forms' and try to
find one. This will not be as hard as it sounds. Trust me. And now,
ladies and gentlemen of the media, kindly GET THE !@?!@$ OUT OF MY
WAY!!!!!"
Media mob: "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!!"
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
| User: "ClayeSkye #4" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
04 Feb 2007 12:16:28 PM |
|
|
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa,
reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most
refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
04 Feb 2007 03:09:40 PM |
|
|
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa,
reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most
refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for that matter?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group
to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and
it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in
2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "ClayeSkye #4" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 06:39:24 AM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa,
reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most
refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for that matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what their
elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day that there
were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's just possible
that Canadians are just interested in their environment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 02:56:56 PM |
|
|
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in
Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global
warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when
there isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't
say. It is a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly
reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for that
matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what their
elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day that there
were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's just possible
that Canadians are just interested in their environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "ClayeSkye #4" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 05:14:00 PM |
|
|
On Feb 5, 12:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in
Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global
warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when
there isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't
say. It is a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly
reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for that
matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what their
elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day that there
were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's just possible
that Canadians are just interested in their environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
I read the entire thing. It was all based on this false premise at
the beginning. Poor politicians being asked about global warming!
How dare they attack them so!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
06 Feb 2007 11:42:37 AM |
|
|
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1170717240.597158.44170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 5, 12:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting
in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global
warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal
to answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell,
they weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question
and most refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch
hunt when there isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer?
It doesn't say. It is a simple reporting of the response to a
perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for
that matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what
their elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day that
there were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's just
possible that Canadians are just interested in their environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
I read the entire thing. It was all based on this false premise at
the beginning. Poor politicians being asked about global warming!
How dare they attack them so!
That's not a false premise. People are being badgered to "support"
global warming.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "ClayeSkye #4" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 07:58:08 AM |
|
|
On Feb 6, 9:42 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1170717240.597158.44170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 5, 12:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting
in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing
levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global
warming. Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal
to answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell,
they weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question
and most refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch
hunt when there isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer?
It doesn't say. It is a simple reporting of the response to a
perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for
that matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what
their elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day that
there were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's just
possible that Canadians are just interested in their environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
I read the entire thing. It was all based on this false premise at
the beginning. Poor politicians being asked about global warming!
How dare they attack them so!
That's not a false premise. People are being badgered to "support"
global warming.
Not in this article. Someone asked a question and someone didn't
answer. You end it with:
Media mob: "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!!"
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 09:14:11 AM |
|
|
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1170856688.594269.290930@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 6, 9:42 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170717240.597158.44170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 5, 12:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus
meeting in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are
causing global warming. Most refused to answer the question
directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the
refusal to answer. It doesn't say they were being huned
down. Hell, they weren't even named. Just some guys were
asked a question and most refused to answer the question.
How can it be a witch hunt when there isn't anyone to hunt?
Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is a simple
reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for
that matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what
their elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day
that there were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's
just possible that Canadians are just interested in their
environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
I read the entire thing. It was all based on this false premise at
the beginning. Poor politicians being asked about global warming!
How dare they attack them so!
That's not a false premise. People are being badgered to "support"
global warming.
Not in this article. Someone asked a question and someone didn't
answer. You end it with:
Media mob: "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!!"
The interesting part is how you get there.
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "ClayeSkye #4" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 10:40:47 AM |
|
|
On Feb 7, 7:14 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1170856688.594269.290930@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 6, 9:42 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170717240.597158.44170@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 5, 12:56 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170679164.849746.93130@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com:
On Feb 4, 1:09 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"ClayeSkye #4" <FaithH...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1170612988.670090.213660@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus
meeting in Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that
increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are
causing global warming. Most refused to answer the question
directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the
refusal to answer. It doesn't say they were being huned
down. Hell, they weren't even named. Just some guys were
asked a question and most refused to answer the question.
How can it be a witch hunt when there isn't anyone to hunt?
Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is a simple
reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
Why is that even worth reporting? Why is it worth *asking* for
that matter?
It's worth asking and reporting because people want to know what
their elected officials might do about it. Nowhere did it day
that there were reporters hounding anyone in large groups. It's
just possible that Canadians are just interested in their
environment.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the essay?
I read the entire thing. It was all based on this false premise at
the beginning. Poor politicians being asked about global warming!
How dare they attack them so!
That's not a false premise. People are being badgered to "support"
global warming.
Not in this article. Someone asked a question and someone didn't
answer. You end it with:
Media mob: "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!!"
The interesting part is how you get there.
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
The entire premise of your post was that people were being badgered
about global warming. If that is an irrelevancy, why bother posting
the thread?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 07:01:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:14:11 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
That makes it easier for Fred to ignore what is relevant.
Specifically, he can ignore the fact that global warming is a real
phenomenon which calls for immediate and decisive action if we are to
avoid catastrophe.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 08:56:20 PM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:u4tks29ca15qdl84fi6mg3r25mlgfqasrt@4ax.com:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:14:11 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
That makes it easier for Fred to ignore what is relevant.
Specifically, he can ignore the fact that global warming is a real
phenomenon which calls for immediate and decisive action if we are to
avoid catastrophe.
Fine. What "immediate and decisive action" are you proposing?
Please be specific and give cost estimates of the impact on the economy and
how your proposals will affect the tax base and deficits.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group
to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and
it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in
2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
07 Feb 2007 11:52:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:56:20 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:u4tks29ca15qdl84fi6mg3r25mlgfqasrt@4ax.com:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:14:11 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was badgered
in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
That makes it easier for Fred to ignore what is relevant.
Specifically, he can ignore the fact that global warming is a real
phenomenon which calls for immediate and decisive action if we are to
avoid catastrophe.
Fine. What "immediate and decisive action" are you proposing?
Please be specific and give cost estimates of the impact on the economy and
how your proposals will affect the tax base and deficits.
I would propose that we start and intensive program for solar, wind
and, yes even nuclear power generation. Also, improved public transit
and measures to greatly increase fuel economy standards as well as
other conservation measures.
I don't know what it would cost, but I am sure it would be cheaper
than the alternative. Unfortunately, I can't imagine Americans
(especially) making this kind of change and that doesn't even address
China. Ultimately, I think we are probably doomed and the
conservatives will deserve a disproportionate share of the blame.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that the problem is
real.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
08 Feb 2007 09:04:05 AM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:61els2561f6abksg3lbq2kp7ueul8qtcrl@4ax.com:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:56:20 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:u4tks29ca15qdl84fi6mg3r25mlgfqasrt@4ax.com:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:14:11 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was
badgered in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
That makes it easier for Fred to ignore what is relevant.
Specifically, he can ignore the fact that global warming is a real
phenomenon which calls for immediate and decisive action if we are
to avoid catastrophe.
Fine. What "immediate and decisive action" are you proposing?
Please be specific and give cost estimates of the impact on the
economy and how your proposals will affect the tax base and deficits.
I would propose that we start and intensive program for solar, wind
and, yes even nuclear power generation.
I'd put nuclear first, but I'm with you so far. When Teddy Kennedy
withdraws his objections to the Massachusetts Bay wind project, I'll
believe that he's serious about energy. When Al Gore gives up his
private jet, I'll believe that *he* is serious about Global Warming.
Also, improved public transit
and measures to greatly increase fuel economy standards as well as
other conservation measures.
Fuel economy and conservation only go so far.
I don't know what it would cost, but I am sure it would be cheaper
than the alternative. Unfortunately, I can't imagine Americans
(especially) making this kind of change and that doesn't even address
China. Ultimately, I think we are probably doomed and the
conservatives will deserve a disproportionate share of the blame.
Americans *are* making this kind of change, as we speak, under the
pressure of the free market. Gasoline prices are driving fuel economy
standards more than government ever could. (yes, even with all the SUV's
on the road, there are still *more* economy cars), and there are other
voluntary energy saving measures too. The trouble is that our economy is
growing faster than the conservation measures can keep up, and so the
trend lines are still positive.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that the problem is
real.
