Ted Glick Is Fasting

Climate "change" more and more has the hallmarks of a religion.

New and improved: Now with martyrs!

It used to be called weather.

P.S. -- there you go, walleroo. Take back the night, eh?

It is anything but a religion. We wouldn't be dealing with the climate emergency if it wasn't for the science that detect it.

It is anything but a religion. We wouldn't be dealing with the climate emergency if it wasn't for the science that detected it.

"Error in NASA climate data sparks debate

Due to an error in calculations of mean U.S. temperatures, 1934, not 1998 as previously reported, is the hottest year on record in the United States. NASA scientists contend that the error has little effect on overall U.S. temperature trends and no effect on global mean temperatures, with 2005 still the hottest year worldwide by far, followed by 1998. The data corrections have added new fuel to the climate change debate, however — and could spell more public relations woes for NASA.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA measures long-term changes in global surface temperatures using raw data collected at thousands of stations around the world (called the Global Historical Climatology Network, or GHCN). The raw temperature data are then corrected to account for a number of factors, including differences in the time of day of measurements between stations, and differences between rural stations and urban stations (which tend to be hotter, due to the so-called "urban heat island" effect).

On Aug. 4, however, the well-known climate change skeptic and former mining executive Steven McIntyre — who previously challenged climatologist Michael Mann's 1998 finding that temperatures have increased rapidly since 1900 A.D., compared with the previous thousand years, forming a distinctive "hockey stick" temperature pattern — observed a strange jump in the U.S. data occurring around January 2000. He sent an e-mail to NASA about his observation, and the agency responded with an e-mail acknowledging a flaw in the calculations and thanking him for his help, he says. By Aug. 7, he says, the agency had removed the incorrect U.S. data from the GISS Web site and replaced it with corrected numbers for all 1,200 stations.

The issue didn't end there, however. The corrections made almost no difference to global temperature trends, NASA reported, while U.S. mean annual temperatures from 2000 to 2006 were all reduced by about 0.15 degrees Celsius. Most significantly for climate change skeptics, however, the year 1934 now edges out 1998 as the hottest year in the United States.

McIntyre wrote about his findings in his blog ClimateAudit, dubbing the incorrect data a "Y2K" error and setting off a heated back-and-forth debate that gained traction in the blogosphere. In addition to noting the altered U.S. data, McIntyre also cast doubts on NASA's methods of collecting data and on its transparency, claiming that the old data should have been kept up on the Web site for comparison, and NASA should have alerted the public to the changes. Furthermore, he says, he had asked repeatedly to see the "source code" NASA uses to calculate its numbers, and had been repeatedly denied. "Certainly I think the way they handled it was inappropriate," he says. "I've got experience in public companies and if you have some bad news or adverse results you have to announce them."

What is your source? Don't article dump. Just post a link.

He had veggie wash on his kitchen counter. That stuff is a complete farce. Perhaps Ted Glick should do more research prior to killing himself.

Yup, that whole pesky myth about global warming... nothing to see here. Move along.

No, no, those polar bears aren't in any danger... there's plenty of ice left for them.

In unrelated news: Countries are now competing for rights to shipping lanes in the Bearing Straight due to earlier and longer melting seasons in that region.

But, there's no global warming. Now, back to my tanning on this 85 degree September day.

Geotimes, CTV.ca, etc. a google search will bring up many articles. Why give you one article that you can claim bias against, when it is printed by many sources.

Let's try that again:

link

"It's also important to question whether global warming is even a problem for human existence. Thus far no one has seriously demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives."

Sen. James Inhofe, Oklahoma (R)

Yeah! And screw all those animals who depend on seasonal freezing and cooler ocean temperatures to survive.

So long as we get a longer growing season out of the deal and tuna farmers keep fish on our plates, then who gives a crap?

GNM, I'm not saying it is a myth, just that with all of the data and assumptions that go into the computer model, it's possible that mistakes can (and were made). Maybe others have been made. Maybe it is a cyclical warming trend as now it appears the 1930s were as hot as the 1990s. It's hard to have complete faith in either side when mistakes are shown to have been made.

I think people on either end (no global warming here, move on as well as, global warming is a definite, and is definitely due to man, and NYC will definitely be underwater in 100 years, etc.) are sticking their head in the sand or thinking the sky is falling.

The research on climate change is being replicated by a number of research groups. There is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and to our detriment.

The earth's temps have been fluctuating since the dawn of time, not just in the last 50 years or so as the fatalists will have you believe. For example, it was warm enough in Medieval England for people to harvest grapes and make wine. Not so today, so what's the explanation for that? No SUVs around then.

"The research on climate change is being replicated by a number of research groups. There is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and to our detriment."

Not disagreeing, just not sure if it is a "man made" problem (or the majority of it) or if it is a cyclical thing.

I'm not sure either has been proven? It does appear that the 1930s were one of the hottest decades on record and as I remember from grade school, the 70s were the beginning of the new ice age. Now it's getting hotter again.

I commend the man for taking action (lord knows, I couldn't fast for 20 minutes), but I fear he is suffering in silence. I completely agree with him on this issue, but is anyone really paying attention? I mean, he's been fasting for 20 days, I'm a complete news junkie--and this is the 1st I've heard about him.

