home

Treat Us Like Children

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Emily Yoffe wants to be infantilized:

Usually we want to protect our children from awful events, adjusting the message to suit their age. Certainly we tried to do that after Sept. 11. But an essential part of the global warming awareness movement is the belief that scaring us to death is the best way to spur massive change.

Duck and cover Emily! Anyway, hopefully the adults in the country won't shy away from dealing with reality.

< SCOTUS Denies Taxpayer Standing To Challenge Bush Administration Faith Based Initiatives | "Bong Hits 4 Jesus": Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Treat Us Like Children | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:16:40 PM EST
    The lady has it absolutely correct.

    This is all about scaring you to death so you will open the purse strings for studies and more studies.

    It is also about making you do what the elitists want you to do.

    When some one can show me science instead of consensus science, let me know.

    You are amazing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    Only the most desperate of rationalizers would make the claim that the profit motive behind those trying to do something about Global Warming comes anywhere close to that behind those trying to convince us that, say, car exhaust is relatively harmless.

    You just cannot be serious.  You're staring at a Mt. Everest of cash the fossil fuel industry has to protect, and has plenty of motivation to lie to protect; and then you say the tiny hill of grants and funding next to global warming science is somehow the real threat.

    Unbelievable.  

    Parent

    dadler (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    Hmmmm... You keep claiming that big oil is the villian. Do you have any proof?

    If anything, seeing as how oil is a finite resource, you would think that something that raised prices on reduced product sales would be welcomed by "big oil."

    Simpler. Less overhead, more revenue equals more profit...

    But don't let business sense get in the way of a good rant.

    Parent

    Treating you like a child (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    comes easy to us.

    So you have nothing to complan about.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:08:02 PM EST
    You keep on acting as if I care what your opinion is.

    Frankly speaking, after reading you for about what, 7-8 months, all I can see is you attacking anyone who disagrees with you by calling them names. That tells me that, to you, the world is only about you and you are terribly insecure.

    Have a nice day. And please keep the attacks up.


    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:11:27 PM EST
    You are getting what you deserve Jim.

    As I wrote to you before, my defaut position is to treat your comments seriously and then I read them.

    Very rarely is there a serious intent to engage the issue.

    Parent

    BTD (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    Look, I understand that you just can't stand disagreement, and I'm sorry to upset you.

    But life goes on. And it isn't an echo chamber.

    Parent

    Whatever (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:25:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Problem (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Al on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    When some one can show me science instead of consensus science, let me know.

    You couldn't recognize science if it hit you in the face.

    Parent

    Al (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    Uh, what a wonderful comment.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Have you considered this?

    Does CO preceed warming, or does it follow? How do you explain the medieval warming period?

    Hey look everybody, here is that arm of big oil, aka National Geographic

    Parent

    Part of (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    the WOT fantasy, you mean.

    Parent
    edger - WOT Fantasy??? (1.00 / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    Is that the one where Edger tells us how the evileeee Bush and Rudiiiiiii knew all about the WTC 9/11 attack before it happened??

    Answer the question.

    Parent

    You're doing pretty good (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    at meeting the definition of chatterer, ppj.

    As I said, how many times are you going to ask the same question and pretend you never get an answer?

    Ask Rudy. Again.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    My personal favorite is where Edger and friends used 10 comments to claim I was a chatterer..

    You are avoiding the question because you are embarassed. Don't be. Just be you.

    Parent

    you don't know ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    ... anything about science, being a salesman doesn't qualify you to decide what facts are.
    When some one can show me science instead of consensus science, let me know.
    It is science, it is a fact and consensus means scientists agree what the facts are. The fact is climate change is real and your ignorant opinion can't change what the facts are.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    I'm almost 45 years old and this is how I've been scared during my life:

    Nuclear War
    Nuclear Winter
    Global Cooling (!)
    Air so bad there would have to be oxygen masks on ever corner
    Nuclear Energy
    Overpopulation
    Too much immigration
    Global Warming
    Martial Law (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)
    Terrorism
    Minority Rights
    Gay Rights
    No jobs in the future
    NAFTA
    A worse life than my parents (an impossibility for me)
    Alar
    DDT
    Starvation
    Heterosexual AIDS

    And the list can go on and on and on and on...

    You left :yourself: off the list. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:06:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Childish... (none / 0) (#8)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:49:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    Spending a life terrified is childish.

    Parent
    Well I've been alive for 42 yrs (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    and here are a few things off the top of my head that were averted and a few things that happened to let me know there was a reason for concern.

    Nuclear War/Nuclear Winter

    Air in Colorado Springs so bad during the winter that I was asthmatic only in the winter from age 12 until the clean air act!  Then suddenly no more asthma for Tracy in Colorado Springs ever.  No inversion in the winter much either, but it used to be so bad when I was a kid that when the street lights came on at night it looked like fog!