I doubt that it is a doomsday scenario.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
09 Feb 2007 12:05:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:04:05 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:61els2561f6abksg3lbq2kp7ueul8qtcrl@4ax.com:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 03:56:20 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:u4tks29ca15qdl84fi6mg3r25mlgfqasrt@4ax.com:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:14:11 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone was
badgered in anyway.
Thank you for concentrating on irrelevancies.
That makes it easier for Fred to ignore what is relevant.
Specifically, he can ignore the fact that global warming is a real
phenomenon which calls for immediate and decisive action if we are
to avoid catastrophe.
Fine. What "immediate and decisive action" are you proposing?
Please be specific and give cost estimates of the impact on the
economy and how your proposals will affect the tax base and deficits.
I would propose that we start and intensive program for solar, wind
and, yes even nuclear power generation.
I'd put nuclear first, but I'm with you so far. When Teddy Kennedy
withdraws his objections to the Massachusetts Bay wind project, I'll
believe that he's serious about energy. When Al Gore gives up his
private jet, I'll believe that *he* is serious about Global Warming.
I don't know whether they are serious about it or not, but I do know
that Gore has done far more good raising awareness on this issue then
he could ever do harm by personal fuel consumption.
Also, improved public transit
and measures to greatly increase fuel economy standards as well as
other conservation measures.
Fuel economy and conservation only go so far.
Efficiency and conservation are all we have. If we can generate green
electricity then electric commuter trains and electric cars (including
plug-in hybrids) would do a lot to decrease carbon emissions.
I don't know what it would cost, but I am sure it would be cheaper
than the alternative. Unfortunately, I can't imagine Americans
(especially) making this kind of change and that doesn't even address
China. Ultimately, I think we are probably doomed and the
conservatives will deserve a disproportionate share of the blame.
Americans *are* making this kind of change, as we speak, under the
pressure of the free market. Gasoline prices are driving fuel economy
standards more than government ever could.
*****. Every day I see people commuting (alone) in Hummers and
Suburbans. There are lots of ways the Government could strongly
discourage that. Here is one that the conservatives should love. How
about we enact a motor fuel tax to pay for our misadventures in Iraq
and the ME. Since oil is the primary (only) motivation for our
interest in the region, the consumers of oil should be paying for it.
Three dollars a gallon ought to cover the military cost and a tax
credit of $1000 per household to help ease the burden. Use less than
333 gallons a year and you actually come out ahead. If you insist on
driving a Hummer, you should be patriotic enough that you don't mind
paying for the war.
(yes, even with all the SUV's
on the road, there are still *more* economy cars),
There has been a slight shift in the last year or so, but you need
five people to move from a mid size car to an economy car just to
offset one guy who moves from a mid size car into a large SUV
and there are other
voluntary energy saving measures too. The trouble is that our economy is
growing faster than the conservation measures can keep up, and so the
trend lines are still positive.
And the projections are dire.
None of this has anything to do with the fact that the problem is
real.
I doubt that it is a doomsday scenario.
It depends on what you mean by a doomsday scenario. It isn't going to
destroy all life on Earth but it could sure ***** us up pretty good.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
LOL, it looks like a legitimate paper, but scratch below the surface
and you find out the guy is a wacko.
Arthur B. Robinson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arthur B. Robinson is founder, president and professor of chemistry at
the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, where he conducts
research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and
preventive medicine. He also sells the Robinson Curriculum, which
promises to "Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as
did many...in the days before socialism in education". He is an avowed
Christian fundamentalist. He is currently the editor and publisher of
the newsletter Access to Energy (www.accesstoenergy.com), which was
originated by Petr Beckmann.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself
as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic
medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of
aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who
has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the
fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit
for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and
publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.