It also makes me annoyed--there are so many ways for people to participate and spread the word online--I know the boomers aren't always so tech-savvy, but what about this guy's son? Hunger strikes are so 70s..and so are videos with an acoustic guitar riff. It's easy to make noise these days. Ted, find another way to get the word out, get with the times, and eat, please!

i hope he's shipping his uneaten food to africa. at least someone will benefit from this stunt.

JD, most scientists believe that climate change that we are experiencing now is man made.

As a matter of public policy this has become an issue of scientific literacy.

Source, link?

"most" scientists at any given time in history have believed things that turn out to have been incorrect.

Even if global warming is man made, I am not satisfied that:
1) given human nature, there is anything that politicians can do about it
2) that it is necessarily a net negative to the majority of people in the world
3) that the burden of trying to reverse a decades-long climate shift is lighter than the burden of simply adapting and
4) that our rivals in China, Russia and elsewhere will play fair if we do sacrifice our own well-being in the attempt to tackle #3

Source, link?

LOL

PS - I misunderstood your motivation in the earlier post, but stand by my sarcastic reply to the quote by the good Senator from Oklahoma.

http://www.climateemergency.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=103

"U.S. Climate Emergency Council
The U.S. Climate Emergency Council is a nonprofit organization dedicated to rigorous grassroots action in the fight to stop global warming and promote a clean energy future. "

Lasermike, you couldn't find anything more biased then an organization dedicated to fighting global warming and promoting a clean energy future? So, if global warming was a myth, then this organization would cease to exist? I guess they better believe it!

Miss Martta, whether or no it's quite warm enough in modern England, they still harvest grapes and make wine there as they did in medieval England. Get on the right British Airways flights and they'll offer you Brit wines as well as French, Spanish and Italian varieties. The attendants will also be absolutely delighted if you opt for their native product.

Mikey, I realize that this may tax your gray cells, but analysis of pollen samples and all sorts of other stuff indicates that the earth went through "global warming" at least twice before. Once during the Bronze Age, circa 2000 B.C. and around 1200-1650, timed to approximately the dates of the "Age of Discovery." It may well be cyclical.

As for the faster, he sounds kind of dumb and showboat-y. I much prefer my fasters to be mendicant monks and nuns, even IRA and UDR prisoners, not Bloomfield liberals.

Can someone tell me what caused the global cooling that resulted in the ice age?

I appreciate it, appletony, but I feel I've argued climate change so many times on this blog that I have no hot air left to blow. Suffice to say that I'm on a climate change eating binge and won't stop eating until China reduces its carbon emissions to pre-1950 levels.

Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cares about global warming? Osama bin Laden?

Anyway, I didn't know that, Cathar. I have had wines from France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, California, even Long Island,

Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cares about global warming? Osama bin Laden?

Anyway, I didn't know that, Cathar. I have had wines from France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, California, even Long Island,

Do you think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cares about global warming? Osama bin Laden?

Anyway, I didn't know that, Cathar. I have had wines from France, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, California, even Long Island, but never once had wines made in Great Britain. How is this done? They hardly have the climate for it, no?

but never sampled wines from great Britain? How is this done? Didn't think they had the climate for it.

There was a time in my life, Miss Martta, when I absolutely enjoyed, for admittedly political reasons, serving guests wine from South Africa. But now, alas, they're somewhat chic. More available and pricier, too. (Fascism had certain market advantages.)

Come on, uncle walleroo, you can do "it" again, there's the boy....tell us all about global warming. And then offer to take us all out afterwards for ice cream.

For those of you that hate Ahmadinejad so much why do you love your SUV?

I don't have an SUV but what does that have to do with Ahmadinejad? I am sure he is being driven around in a big ass limo.

Miss Martta, they do in fact have the climate for it. England is at approximately the same latitude as Germany, after all.

Most Brit wines come from the south, around Kent and "Wessex" and down as far as Cornwall, I believe. They're almost all whites, from both varietal and hybrid grapes (for which thank the US, as the entire global wine industry owes us for saving the world from phylloxera). But even in Scotland, where the Gulf Stream runs particularly near the shore, there are gardens at Inverewe and elsewhere on the West Coast which feature sub-tropical plants. They also produce some wines up there; the Lovat family (as in Lord Lovat, played by Peter Lawford in "The Longest Day") is a leader in this revival of an industry which was at its historical peak (wait for it, mikeypal!) around 1500.

What do you think you fill your gas tank up with, applesauce?

When you can honestly tell me why a country with abundant resources of oil and natural gas are building a nuclear power plant, then I will welcome Ahmadinejad.

And as for the SUV comment. If every car, truck and bus in America was taken off of the road, it wouldn't even put a dent in our planets greenhouse gas emissions. Not until China, India and other huge and gross polluting economies are willing to make even the most simple environmental concessions, will it make a difference. But go and buy a hybrid anyway. It goes well with your $50 Whole Foods recyclable grocery bag!

Now, mikey, none of YOUR applesauce (as good Sister Francine used to say in 2nd grade), either.

I also think, laserboy, that were you to poll posters, it would ikely play out that far more those of the distinctly liberal persuasion here drive SUV's as opposed to acknowledged conservatives (along with wishy-washy cowards who won't admit it like marsupial boy).