    Chernobyl hearts

    And just because you are too old to get laid doesn't mean that hetrosexual AIDS isn't going to steal your children from you as it is spreading in our hetro teen population like wildfire now.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#9)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    Are many legitimate concerns and the progressive movements is AlWAYS at the forefront to clean things up. However, every time one of these scares turns out to be nothing (Alar for instance) it's two steps back toward creating a better world.

    And as far as being too old to get laid, besides being an incredibly childish argument, my wife and I have a pretty good sex life. Not as often as I would like, but then again it's better than none.

    However, the heterosexual AIDS scare was nonsensical since it took to many resources away from the communities who could benefit from it such as Gay Men, IV drug users, and minority communities. At least in the U.S. and Canada.

    As bad as Chernobyl was the number of deaths was less (though one is too many) than say one particular heat wave in France.

    Parent

    B.S. on the AIDS thing (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    It is a people disease......all of us......in this together.....put us in one big room and outline the whole deal and pass out condoms and stop splitting us all up like we all don't sleep with each other because we are gay or bi or straight!  I'm pretty sure that as far as microbes are concerned I have slept with another woman.

    Parent
    Just a sec... (none / 0) (#24)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:32:42 PM EST
    If you know that at least 85% of the people in the U.S. who die from HIV are either gay, have sex with a someone who is, or is an IV drug user then you should put at least 85% of your resources in that direction. Not doing so because of political correctness and 'we are all in this together' is crazy because it's not a good use of resources.

    Parent
    What direction are you talking about? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:48:15 PM EST
    What population in the United States is currently contracting AIDS at the greatest rate now?  85% of the deaths from it have been gays because we didn't have a way of treating the illness with any sort of success for a very long time and it did sadly enter the U.S. through gay contact at first.  In Africa though AIDS is a hetro disease.  I haven't even googled and I can already tell you it isn't the gay population anymore who is contracting AIDS at the most dramatic rate.  Last time I checked it was impoverished black women contracting the disease at the fastest rate.  And the gay population  educated themselves without permission from the christian right or Ronnie Reagan, they didn't preach fricken abstainence to gay kids like insane idiots!  They educated and they passed out condoms and condoms and more condoms and they educated and educated.  We can't educate our teenagers in this country anymore about sex because they might get ideas, like mother nature had no say in the matter and people decide to have sex when other people tell them about it.  Fricken ridiculous and it would be funny if we weren't killing our own children just because we want to be fanatics.  Some people say the wingers are out breeding us but I don't believe it.  I gave my daughter condoms long ago and told her the supply was unlimited along with lots and lots and lots of talk about sex and what it is and what it isn't and they consider me a whack mom here in the South.  Maybe I seem so right now but when all the winger kids are HIV positive then we'll talk.  When I was in my late twenties I remember that 4% of the hetro University of Texas was HIV positive and I'm certain that number can't have improved much!

    Parent
    I also know a hetro Air Force Academy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    cadet who had sex with a girl and ended up HIV positive.  His military career immediately over.  Since the military tests all the time he found out rather quickly, then he jumped out of a second story window at the Academy to try to kill himself and I think he only broke his leg.  AIDS is a hetro disease and it even gets macho guys!

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:39:35 AM EST
    Let's see. Since you are 41 you would have been at the U of Tx around 86-87. I don't want to hurt your feelings but I don't believe 4% of the hetro students had AIDS.

    Parent
    The 4% (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:24:02 PM EST
    appears to refer to the number of HIV infections that were hetero, not the percent of heteros who are HIV positive.

    Parent
    No it was the number hetro males that (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    were HIV positive at the University of Texas and since I was about 28 that would have been 1993.  Four out of every 100 frisky straight guys there were HIV positive in 1993.  So wakey wakey eggs and bacey wingers....some of you guys are just a little HIV positive too.

    Parent
    I was refering (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    To DA's link.

    I'd ask you for a link supporting your facts but I don't really care, since I agree that HIV affects us all not just those in the Gay community.

    My Brother is HIV positive.

    Parent

    It was pre computer age (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    doubt they have a link.  It was material passed out on campus and I think a major magazine did an article on it too back then.  It was a very scary time and things could have easily gotten much worse for everyone but finally people were concerned and not sweeping it under the rug.

    Parent
    Tracy (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    It was material passed out on campus

    Well, that certainly proves that we have an impeccable source.

    Wow and all that.

    Sure it wasn't .4%? That I would believe.

    Parent

    I'm sure it was a feminist black op (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    to attempt to cut off Texas from continuing to contribute to the human gene pool.  I probably master minded it.

    Parent
    This is a pretty good graph of (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:20:20 PM EST
    hetero aids in '93.

    That 4% of hetero UT guys were HIV positive in '93 seems a little hard to believe - unless UT had a mind-numbingly high percentage of intravenous drug users back then...

    Perhaps your memory is mistaken? It happens.

    Parent

    Sorry to hear that Peaches. (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    I had two friends die of aids in the mid 90's. Treatment is much better these days I hear.