The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave
Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). Located slightly east of Siskiyou
National Forest, Cave Junction is one of several small towns nestled
in the Illinois Valley, whose total population is 15,000. Best known
as a gateway to the Oregon Caves National Monument, it is described by
its chamber of commerce as "the commercial, service, and cultural
center for a rural community of small farms, woodlots, crafts people,
and families just living apart from the crowds. ... Cave Junction is
the sort of out-of-the-way location you might seek out if you were
hoping to survive a nuclear war, but it is not known as a center for
scientific and medical research. The OISM would be equally obscure
itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a
deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration
with Frederick Seitz, a retired former president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
04 Feb 2007 05:27:17 PM |
|
|
On 4 Feb 2007 10:16:28 -0800, "ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in Ottawa,
reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming. Most
refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
That simply won't do. Fred Stone needs to lie and feel persecuted at
the same time.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3094 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 02:57:30 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:mtqcs2hgk64otcujum0ccssku0g8c3tvkb@4ax.com:
On 4 Feb 2007 10:16:28 -0800, "ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in
Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming.
Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
That simply won't do. Fred Stone needs to lie and feel persecuted at
the same time.
Sorry, Yang dear, I'm not a liberal like you. I don't need the Victim
Card.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 08:12:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:57:30 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:mtqcs2hgk64otcujum0ccssku0g8c3tvkb@4ax.com:
On 4 Feb 2007 10:16:28 -0800, "ClayeSkye #4" <FaithHH02@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"As Conservative MPs emerged from their weekly caucus meeting in
Ottawa, reporters asked whether they believe that increasing levels
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing global warming.
Most refused to answer the question directly."
I think everything after this is an overreaction to the refusal to
answer. It doesn't say they were being huned down. Hell, they
weren't even named. Just some guys were asked a question and most
refused to answer the question. How can it be a witch hunt when there
isn't anyone to hunt? Who refused to answer? It doesn't say. It is
a simple reporting of the response to a perfectly reasonable question.
That simply won't do. Fred Stone needs to lie and feel persecuted at
the same time.
Sorry, Yang dear, I'm not a liberal like you. I don't need the Victim
Card.
Nice try, Fred Chicken. The Rush-Limbaugh oppreseed-white-Christian
card is part of your NeoCon trope.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -3 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -3098 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
05 Feb 2007 10:27:31 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:13:07 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Finally, responsible scientists are not the people screaming in our
ears that we're all going to die from the weather in a few years, that
the evil western nations and all of us living in them who caused this
must be punished, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a climate
change 'denier,' the implication being that they are little better than
someone who denies the Holocaust -- an absurd, unjust and morally
revolting comparison.
Responsible scientists (specifically climatologists) may not be
screaming in our ears that we are all going to die, but many are quite
emphatic that this is a crisis and we have to take immediate and
drastic action. The problem is that there is a huge lag (by human
standards) between our actions and their full effect. The impact of
every ton of CO2 takes decades to be fully felt and centuries to fully
subside. Even if we revert to cave man levels of CO2 generation
tomorrow, it will not get cooler for centuries to come.
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty here. We have pushed a very
complex system farther out of its envelope than has ever happened as
far as we can tell. And there are unpredictable elements which could
have significant impact, particularly in the short run. A couple of
Pinatubo size eruptions could buy us a couple of cool decades, but
that would only be delaying the impact of what we are doing. On the
other hand, there are scenarios for runaway heating which could mean
that it is already too late to avert a catastrophe.
So, exactly what are "responsible scientists" saying?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22592
"We have a very brief window of opportunity," NASA scientist says.
Sacramento, California - A leading US climate researcher says the
world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on
global warming and avert catastrophe.
NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of
American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an
alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check
and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8
degrees Fahrenheit).
"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with
climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most," Hansen said
Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California's
state capital.
If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen
said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2
degrees F) and "we will be producing a different planet."