And how is your own Sicilian goat cart rig doing, come to think of it?

French producers are beginning to buy land in Kent and Essex due to the increasingly warm temperatures in the region and the chalky soil which is beneficial for sparkling wines.

Kent and Sussex

I have a hybrid. 50mpg. I plan to get it retrofitted to be plug in and get 120mpg.

25% of carbon emissions in the US is from transportation. 31.5 Residential. 34.6 Commerial.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Oh yeah Lasermike?

I have a non-hybrid Civic that I have owned since 1995. It still gets over 40mpg and originally got 46mpg. Best of all, it hasn't ever needed a repair outside of the routine stuff. The environment was not my concern though. I liked the fact that I could drive up to Vermont to go skiing for about $8 worth of gas at the time.

And by lowering the use of oil in the US, you are actually encouraging China to do more environmental damage as the price of oil will lower (due to the laws of supply and demand) causing them to burn more oil in a much more polluting manner.

Cathar, you are a liberal democrat. I am not.

13%, in ten years expect pay now for a gallon of gas to be 5x what you are paying now. We are running out of cheap oil. Get used to it.

I don't disagree lasermike. I too believe in peak oil. But Iran really has little to worry about.

Lasermike, factory farming causes more greenhouse gases/Co2 then transportation...

And as I know you'll ask for it, here's the link, from the UN.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=environment

Iran is going to get more rich and powerful as oil becomes more scarce.

So, LM, I guess if you were serious about global warming, you'd forget about the hybrid and stop using animal products. Are you that serious?

JD,
Go slow food!

I'm sorry to say this but those who bought hybrids have fallen for the latest style trend.

"And by lowering the use of oil in the US, you are actually encouraging China to do more environmental damage as the price of oil will lower (due to the laws of supply and demand) causing them to burn more oil in a much more polluting manner."

A specious economic argument at best Mr 13%. A significant reduction in US oil consumption through technological change (i.e. a move to more energy efficient vehicles) would result in a leftward shift in the global demand curve for oil. While this would lead to lower oil prices, the global oil market would reach a new equilibrium at both a lower price per barrel and a lower amount of total consumption. While the total consumption would not drop by the amount of the US displacement, it would drop nonetheless.

hybrids cut carbon emission over 60%. that is significant.

In the US it is. Why don't you check out how many hybrids have sold in rest of the world! At the end of the day, it's economics that drive peoples decisions. Hopefully some other people's minds can be won over in OTHER countries. Unfortunately, until you witness the air pollution that occurs first hand in so many Chinese cities, you will understand how your decision to save the world by buying a hybrid helped no one but Toyota.

Yes, I agree that there will have to be a culture change. But more importantly we need to change the systems that has lead to the climate emergency. It is foolish to think in economic terms alone.

It could be occurring. I'm investing in an organic Chinese rice company that only sells their goods domestically. So far it's up 50% in a little over a month. Hopefully the burgeoning middle class will lobby the government to start putting scrubbers on their coal burning power plants. Unfortunately, the government will probably just drive a tank into their home.

I'm not sure if coal can be made clean enough on its own. I'm more hopeful with wind, solar, and geothermal. Wind works very well. There have been a number of advancements with solar IE. cheaper and more power. I am very hopeful about geothermal. We are not going to get rid of all fossil fuel energy systems but we can reduce carbon emissions to a appropriate level.

"In the US it is. Why don't you check out how many hybrids have sold in rest of the world! At the end of the day, it's economics that drive peoples decisions. Hopefully some other people's minds can be won over in OTHER countries."

The US accounts for half of all of the CO2 emissions from automobiles. This is due to the fact that on average cars in the US stock of existing vehicle has the lowest fuel economy when compared to any other part of the developed world. And that IS due to supply and demand. Next to the middle east, the US has the lowest fuel costs in the world. It is true that many early sales of hybrids in the US are "conscience driven" rather than economically driven, but there is an increasing economic justification for moving to hybrid technology. Since there is a large delta between MPG of the existing US auto stock and hybrid vehicles, you would expect that US drivers would have the highest economic motivation to be early adopters of this technology.

Most other countries levy high taxes on fuel, which has resulted in consumers purchase of higher fuel efficiency vehicles than you find in the US. One of the reasons that hybrids are not yet selling as well in other countries is that the MPG improvement provided by hybrids over the existing stock is not yet high enough to justify switching, though in an environment of $80/barrel oil this will soon change.

Automobile replacement cycles tend to be about 5 years long, so sales of much more fuel efficient vehicles lags oil price shocks by a few years.

As we see oil prices continue to climb,

With his hints that the "systems" must also be fixed, I suspect that mikey is warming us up so he can again drop his fave phrase of late, "democratic socialism," into the debate. (And then his emo-pal guido santa will roar in behind in calling names....) Moments like this, he reminds me of "Mr. Peabody" chatting with Sherman; whatever he says, you're surprised he can do it at all.

But, mikey, by describing me as a "liberal democrat" above, you've already taken yourself out of any rational discussion. I am also trying to wrap my brain around the concept of YOU as a plug-in, limited to 120 miles per tankful of sputterings.

One reason Iran would want nuclear power, 13%, is so it won't have to burn its own oil, which, last I checked, had broken $80 a barrel. If you were sitting on a horde of hamburgers priced at $80 each, you might want to call in for a $12 pizza instead, even if it were nuclear.