    Parent
    Thanks Sarc, (none / 0) (#64)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    My bro is slightly off. There's been a dark cloud over him for some time now. He's a small time business owner who has recently gone bankrupt. He's a born-again Cristian, right-wing zealot, and reformed heterosexual who was exposed to the HIV virus while under the influence of sin and contracted it through experimenting with homosexual behavior. Two winters ago he pulled over on the side of the road to help a young woman who slid off on some ice and was hit by another car suffering a head-injury from which he has not quite recovered and probably never will. He was hospitalized for heat-stroke a few summers back that makes it impossible now to be outside in the summer working, which was required for his business. likewise his head injury makes him tired all the time. He's 47, never been married and a repressed homosexual. He's an angry white man who      has no tolerance for people who have opinions differing from him. He has no doubt that I will burn in Hell for all of eternity. He is suspicious of my intentions, because I am an infidel. He's my brother and I love him. We used to have some great times together. But, I lost him to circumstances out of my control.

    Parent
    Wow. I'm even sorrier now, Peaches. (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    I hope he finds peace, and that you're a part of it.

    Parent
    me too (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    Good thing I read all those Greek tragedies as a kid. The bible, too for that matter. Those stories are filled with suffering and deviant behavior.

    What can I say? I have a lot to be thankful for, but Life is pretty damn tough sometimes. But, other times it is pretty damn amazing. We had some good times I'm thankful for. He is still a part of my life and always will be. I hope he's going through a faze and I keep waiting for this born-again zealot thing to pass, but with each tragic moment of his life he turns even more to his church. I guess thats what he needs right now.

    Parent

    Tracy (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    There is no such thing as a "little" HIV positive.

    You either are, or you are not.

    Parent

    DA and Tracy (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:43:46 PM EST
    DA - I thought better of your reading abilities.

    The numbers refer to "since Jan 1" which I assume to be 1/1/87. The second is "cummulative total" which I believe is since the start of the study.

    The percent of hetro is 4%, of all reported cases.

    Not of the total US population.     Note the "United States  cases reported to the CDC."

    Simpler. Out of the total population of the US in 1987 of about 242,289,000, 49,006 had been reported as adults who were HIV positive and with/or at risk for AIDS.

    That is approximately .0002% of the total US population.

    That is a vastly different answer than saying 4% of the U of TX hetro population was HIV positive...

    Tracy - Was the campus information prepared by the Journalism school?? English Department??

    Parent

    Enjoy some humble pie, DA. (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 07:40:23 PM EST
    Tracy at 9:48PM on 6/25

    When I was in my late twenties I remember that 4% of the hetro University of Texas was HIV positive and I'm certain that number can't have improved much

    Jim at 8:39AM on 6/26

    Let's see. Since you are 41 you would have been at the U of Tx around 86-87. I don't want to hurt your feelings but I don't believe 4% of the hetro students had AIDS.

    DA at 12:11PM on 6/26

    The statistic is correct for the time period indicated, by looking at Table A, last column, 5th line here.

    If anything, the figure would probably be a little higher than the overall statistic, college-age heteros being a bit more 'frisky' IMHO.
    Unless you have a link to prove otherwise, I'd say that MT is telling the truth, a habit that I've heard is catching sometimes around here :)

    Peaches at 12:34

    The 4% appears to refer to the number of HIV infections that were hetero, not the percent of heteros who are HIV positive

    Tracy at 12:42

    No it was the number hetro males that
    were HIV positive at the University of Texas     and since I was about 28 that would have been 1993.  Four out of every 100 frisky straight guys there were HIV positive in 1993.  So wakey wakey eggs and bacey wingers....some of you guys are just a little HIV positive too.

    Of course 4 out of 10 would be 40%, but I let that slide as just a mistake.

    Jim at 4:43 PM

    The numbers refer to "since Jan 1" which I assume to be 1/1/87. The second is "cummulative total" which I believe is since the start of the study.
    The percent of hetro is 4%, of all reported cases.

    Not of the total US population. Note the "United States  cases reported to the CDC."

    Simpler. Out of the total population of the US in 1987 of about 242,289,000, 49,006 had been reported as adults who were HIV positive and with/or at risk for AIDS.

    That is approximately .0002% of the total US population.

    That is a vastly different answer than saying 4% of the U of TX hetro population was HIV positive...

    Tracy - Was the campus information prepared by the Journalism school?? English Department??

    DA  at 5:50PM

    (I had written)The numbers refer to "since Jan 1" which I assume to be 1/1/87. The second is "cummulative total" which I believe is since the start of the study.

    (DA responded)The percent of hetro is 4%, of all reported cases. Which is how I read MTs' claim in the first place, and 4% of total HIV cases wouldn't be out of line.

    Wrong. I refer you to her comment at 12:42PM

    DA wrote at 5:50PM

    Secondly, since MT has clarified her figure and time frame at comment #53, my figures then became irrelevant, and we all make mistakes, that's why they have erasers on the end of pencils.