On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a
rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The
world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful
hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of
species.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
06 Feb 2007 11:43:34 AM |
|
|
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:05kfs29nbptl8123dg2305ec6lqhkn0s1v@4ax.com:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:13:07 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Finally, responsible scientists are not the people screaming in our
ears that we're all going to die from the weather in a few years, that
the evil western nations and all of us living in them who caused this
must be punished, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a climate
change 'denier,' the implication being that they are little better
than
someone who denies the Holocaust -- an absurd, unjust and morally
revolting comparison.
Responsible scientists (specifically climatologists) may not be
screaming in our ears that we are all going to die, but many are quite
emphatic that this is a crisis and we have to take immediate and
drastic action. The problem is that there is a huge lag (by human
standards) between our actions and their full effect. The impact of
every ton of CO2 takes decades to be fully felt and centuries to fully
subside. Even if we revert to cave man levels of CO2 generation
tomorrow, it will not get cooler for centuries to come.
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty here. We have pushed a very
complex system farther out of its envelope than has ever happened as
far as we can tell. And there are unpredictable elements which could
have significant impact, particularly in the short run. A couple of
Pinatubo size eruptions could buy us a couple of cool decades, but
that would only be delaying the impact of what we are doing. On the
other hand, there are scenarios for runaway heating which could mean
that it is already too late to avert a catastrophe.
So, exactly what are "responsible scientists" saying?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22592
Sorry, quoting truthout is not responsible.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-
group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn
instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the
climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the
"climate change" jet set...." -Mark Steyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Has Global Warming Jumped The Shark? |
06 Feb 2007 07:43:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 18:43:34 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
satyr <RsEaMtOyVrE@infidels.org> wrote in
news:05kfs29nbptl8123dg2305ec6lqhkn0s1v@4ax.com:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 19:13:07 +0100 (CET), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
"Finally, responsible scientists are not the people screaming in our
ears that we're all going to die from the weather in a few years, that
the evil western nations and all of us living in them who caused this
must be punished, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a climate
change 'denier,' the implication being that they are little better
than
someone who denies the Holocaust -- an absurd, unjust and morally
revolting comparison.
Responsible scientists (specifically climatologists) may not be
screaming in our ears that we are all going to die, but many are quite
emphatic that this is a crisis and we have to take immediate and
drastic action. The problem is that there is a huge lag (by human
standards) between our actions and their full effect. The impact of
every ton of CO2 takes decades to be fully felt and centuries to fully
subside. Even if we revert to cave man levels of CO2 generation
tomorrow, it will not get cooler for centuries to come.
Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty here. We have pushed a very
complex system farther out of its envelope than has ever happened as
far as we can tell. And there are unpredictable elements which could
have significant impact, particularly in the short run. A couple of
Pinatubo size eruptions could buy us a couple of cool decades, but
that would only be delaying the impact of what we are doing. On the
other hand, there are scenarios for runaway heating which could mean
that it is already too late to avert a catastrophe.
So, exactly what are "responsible scientists" saying?
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22592
Sorry, quoting truthout is not responsible.
Duck, dodge and hide all you want, but the story accurately reflects
the professional judgment of a respected expert in the field.
But, just for you Fred, here are links to the scientist quoted in the
truthout story.
Here is his Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen
Here is his home page:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Here is his CV:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_cv_200701.pdf
Here is his slide show in which he makes the same points as reported
on truthout
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_cv_200701.pdf
Here is an excerpt from his speech which is, if anything, more
alarming and urgent than what was reported in truthout.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/DukeEdin_21Nov2006_complete.pdf
The rude scientific awakening to the threat of climate change has been
sudden and profound. Only in recent years has the extent and immediacy
of the threat become clear. The result is a huge gap between what is
understood about global warming, by the relevant scientific community,
and what is known about global warming, by those who need to know, the
public and policymakers.
We must close that gap and begin to move our energy systems in a
fundamentally different direction within about a decade, or we will
have pushed the planet past a tipping point beyond which it will be
impossible to avoid far-ranging undesirable consequences. These
include loss of a large fraction of species on the planet due to rapid
shifting of climatic zones and eventual rising sea level due to
disintegration of the major ice sheets.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