In fact, laserdoodle, the cuts from hybrids aren't very significant when you look at the big picture. That's what the IEA did in its recent World Global Outlook (I'd provide a link but they don't publish the data-- you have to buy the report). The numbers don't add up. Sorry.

If you go hybrid you cut emissions 2/3. You go plug-in hybrid you cut emissions 2/3 again. You use composite materials you cut emissions 2/3 again. I'm not saying we can have it all but we can take steps. Good design and reduction is the order of the day.

Goto the rocky mountain institute for the info - http://www.rmi.org/

Iran wants a nuclear capacity to use as deterrence against regime change. They are 10 years away from a nuclear weapon which means they are not even close. They've probably spent the last 6 months breaking centrifuges.

Read Scott Ritter's book Target Iran.

Wow, that's six thirds! I bet that, if you drive a composite plug in hybrid backwards, it actually makes gasoline out of airborne carbon!

A lasertwit, thank you for the reading syllabus. I'll go off now and try to become as erudite as you.

Walleroo you can do something about if you want.

http://www.google.org/recharge/

An oil rich nation like Iran, with a leader who claims the holocaust never occurred should not be trusted with a nuclear power plant capable of enriching Uranium for military purposes. It is only a matter of time before Israel destroys their future reactor anyway so I'm not really that concerned.

If you want to believe that hamburger argument, go ahead. As oil prices increase do to the diminishing world supply, Iran will even more easily be able to buy electricity from a neighbor or use other electric generating means. They are not a poor 3rd world country.

Laserlad, I love the idea of plug-in hybrids, not only because it makes sense but because it'd be cool as heck. Your notion that it will save the planet, however, is seriously naive, as well as santicmonious. Like most of the popular green movement, it rests on flabby reasoning. Oh, but who cares! It gives us a way of feeling morally superior, and that's what's really important.

"Wow, that's six thirds! I bet that, if you drive a composite plug in hybrid backwards, it actually makes gasoline out of airborne carbon!"

ApTony, With logical arguments like this, I am sure that your legal skills are in high demand. Correct math would yield a 26/27 reduction in emissions, although based on laserdude's assumptions you would likely be driving something that looks like a recombinant bicycle housed inside a large composite cigar tube.

May God have mercy on my soul for what I am about to say, but I believe that lasermike is pointed in the correct direction, albeit for the wrong reason. He referenced the Rocky Mountain Institute's publication, "Winning the Oil Endgame" which I have read. (It can be downloaded for free on their website www.rmi.org). The book provides a fairly compelling argument for ways in which the US can significantly reduce OIL consumption through use of existing automobile technologies (more efficient engine design, use of current hybrid technology, reduced vehicle weight, etc.) About 70% of the oil (and oil only) consumed in the US is used by vehicles, and the majority of this is used by non-commercial cars and light trucks. If you evaluate the potential reduction in US oil consumption through improved vehicle efficiency, the US could displace an amount of the oil equal to what it imports from the middle east.

While this may have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, it's unclear just how much environmental benefit would be realized from the reduction. There is a much stronger geo-political benefit derived from reducing domestic oil consumption, as this will reduce our countries need to protect oil interests in highly volatile regions of the world, while significantly reducing our national current account deficit (which impacts exchange rates, interest rates and other economic factors).

As we have seen, protecting and sustaining foreign oil interests has a very high human and economic cost that we all bear (not even including having to watch the president holding hands with an Arab sheik while strolling through the rose garden). The Bush administration has used US oil independence as a rationale for increased exploration and development in the US. The problem with this strategy is that it will not work without domestic demand reductions. The US does not control nearly enough oil reserves to drill its way out of foreign oil dependence. So, employing technologies that reduce oil consumption does provide a significant long term benefit to the US, and people should consider doing their part to move the process along.

Plugin hybrids will not save the planet. Reducing carbon emissions will reduce climate change and plugin hybrids are a solution leading toward that goal. Bicycles, walking, and public transportation would be better. Telecommuting would be better. These are not perfect solutions but efforts toward the goal of reducing carbon emissions. By hook or by crook we have to reduce carbon emission and you will not get out of it.

PS. I'm not your lad. Try to avoid the name calling. You have been poisoned by Cathar. Now if you can show me how reducing my carbon emissions with hybrid technology is ineffective, that would be useful. Please note that I am aware that we have to reduce consumption in order for hybrids to be effective.

For those of you that need the science. Updated daily.

http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/index.php?kw=12

I am also aware that we will have to reduce emissions in the residential and commercial sectors.

"Poisoned by" me, mikeychum? What ho?

As I keep reminding you, my tender ministrations have in fact made you a virtual "star" here, laserlad. Without the attention I and a few others have paid to to your constant stream of illogic, you've be mired way back in the pack of other, oh, let's be generous here, fourth grade minds.

Now I'm off to read up on the peaceful uses of nuclear power, which you "progressives" are so dead against unless it's in Iran. You know, just to prevent, uh, "regime change." (Really, mikeylad, and call me a Zionist if you will, but that was one of the most disgustingly dumb things you've ever posted.....)

Cathar, you're mean and you say nasty things. You have poisoned the conversations here.