    Wrong. She did not clarify. She confirmed that she meant, and I quote:

    "No, it was the number of hetro males that were HIV positive at the University of Texas..."

    You have again demonstrated that you read her comments incorrectly. Instead of just saying, "My bad," you make a nasty personal attack. That has been typical of your actions over the past years and defines you.

    ....and don't tell me that the percentage of HIV positive hetro males, or both male and female, was 4% of the student population at the U of Tx in 1993 vs 1987.

    Go back and read a few of your nasties,  DA. Then come back with an apology and maybe we can start over.

    In the meantime.

    Ta Ta!!

    Parent

    And you left off (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    WMD's

    and Ductape to protect ourselves in America from CHEMICAL ATTACK by the shadow people

    Parent

    exactly (none / 0) (#25)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    we are scaring ourselves to death and not worrying about the truly important things...like poverty, access to medical care, etc...You know, things that have an immediate benefit

    Parent
    Well that I can agree with when it (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    comes to WMD's.

    Parent
    interestingly enough (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    ms. yoffe provides no actual examples of anyone trying to "scare us to death" over global warming, as if merely articulating an opinion is sufficient for it's central hypothesis to be considered true. it isn't.

    i shan't go into line-item specifics tearing apart ms. yoffe's pathetic efforts, bob somerby does a far better job of it than i. suffice it to say, don't be near this woman if a tidal wave is headed your way, she'll insist that NOAA is just trying to "scare us to death".

    i'll be 52 in nov. i was at cherry point when the cuban missile crisis happened. no one was trying to make a buck off of it, everyone was legitimately scared of the distinct possibility of nuclear confrontation with the soviet union.

    we did all the "atomic cafe'" things. turns out, they wouldn't have made much difference, we'd still have been dark shadows on a brick wall. however, they made us feel like we were doing something.

    myself, i don't care to have a repeat for my children or grandchildren.

    that said, fear is a distinct part of the survival instinct. he who fears nothing will not last long. just make sure it's a rational fear.

    cpinva (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:17:10 PM EST
     
    just make sure it's a rational fear.

    You make her point.

    Parent

    her point is (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    she really hasn't one. not one articulated clearly, and supported by actual facts, as opposed to opinion and innuendo.

    really gentlemen, did you fail reading comprehension?

    Parent

    Isn't that her point? (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    Maybe she didn't make it clear in her article but I read that she was making the same point as you.

    The GW alarmist crowd always is forced to fall back on disaster becasue when they are given a good counter argument they pull out the doom and gloom card to counter it.

    We should all strive for energy independence, cleaner air etc... but I don't need pics of melting glaciers and rising tides to force me to act.   That only makes me question the motives of the preacher and wonder what their real agenda is.

    The fact is GW is an unproven hypothisis that has gained political traction.   The science is over if you ask the believers and it is now a religous dogma that has taken over the political landscape and if you don't buy in you are labled a heratic.   The GW alarmists don't care to even consider the other side.

    The sad news is the world's biggest polluter China is only going to get worse and nothing will be done about it because China is not saddled with PC politics and can easily avoid any change when GW is used to make the argument against their pollution.  

    Anywho, we'll all have a good laugh in 2017 when we've moved on to the next global scare.

    Parent

    Need an example (none / 0) (#31)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:29:52 PM EST
    The fact is GW is an unproven hypothisis [sic] that has gained political traction.

    What would you consider to be "proof?"

    Parent

    RePack (1.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    When the GW fans quit using the word "consensus" would be a start.

    When the "scientists" can explain why Mars becoming warmer doesn't mean that the Earth isn't also being affected by the sun.

    When the medevial warming period is explained in a satisfactory manner. What caused it? Too many ox drawn carts??

    And what about the infamous hocket stick that isn't??

    I could go on, but I think you get the point. Of course you won't admit it. But deep down, you know.

    Parent

    PPJ wants it both ways (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    When the GW fans quit using the word "consensus" would be a start.

    When the "scientists" can explain why Mars becoming warmer doesn't mean that the Earth isn't also being affected by the sun.

    Two statements.  One says that you are unconvinced that mere scientific consensus and careful measurements including ice cores 10,000 years old, "prove" that the earth is warming.

    The second ASSUMES that the earth is getting warmer, and contests the explanation.

    Which do you believe, and why?  Warmer or not warmer?

    Parent

    Xactly (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 10:36:12 PM EST
    can explain why Mars becoming warmer doesn't mean that the Earth isn't also being affected by the sun.emphasis mine

    The earth is getting warmer and  we can slow it down.

    Given the consequences, it is worth trying to slow it down.

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    Then you have to factor in the sun's activity. And since you can't accurately forecast the sun's activity, then you have no way of knowing how much warmer it will get.

    You also don't know how much colder it will get, and you don't know the frequency of the increase/decrease cycle. Best I can tell is that it is erratic.

    So, based on shaky science and unknown sun activity, Algore and his merry band of Chicken Little's want us to reduce our standard of living and spend billions of dollars that could have been spent on education, healthcare, and other real needs.

    Now, for argument's sake, let's assume that we can stop global warming by reducing petro usuage..
    And then the sun's output decreases.... And global cooling occurs... How much of a negative impact have you had?? What if the temperature zone moves a few hundred miles south?? Do you have any idea what would happen to the food supply??

    You are being scammed and scared, squeaky. You buy into because it is being presented as fact, which it isn't, by people you respect but who, for the most part, are just politicans and "Movie Stars" with no background in science. It is compounded by the UN wanting to use it to transfer money from the US to their client states, and by seeing it as a wedge issue to establish their authority over the US. Some "scientists" use it to get more more funds for studies because GW studies are popular.
    Want to study mosquito control?? Say you want to know how GW will impact it.

    So quit being a "bedwetter," squeaky. No need to cower in the closet. As any real Liberal knows, change is always with us. And, since we can't stop it we should:

    1. Figure out what it will actually do.

    2. How do we manage the change.

    Anybody want to debate the last two points??

    Parent
    Why bother. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    The rest of it makes no sense either.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:20:00 PM EST
    So, another ad hominem attack.

    Why not just admit that you can't answer the questions? It would be honest, straight forward and might establish that you care about an exchange of ideas rather than:

    First of all, (none / 0) (#67)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 03:18:25 PM EST

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Of course when you admit you can't, then you have to start facing the fact that just maybe the powers that you worship are wrong...

    Parent

    Ad hom? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:31:18 PM EST
    Ad hom is a attack on a person instead of his comment.

    I said your comment makes no sense.

    Nor does your comment that I made an ad hom attack.

    What to do with people whose comments (2 in a row) make no sense?

    I've got it: Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Was there anything else you needed comprehension assistance with here today, ppj.

    I'm here to serve. You can count on me.

    Parent

    Example of a scare tatic... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Slado on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    An open ended threat with no conclusion.  

    Given the consequences, it is worth trying to slow it down.

    Here are my quotes and odly they don't apply to religion but instead climate change "believers"...

    "Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable."

    "True wisdom is knowing how little we know for certain"

    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." Andre Gide

    Right before my eyes those who complain about Jerry Falwell, Geroge Bush etc... are practicing the same sort of all knowingness they claim to detest.  

    Amazing.


    Parent

    An open ended threat with no conclusion. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    Back to the WOT Fantasy?

    Parent
    "Belief" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    Has nothing to do with hypotheses validated through repeatable experiments that produce a consensus of conclusion (meaning multiple scientists reached the same conclusion) based on repeating those experiments.

    You can question the experimental methodology if you wish to, but if you do you'll need to form a hypothesis that the methodology is invalid and design and  conduct repeatable tests (experimental methodology) to determine whether the original experimental methodology you question is valid or invalid.

    But "belief" has no place in the discussion.

    Have fun.

    Parent

    RePack (1.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Your argument is meaningless. You know very well that my point is that I see no connection to man made global warming.

    The issue isn't if, but why. That the earth has warmed and cooled for millions of years is not in question and the link to the paper on the "hockey stick" shows. The link also shows the questionable study methods.

    But the real question raised is simple, why do we have the medieval warming period?? There was no great onslaught of man made carbon dixoide.

    What caused it??

    And what caused the Little Ice Age which followed? Is the current trend merely a recovery from that?
    I don't know. Neither do the Hollywood Stars and politicans..

    The link to the National Geographic just shows that Mars is getting warmer. If Mars is warmer, it is because of that big bright orange ball in the sky called the "sun." If the sun is pumping out more power it will warm both planets.

    Hysteria sells and as the Left is always claiming politicans and bureaucrats will use it to cause you to do as they want regarding the WOT. Why doesn't it work both ways in your mind?? Greenies love GW because it attacks cars and a way of life they detest. Elitists see it as something they can use to tell the hoi poi to do while they flit around in their SUV's, tour busses and private jets.

    BTW - Are you doing your share, and only using one  square of toliet paper per "incident?" ;-)

    In the meantime I can't get an accurate forecast for my fishing trip tomorrow yet Algore claims to be able to forecast temps in 2080.

    Parent

    Substantiate this statement: (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:42:03 AM EST
    Greenies love GW because it attacks cars and a way of life they detest.

    And while you're at it work on substantiating this one:

    If Mars is warmer, it is because of that big bright orange ball in the sky called the "sun."
    You're a scientist I take it?

    You've formed this hypothesis, designed tests to verify whether or not your hypothesis describes reality, lined up the funding, bought or built the equipment, run the tests, had your methodology and the results of your testing published in the relevant journals so that they were peer reviewed and independently verified through repetition by other scientists running the same tests, and concluded that 'If Mars is warmer, it is because of that big bright orange ball in the sky called the "sun."'.