And don't put words in my mouth.

Mikey, you're mean and nasty and an absolute prevaricator, entirely capable of lying and then of denying those very lies with a straight face. It's always amazing to me how one so "normally" dumb can also be so cunning at times, but you are both.

But thank you, nonetheless, for the opportunity to say these things about you.

Correct math would yield a 26/27 reduction in emissions

I chose to simply add the 2/3 baseline amounts together -- "correct math" yielded an insuficient punchline so, in as Mr. Gore so often does in these matters, I fudged data to make my point.

Ignore global warming, and it will go away.....

Is this what he does to make a living?

How do you pay those Bloomfield taxes by starving yourself?

AT- read the book first.
http://www.oilendgame.com/

C,
You can kill the messanger all you want. You are still tragically misguilded.

Does "misguilded" mean people here belong to the wrong unions, mikeypal? Or were you just flustered? (Luckily we can all just kill the messenger once, right?)

Let me recommend a book for you to read, "Power Play" by Leonard Mosley. It's a history of the oil industry in the Middle East, full of interesting stuff about Iran, Iraq, etc. A bit dated now but an excellent historical review. And while you're at it, you might also wish to read the Koran. Or Qu'ran. Lots of food for thought in there.

Try to avoid religious bigotry.

Power Play is dated. It's not available any more.

edit...

You can kill the messenger all you want. You are still tragically misguided.

ATTENTION BARISTAVILLE -- WE INTERRUPT THIS THREAD ABOUT PSEUDO-RELIGIOUS CRIES OF IMPENDING CLIMATE DOOM TO BRING YOU A TRUE SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE:

cathar [2:09 pm]: "'Power Play' ... A bit dated now ..."

lasermike026 [2:49 pm]: "Power Play is dated."

I, for one, am scared.

Enough about climate change...the demise of the Mets is melting the Iceman's patience.

Laserlad, just because a book is dated (by which I meant a bit old), even if it's out of print, doesn't mean you can't find a copy in, say, the library. (Have you heard of libraries, mikey? They're wonderful places) Or via a used book service or store. Surely one as feistily determined to slam his points across as you doesn't give up after just 40 minutes of searching? ABE Books on the web, for example, has more than 20 copies available from various places, at less than $3 a copy.

Even if you, too, sometimes wish to kill the messenger "all you want." What, once isn't enough?

Also, mikey, how is suggesting you someday soon actually read the Koran (along with the Bible and the Upanishads and even the Book of Mormon)"religious bigotry?" Are you afraid to read its suras? Its laying out of sh'aria?

Iceman, we may have to settle for a wild card. So be it. Yes, however, last night and so many preceding it were awful to behold. But then, you can always kill the messenger all you want by way of making yourself feel good again.

Gramps, I checked. The Bloomfield public library doesn't carry it. Is it possible that if the book was more credible it would have been available at the public library?

Why not purchase your own copy, mikey? Is it possible that the Bloomfield Library simply isn't that well-stocked, uh, kid? Or is all worth taking as credible simply to be found there? (In which case they'd better have complete sets of, for openers, the complete works of both Flaubert and Charles Schulz, eh, laserboy?)

Oh, you know me. I support public institutions. ;)

Iceman,

I am sorry to hear about the Mets untimely demise.

And if it's any consolation, I hate the Yankees.

The Mets are not dead yet, Pork Roll. Reeling, maybe. But not quite dead, a pulse remains.

If you really supported public institutions, mikey, you might go back to one, at least in the form of Adult School,in order to try to learn something. American History 1, maybe? World History? ESL for the native-born? (If they don't give it yet, they probably should.)

And no, I don't know you, mikey, thank goodness.

Now let's get a Mets victory tonight!

I still have a 'Subway Series' T Shirt from 2000.

Did that REALLY happen? It seems so long ago.

I remember running home from high school in 1969 to watch the Mets dispatch the Orioles.

I saw the Mets play St. Louis at the Polo Grounds in 1962. Stan Musial was still playing then. Al Jackson was pitching for the Mets.

It's just another day in Baristaville.

I tell you what, laserdoodle, I'll allow you your condescensions ("read the book" etc) if you'll allow me mine.

I have indeed read Lovins' book, laserpunk. It's full of wonderful things. Amory truly is smarter than everybody else on the planet (put together). However, even if we in the US did everything he suggests, it would hardly budge atmospheric carbon levels. And even if the entire world agree to allow Amory Lovins to be dictator for the next 50 years, and he were somehow able to implement every good idea, even if everyone in the world were putting around like laserboy in his plug-in hybrid, it would take that every bit of those 50 years to get carbon concentrations to level off -- ie, stop rising. Not go down, stop rising. (This is not my analysis, it's the IEA's.)

Et tu, laser?

You and your factual way of speaking! feh and bah! Repent ye hydrocarbon burners afore ye burn forever in the balmy hell of 50 degree winters!

W,
You are right, we are not going to stop climate change. We have past that point. We do have the ability to buy time and manage it. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing mean condemning future generation to suffer on a scale that the world has never seen. Your lack of desire to start the process to reducing carbon emissions is unconscionable considering how much you know. What do you suggest that we do?