    And because so many other scientists besides you have independently verified your results, you now have a consensus that your hypothesis is correct?

    Do I have all that about right, ppj?

    Or are you going to tell me you "don't do facts"?

    If you don't do facts, and you haven't done any of the above, is that a fact?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    Let me see. A guy who believes that a conspiracy existed in which Bush and Rudi knew of the 9/11 attack, including operational details, wants to talk about intelligence? Science? LOL

    Here are your answers.

    1. The fact is obvious.

    2. Read the links re Mars re the Sun.

    3. Snark as you want. Enough scientists are saying that the studies aren't accurate and that consensus isn't science to answer that questiom.

    Question: What do you think are the motives of the scientists that are disagreeing with the conclusions?? It would be much easier for them to just "go along and get along."

    Quit cowering in fear, get out of the closet and quit being a bed wetter, edger.

    That big old bad man made global warming won't get you and that most knowledgable of scientists, aka Algore, isn't going to save you.

    In the meantime, explain the medieval warming period.

    ta ta!

    Parent

    1,2,3 (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:45:52 PM EST
    1 - You cant subtanstiate your statement (That's a fact)

    2 - You won't attempt to substantiate your statement (That's a fact)

    3 - You finally found a consensus!!!! Fu*k facts - Miracles never cease!!!

    and 4 - when unable to answer use rule number 1 - try desperately to change the subject.

    I gave you all the benefit of the doubt I could, ppj, that you weren't just appearing to be pretending to be intellectually challenged, and that you were smarter than you appear to be pretending to be here every day. (That's a fact - want substantiating links?)

    I even went so far as to try to convince everyone else that that was the case. (That's a fact - want substantiating links?)

    But I was wrong. (That's a fact)

    Parent

    Edger (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    You are becoming more and more desperate. Unable to do anything but drink the kool aid, all you can do is make ad hominem attacks.

    So I ask you again.

    If CO2 is the cause of "man made" GW, please explain the medieval warming period.

    Since Mars is warming due to the sun, please explain why increased solar output will not also warm the earth?? (A helpful hint. Earth is closer to the sun, so don't try to use the distance from the sun to Mars.)

    Also, please explain the motives of those scientists who disagree with the theories put forth by those who claim "consenus" is a science.

    That is a very unpopular position and indicates that those disagreeing have a strong belief in their position, and a strong disbelief in what the "herd" is saying. Perhaps they understand that the "herd" is being rounded up for shipment to the slaughter house.

    I'm waiting Edger. Just answer the questions.

    Parent

    Those questions (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    have all been answered for you a hundred times or more, by me and by others.

    But you'll deny it again.

    Or you won't deny it again.

    Either one will leave with some explaining to do. Good luck.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:28:49 PM EST
    Nope. You haven't answered them once, much less hundreds.

    Let's narrow it to one.

    Explain to me why we had a medeival warming period when there was nothing there that could cause an increase in CO2.

    You run your mouth, or should I say, write your mouth with claims of conspiracies, and when I ask if you believe, you won't answer. You claim that I know nothing I give you three simple questions, and you won't answer. And when I press, you claim they have been answered 100's of times.

    That's just an excuse. You haven't and you know you haven't.

    Know what? This is a religion to you. You take all this blather from Algore and others and since they are idols to you, you just accept it on blind faith. Never trust a politician, edger. Especially one who went to Divinity School.

    Parent

    Want links? (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    You really want me to prove you a liar again, ppj?

    You don't need my help. You're doing just fine on your own.

    Parent

    edger (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:40:19 AM EST
    Just answer the questions.

    And do you want me to prove that you call people liars and when proven wrong, won't apologize??

    I can you know.

    And you also know you can't answer the questions.

    Parent

    a salesman's beliefs ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:30:21 PM EST
    ... don't change facts.
    I see no connection to man made global warming.
    No one cares what you see. You have no knowledge or understanding of the science involved and your opinion counts for nothing.

    Cigarettes cause cancer, that is the consensus of scientists. Man affects climate change, that is the consensus of scientists.

    Parent

    Okay sailor. (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    Tell me why we had a medieval warming period when there was nothing around to cause an increase in CO2.

    Tell me why Mars is warming and why the GW crowd is claiming that even though the warming is caused by the sun, earth is not being effected.

    Seems like I recall you saying you were an aeronautical engineer. Surely you can explain these questions.

    Parent

    why would anyone ... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:57:27 PM EST
    ... think that a retired salesman has anything to offer to science ... except his corpse.

    Riddle me this salesman; find one peer reviewed article that supports your baseless claims in the last 10 years.


    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:53:07 PM EST
    Or you denying that the medieval warming period didn't exist??

    Are you saying that the National Geographic's report that Mars was warming is wrong??

    Peer revuew this.

    Parent

    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:54:01 PM EST
    wow a double typo....