I also agree, until India, China, and the United States agrees to reduce carbon emissions we don't have a chance. But as the remaining super power its our responsibility to be the first to start.

W, the do nothing option doesn't exist. You will adapt one way or another.

Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing mean condemning future generation to suffer on a scale that the world has never seen.

That's what I mean about the religious zeal of these arguments!

You're not much of a student of history, are you? Humankind has always adapted to the climate, but never overcome its violent tendencies.

You speak with the same certainty of doom from warm weather as the certainty you hold regarding Iran not being able to wield nukes soon. I am far more concerned about Ahmedinejad nukes within 10 years than about the weather within 100 years. I also feel it is more realistic to contemplate stopping Iran's nukes than it is to contemplate world cooperation to change the weather.

The entire developing and third world wants the good life that we have -- they're not about to give up their wasteful ways based on some example that we might set. Nor should we to presume to tell them to not seek more material comforts.

It is the dictatorial aspect of his posts that most concerns me about mikey. He is, to say the least, inordinately fond of hinting that "we" will do his specific bidding re climate (and so much else) or else. And while I know the "or else" part coming from the laserboy is ridiculous, I'm still bothered by his mania for control.

Mikey, the truth is that at your unlettered best you sound much like an unrepentant Stalinist (now run off and ask the Bloomfield Library if they have any books on him, there's a good laserlad), or even like Hitler, Goering, Himmler and the rest of that crew. You are much into control of others for what you claim will be our own "good." No kidding at all on this one, by the way.

And no, appletony, if mikey apparently can't find it in the Bloomfield Library, of course he's not going to read about it. So no, he'll never be a student of history. But he sure as hell wants to "teach" us to obey his dictates.

The end is nigh! Laserdoodle said so!

It feels really good being a prophet of doom, doesn't it, laser?

I think Amory Lovins is a brilliant guy. I also think that as dictator of the world he would lead us off a cliff almost as destructive as the worst climate-change prophecies. Such are the contradictions and complexities of life.

The end is nigh! Laserdoodle said so!

It feels really good being a prophet of doom, doesn't it, laser?

I think Amory Lovins is a brilliant guy. I also think that as dictator of the world he would lead us off a cliff almost as destructive as the worst climate-change prophecies. Such are the contradictions and complexities of life.

Hubris is the only word that comes to mind when those assert that climate change has anything to do with human activity. During the last ice age, most of the North American continent was covered with 35 meters of ice....but guess what it eventually melted and we humans had nothing to do with it. Should the current trend of climate change show that temperatures are indeed rising ( 1 degree celcius) over the past 100 years, I suspect that we have little to do with it. CO2 represents less than 2 % of the atmosphere. A bigger and more logical source for climate change is the sun. Yep that star that feeds us. It also controls most of what happens on this planet...from wind, to ocean currents.

Yet we as humans ought to be energy conscious because it is the rigth thing to do. W should not litter. We ought to preserve resources....not because it is politically correct but because it is morally right. 30 years ago people like Paul Erlich predicted a population bomb that would kill us all, and before him others predicted a new ice age....I won't be around in 40 years to prove them wrong, but I have to wonder....the weathermen on Channel 2 can predict if it will rain nexxt Tuesday, so how come we are so inclined to believe dire predictions of yet another apocolypse.

jm, w, c, I will take the good advice of most of scientists in the world. I hope you change you minds. I will keep working.

Yes Mike but making this political is a huge mistake by the left...There are actually scientists at MIT and other institutions who do not buy into the notion that human activity has much to do with climate change. As George Carlin so aptly put, the planet survived before we were here and it will most certainly survive when we are gone...I wish to focus my energy on actually doing something today that can make the world better, not turning every possible subject into a left/right debate.

Well said, Jmo.

thank you miss martta...jmo from dubai here

And who are these MIT scientists? An overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate change is man made. Again, I'm going to side with the scientists. This not left right issue. This is an issue of scientific literacy.

http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/index.php?kw=12

Read the studies.

Well Mike why dont you google them at MIT. I am sure you will find them. And dont stop there try NASA as well. You sound the crazy Muslims I deal with every day over here who know that Allah actually watches over them, and they are on the only correct path. Fact ice pack in Antartica is growing...Who knows we might be heading into another ice age. Data that you base you conclusions on were in the former USSR, where loggers showed up or maybe not depending upon previous night vodka intake....Sea rises have not happened, temps are nor actually rising, but hey its poliitics baby....and lets not let truth get in the way.

You sound like a guy who has been in the middle east for too long. The science is done and the new data coming out is worse that what the scientists expected.

Smoking will give you cancer and man is causing climate change.

Here is the problem, Mike, you buy into a paridigm that says we are the cause of al =l evil. Unilike some of the posters here I will not resort to name calling. Yet I log into the science. Climaate change is going o happen regardless what we do. Accept that notion and stop trying to make it a poltical argument. It isnt.

I'm not making a political statement. I am reiterating what a majority of scientists believe, that the climate has been irrevocably altered by man. These same scientists believe that if we reduce green house gases emissions we could hold off some of the effects of climate change.

m not making a political statement. I am reiterating what a majority of scientists believe, that the climate has been irrevocably altered by man. These same scientists believe that if we reduce green house gas emissions we could hold off some of the effects of climate change.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Once upon a time, the majority of scientists believed that leeches could cure a fever. This majority once believed that the sun revolved around the earth, that homosexuality was an illness. Not so long ago, a majority fo scientists believed the earth was cooling.

The earth is warming, humans have had something to do with it, there is reason to be concerned. All probably true. But the only proof that catastrophe is around the corner right now are climate models, which are only as good as our best fudamental understanding of climate. Which is pretty rudimentary. To say you've made a model is not to say very much at all. How can we have faith in climate models when we can't predict the weather?

Ask a scientist.

When growing up (I'm 36 now), the scientists said butter was terrible for your health. I grew up spreading margarine (partially hydrogenated oils) on everything from corn to bagels. About 10 years ago, it was determined that butter was significantly less damaging to ones health than margarine.

I'm sure lots of studies and models proved that Margarine was a smart choice back in the 70's.

Mr. Gore so often does in these matters, I fudged data to make my point.

Posted by appletony | September 26, 2007 1:04 PM

---------------------------------------------------------

Poor Data, used & then discarded by so many.

I hope that you at least bought him dinner & called him the next day.

Some folks here don't seem to understand that science is a self-correcting method that leads to an accumulation of knowledge. Pointing out past errors on a computer connected to the Internet, the whole thing powered by electricity, is really pretty funny.

Those that do not accept the reality of climate change are illiterate. Those that do not accept the responsibility to reduce green house gases are immoral.

Gosh, you such an absolutist, Lasermike. It's truly frightening. You're like a religious fundamentalist but with global warming as your religion.

I'm not condemning you to hell. You are condemning the world to suffering.

The thing to remember in all this is that the "debate" about the cause of the warming is futile. Even with Kyoto, we'd have to take the most extreme measures to even level-off the increase in carbon let alone reduce it. And no matter how many lefties have "apocolyptic fits" people will not select to ruin their economies. It just won't happen. We'll all just adapt to a warmer climate.

So all this doom and gloom complete with religious sounding calls for "repentance" from the pastor Mikey's of the world is (in the words of Douglas Adams, "mostly harmless".

Pastor Mikey says:

"climate has been irrevocably altered by man."

Well that's that, then, eh?

if anyone would like to read the "other side" you can start here:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/

Try alot warmer. Billions on people will not be able to adapt and that may include your children. You don't have sense and basic morality.

That National Center for Policy Analysis! You are stupid!

So to go with your hybrid, are you willing to give up your meat consumption?

There is conclusive evidence that factory farming is responsible for more environmental damage than any other man made causes.

http://www.factoryfarming.com/

Ban mikey! Ban mikey! He is being uncivil! He is claiming others are immoral!

And mikey, you've never addressed your considerable drift towards totalitarianism in your posts of the last year. (You were almost bearable when you were just a screaming, frothing liberal. Almost.) It certainly goes way beyond the usual "progressive" drivel about the need for "change." Why is that? Do you maybe think that someday you'll be plucked out of Bloomfield obscurity and offered a post in government, is that it? (At which point you'll start scouting for land upon which to build re-education camps, I'm sure.)

"Do you maybe think that someday you'll be plucked out of Bloomfield obscurity and offered a post in government, is that it?"

Lord help us.

" Billions on people will not be able to adapt and that may include your children."

If you can't stop the unstoppable, then doesn't it make sense to spend time and effort in the "adapting" department?

But that wouldn't fit well with the species based self-loathing so common in modern liberalism would it? Too optimistic to think man could adapt.

Scratch many a lefty "environmentalist" and you'll find a mother load of self loathing. One hears often "the planet would be better off without mankind". It's the obvious conclusion when there is no source of external morality (God). Man has no purpose.

Global warming fits nicely with this religion of the self-hating. It provides the touchstone apocalypse for the believers to waive before the damned.

Like the various miss-timed predictions of the second coming, this apocalypse is just the "next" one.

This too shall pass.

Moralist one day and not a moralist on another. You are a hypocrite.

Morality and morality which claims it's "scientifically proven" are two different things, that's precisely the point.

The issue is a moral argument. A moral position you'd like enforced by law. A "statist" state religion.

Some people fight for all liberal causes and others fight for all conservative causes.

It takes common sense to look at both sides of the issues and fall somewhere in between.

Those are the people I respect. It's a shame our 2-party system is loaded with the ROCs and the Lasermikes of the world.

Laserboy, as unlikely a source of well-meaning advice as I may be to you, you really ought to slink away, however awkwardly, from this vein of debate. Because you're totally out of your intellectual league on this one. You're in "Class C" in the Dominican Republic's Winter Leagues on this one, so to speak.

And in case Dennis Kucinich ever becomes President and asks you to join the EPA, you'll then have to account for all these intemperate, even outright nutty and definitely authoritarian and neo-Stalinist postings. You wouldn't want these to blow your chances for Congressional approval, now would you, mikeychum?

Accepting the scientific facts of climate change is related to intelligence and literacy.

Accepting your responsibility to reduce green house gases in related to morality.

I nominate Pastor Mikey for Chief Inquisitor!

13%,

I've been thinking something very similar throughout this whole thread.

"Accepting the scientific facts of climate change is related to intelligence and literacy."

Aristotle said the sun revolved around the earth and proved it with scientific facts. Did that make him intelligent and literate?

Copernicus challenged Aristotle's findings. How bravely immoral of him.

GNM:

I'm not sure why people feel it must be all one way or all the other way. It must have something to do with the herd mentality.

I guess ROC, Cathar and LaserMike are some very smart sheep.

Copernicus received grants form the company which makes these. He was just a paid stooge.

Finally,

It pains me to see how both parties reach climax when they notice when a candidate of the opposite party makes an about face on a policy stand. (flip flop).

IMO, it takes real bravery to admit to one's mistakes. It's a shame 'W' is just a big stupid pussy! And for that matter, Hillary is too.

13% and GM,

I hate to get in the way of your dismissal, it being so comforting and all. But I am not an absolutist on this.

I think the climate is warming. I think there is a man made component. I just think the man made component is too small to be concerned about and the warming is unstoppable. It will warm and then later it will cool again. And life will adapt as it has for hundreds of millions of years in the past.

I'm not condemning you to hell. You are condemning the world to suffering.

See, lasermike, for all your talk of wanting discussion here to be "civil", you don't realize that blanket statements like the above are absolutely uncivil.

Many scientists have stated that the change in the greenhouse gases may be attributable to increased volcanic activity over the last 100 years, so I understand where you are coming from.

Unfortunately, what I'm not so sure about is whether or not humans will be able to adapt. I also doubt the doom and gloom time frame is terribly accurate. One hundred years is an awfully short time frame when these cycles most likely take tens of thousands of years to occur. Sure we could adapt in the short term, but if the earth is covered with water (Cathar will appreciate this reference), I'm not sure that we will all fit in the ark or develop gills quick enough.

Allow me, too, GNM and 13%..., to point out that neither of you (who seem engaged in mutual admiration this morn, sort of like the Pharisee who in the Bible congratulated himself whioe at the alater of the Temple making sacrifice for not being the Samaritan who stood alongside him) has any idea where I stand on global warming.

I have, however, pointed out briefly more than once that the data during at least 3 prior historical "eras" has also suggested such warming, that such warming may thus be cyclical. To be weathered (no pun intended, but it'll do), not to use as an occasion for absolute panic of the kind endorsed by our very own laserboy, thusly as an excuse for political repression in the name of the "environment.".

In any case, my main objections to the "debate" here, such as it is, lie in resistance to mikeylad's definitely neo-Stalinist yearnings for political control of the situation and to his stubbornly dumb insistence that his is the only "way" through this matter. Not only is he mulish, he would be a genuine danger to personal freedoms if he and his ilk ever obtained the political power to enforce their very narrow worldview.

If you two wish to disagree with that observation, so be it. Nevertheless, it's based on both long experience with mikey (longer than your own) and on his own words. So self-proclaimed (in a sense) wishy-washy sorts like yourself would be among the first people he'd jug for crimes against his version of the environmentalist state.

(Still, I'd visit you both in prison, if only to hand you some Adam Smith or David Hume to read over while you do time.)

Immoral, uncaring, stupid, blithering, fools! Every single one of you. No good sense and a moral compass that is completely destoyed.

I repent! I repent!

Anyone have any schematics for an ark?

"Lighten up, Francis."

Oh no. How do I tell my friends and family that I have a totally destroyed moral compass? Where can one go to get her moral compass repaired? Is there a shop on Church Street?

incentives:
economic-
social- X
moral- X

One more to go.

Jeepers, I go away for 12 hours and none other than ROC comes out of the woodwork. I don't think lasermike's points need any rebuttal. They constitute a rebuttal all by themselves.

The supposed social and moral imperatives simply don't add up. Why is it morally wrong to stand by while Canada gets a longer growing season or Laplanders get to wear shorts? Who are we to deny the Chinese and Indian populations the kind of growth and improvement in their collective well-being that is arising from their currently filthy industrial revolutions? Once their prosperous enough to afford to be environmentally friendlier, they probably will be (look, e.g., at Eastern Europe -- already far cleaner now that the salve of capitalism has been applied to the wounds caused by communism's totalitarian inefficiencies).

At worst, it's a wash -- some areas will have a tougher time while others will benefit. The idea that weather-driven apocalypse will occur is just not convincing to me. This, to me, is Malthus reborn.

Even those who might agree somewhat with laserlad on this one are subject to his scorn above. Oy, such incivility, your laserness!

Why do I feel, mikey, that you're not exactly the most politic of individuals? And, true believer that you are, you're also not very good at either making or holding comrades? (In your case, the right word is definitely "comrades.")

Has anyone ever seen the 60's series of Fu Manchu movies, the ones with Christopher Lee? "The world shall hear from me again," he always cackled at the end of them even as his latest scheme for domination blew up. I always think of mikey in connection with that line.

Green has economic advantages. It definately has national advantages. But really, green will save lives.

'Green' is today's black. Tomorrow it will probably be 'yellow.'

pea shooter brains are like assholes, everybody has one...try putting your asshole over your brain and stop eating for a few days or weeks and see what you're really made of. my first fast was in the outward bound school, dick gregory took me from there and i did 90 days. be a tube instead of the solid shit you identify with that is your opinion. you can't get there if you haven't done it. "wherein one cannot speak, one must be silent." (wittgenstein)