    ARE you and REVIEW

    Parent

    All retired salemen are good for ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:59:44 PM EST
    ... is personal attacks and trolling when they can't provide any actual facts to support their delusions.

    Parent
    Are you related to Emily? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:43:02 PM EST


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:51:14 PM EST
    Can you answer the question, or do you enjoy proving your inability and complelte lack of critical thinking ability.

    If so, you must have a grand time everyday.

    Parent

    So we should fear facts.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by oliverqueen on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    ...but no complaints about the fear instilled in children everyday by the Religious Right.

    Revelations, the Rapture, etc...

    Good to know, the facts that could kill us are what we should be protected from...as opposed to the fairy tale about the end of the world.

    cheers

    oliverqueen (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    It is that word "could" that the author dwells on.

    Again. Call me when we have science and not consensus...

    Parent

    Science and facts (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    I would like to lower the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning less fossil fuels and moving toward a more sustainable economy relying upon renewable energy that we get annually each year from the sun.

    I, personally, have no way of knowing if Man causes  GW, and neither does anyone here. I wrote a diary entry this morning on Science and facts - Got a link for that fact?

    et al (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    The net amount amount of carbon used per capita basis has been falling for years in the US and the "civilized" world due to the efficency of our energy "manufacture." That is, natural gas distribution and use is more efficient than digging coal, or worse, cutting and burning wood. Per unit gasoline consumpation by autos/planes etc. has become less.

    All carbon based energy comes from the sun. The heat given up by the burning log is just the release of the sun's rays stored X number of years ago. A tree is coal is oil is gas...

    It is logical and right to demand that we produce and use the most efficent machines possible.

    The question becomes, what is the point in which the cost of these:

    1. Remove resources from society that should have been spent on something else.

    The second question becomes:

    2. Has a thorough cost and side effect study shown that the use of a renewable fuel is justified and benefical to society??

    That is, how much real net  energy gained do you get from an acre of corn when the energy consumed in raising the corn is factored in?

    We also know that the price of corn has increased to the point of causing problems in Mexico. It can be expected that economic problems in Mexico will cause more illegal aliens to flood into the US where they will drive and use cars/trucks that would have normally been scrapped.

    Increased demand/price will also cause the farmer to place marginal lands into service. This means that grass and trees will be removed that normally would be performing their job as CO2 sinks (collectors).

    In view of the effect of trees, shrubs, etc., I find it amazing that no scientist, politican or "movie star" isn't calling for a project to plant trees through out the country. It is a simple, inexpensive and effective way of reducing CO2. Instead, they call for a reduction in our standard of living by following strict dictates of a central government.

    Want to help right now?? Plant a tree.

    The growing of vegetable gardens on whatever available land will also help by being C02 sinks.
    Plus, the availability of local food reduces the requirement for large farms and energy used in transportation.

    It will also be educational, fun, healthy and a family orientated activity. It will also save you quite a chunk of money and some of the best eating around.

    The bad news. It will require you do a most un-human 2007 US populace thing. Quit complaining and get off your rear end and actually do something besides believe nonsense, complain, cower and wait for someone eles to do something.

    Parent

    good questions and suggestions (none / 0) (#46)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    I only have a couple small disagreements.

    A tree is coal is oil is gas...

    yes, but a tree can be regrown in our lifetime. It takes millions of years for the Earth to transform plant material into coal oil and gas making oil, coal and gas nonrenewable vs. Trees which are renewable.

    how much real net  energy gained do you get from an acre of corn when the energy consumed in raising the corn is factored in?

    Corn and ethanol are often presented as the panacea of renewable energy sources. I think the net energy gain from corn is minimal from many studies I have read, although it is increasing. Transforming to a renewable energy economy will take much more than new technologies, it will take new mind-frames and consciouness beginning with your suggestion.


    Want to help right now?? Plant a tree. The growing of vegetable gardens on whatever available land will also help by being C02 sinks. Plus, the availability of local food reduces the requirement for large farms and energy used in transportation. It will also be educational, fun, healthy and a family orientated activity. It will also save you quite a chunk of money and some of the best eating around.

    I couldn't have said it better myself. And people wonder why we get along so well. ;)

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:20:56 PM EST
    No big disagreements from me on your comments..

    My point on tree coal gas was that they are all "energy" batteries that were "charged" from the sun..

    I think "renewables" as a "group" are marginal at best.

    On the technology side it is obvious that nuclear is the short term solution and it has been damanable that the Greenies managed to force it off the table.

    We desperately need some level headed thinking and non-biased studies.

    Agree?? I have long mantained that a majority of what is called the "anti-war Left" are not liberal. As a "group" they are composed of  a mixture of Socialists/Communists, faux libertarians plus a sprinkling of Israel haters and hardcore Greens that just hate the modern life style.

    Real liberals don't try and stifle debate.

    Parent

    Stifling debate (none / 0) (#52)
    by Peaches on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    is common among all groups who are convinced that they are in possession of the one right way to view the world. Many who identify as conservatives also attempt to stifle debate.

    I think that having an open mind and being aware that your political opponents might have a point on issues and arguments contrary to one's own, is a characteristic of freedom and democracy and not necessarily of a political party.

    I am anti-war and a hardcore green, but I am a human who is fallible. I try my best, but I've been wrong before in my life and I will be wrong again.

    I don't hate the modern lifestyle, but I prefer the classic one. I'm a Luddite in the sense that I put community before technology. If a technology destroys the fabric of a community we are better off without the technology, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    I find the far Left and far Right two sides of the same coin...

    I don't think you are a "Green" from a political sense anymore than I am.

    Parent

    Peaches (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    I have a great deal of faith in technology that is properly applied. It has and can give us many things we didn't have, including improving our quality of life.

    What it can't do is improve our quality of death. That requires faith.

    Parent

    I agree, (none / 0) (#95)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:18:34 AM EST
    although, some technologies may also in some (I think many, if not most) cases decrease the quality of life.

    Parent
    Jim'll decide when it's real science (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    Only a man who operates on the basis of strict rationality and empirical data would be able to have that kind of handle on "the Greenies (commies, terrorists, etc) and the way of life they detest."

    They're out to destroy our precious bodily fluids. Thank God one man is on to them.

    Btw, exactly whose (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 04:37:22 PM EST
    "way of life" and, or, which specific aspects do these way-of-life-haters-at-work (WLHW for short) "detest" and what is your hypothesis as to why, Professor?

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:00:33 PM EST
    You guys prove my point time and again.

    Parent
    And your commitee of one agrees (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 05:07:02 PM EST
    conclusivly.

    What, no energy to tell us yet again about the leftwing agenda motivating "the Greenies" and their scientists?

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    I'll give you a different question.

    Oil is a finite resource. Would you agree that if you were selling that resource, increasing revenues while selling the same, or less, amount would be a good thing??

    Try this.

    There is N barrels of oil. At $50.00 a barrel the total revenue is (50)x(N) or 50N

    Profit is revenue minus cost. The price of oil is not based on a free market. It can be increased/decreased by the amount pumped. If the usuage is decreased by some GW plan, then the amount pumped is reduced. Prices are increased by $10 a barrel. Revenue then is (60)x (N) of 60N.

    So, for the same amount of the finite resource, the oil companies have a huge increase in revenues.

    Now, what happens to costs? A smaller amount pumped means less to ship. Less to refine. Less to  transport to the retail, etc.  In addition, since pumping is reduced, maintenance costs are reduced. Plus, the availability of easy to obtain high quality crude is increased.

    Okay. Now the question. Why in the world would an oil company pay money to combat reduced usuage???


    Parent

    Because of fixed costs (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 08:22:28 AM EST
    Many, if not most costs for oil companies are fixed or sunk costs that do not vary with the amount pumped. Exploration, infrastucture investment etc.

    Parent
    Peaches (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    True, BUT the oil companies have the power to increase prices enough to overcome fixed costs. Plus, the amount of new investment to maintain or increase existing plant is avoided.

    I know you can, but I doubt that Jondee understands that it is quite possible to go bankrupt because of trying to increase volume.

    In the 90's the oil industry was in serious problems based on high volume and the fixed costs you refer to. Since then we have had a lot of consolidation in the industry which gives them the power to control prices.

    All of which just says conserve and try to find some technological solutions.

    Parent

    Its a quibble, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 10:35:27 AM EST
    but prices for crude oil are not determined by costs, but rather supply and demand. That is why when prices go up, oil companies make such large profits.

    Oil companies control prices by controlling supply. This is what makes OPEC so powerful. Although, ultimately, the market will prevail if Demand is high enough, because the incentive for profit is high for the companies and nations that have low fixed costs to produce more oil. The cost for producing a barrel of oil differs substantially throughout the oil industry. It is very small in Saudi Arabia, but very high in Venezuala, Alaska, and off-shore drilling in the gulf. In order to produce oil in these regions at a profit it was necessary for Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations with low costs to restrict the flow of oil in the market. Thus the relationship between the Saudi princes and the Western oil companies. However, Demand is so high now that these countries cannot produce enough to lower prices enough to make it unprofitable for a country like Venezuala to make a profit (If they could, they would with the Bushes blessing), so high cost oil can now also be profitable in most cases (with limits, such as the proposals to drill even deeper into the gulf but eventual as prices go up because of supply and demand, we'll get there)

    Parent

    Holy Grail (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 08:44:27 PM EST
    ....Explain to me why we had a medeival warming period,,,,,

    OK

    You see, if she weighs as much as a duck, she is made of wood and therefore....

    Molly Bloom

    Saueaky (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    Can't answer it, eh??

    Parent
    Is that sand good for the complexion, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:57:09 PM EST


    Parent
    <grin> Coffee everywhere. Again! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 02:07:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Treat Us Like Children | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment