![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
uberreinigerhttp://www.alaskareport.com/reu77640.htm
Man, I almost wish![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mr_dark were still here. I would be most entertained by a ten page essay beginning with "First of all..." and then followed by forty-five pieces of evidence revealing this news article to be completely untrue... nearly all of them coming from Rush Limbaugh or the like.
Man, I almost wish
mr_dark were still here. I would be most entertained by a ten page essay beginning with "First of all..." and then followed by forty-five pieces of evidence revealing this news article to be completely untrue... nearly all of them coming from Rush Limbaugh or the like.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-01 04:04 pm (UTC)You know why Greenland is called Greenland?
Because a few thousand years ago it was not covered in snow and ice! Yeah, it was Green, farmable and a habitat quite hospitable to human beings. This is a fact.
And it probably will be again someday. Last time I checked, we weren't traversing the globe in our SUV's and spewing clouds of toxic death from our evil corporate factories thousands of years ago, so what caused the ice shelf to melt then?
There is a natural course of climate change that takes place every so often and that's it, simple as that.
The "global warming" crowd is nothing more than a pro-socialism lobby trying to find new ways to make gullible Americans pay more taxes by making them feel guilty about "what they've done to our fragile earth."
But wait...what about the scientific consensus, doesn't that mean anything?
If there's a consensus, it's not science.
These people have to find some way of justifying the millions of dollars they get in grants from the government (i.e. the taxpayers). So they tell everyone that the sky is falling and that "there must be more research done.." and "we need to find new ways to fight global warming" and all this obnoxious tripe.
There was also a consensus that the 2006 hurricane season was going to make 2005's look like a mild drizzle, due to global warming. Looks like that didn't work out so well.
In the 1970’s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.
This link has a lot of very important info regarding "global warming".
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
no subject
Date: 2007-02-01 06:35 pm (UTC)In his State of the Union address on January 23, Bush called climate change "a serious challenge" that should be addressed by technology and greater use of alternative sources of energy.
Looks like you might want to tell him that. Apparently he doesn't agree with you.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-01 08:31 pm (UTC)Climate change is cyclical, plain and simple. The Medieval Warm Period (lasting about 4 centuries-this is when Greenland was green) is a prime example of it. So is the "Little Ice Age". For instance, in the winter of 1780, people could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island via the frozen NY harbor. No one would ever imagine that today, but it may happen again.
The earth warms, the earth cools, the tides come in & they go out, the sun comes up and the sun comes down, various species live and die. This is the way of the universe from the dawn of creation. I've heard everything from cow farts http://www.show.me.uk/site/news/STO873.html to SUV's as the culprits to climate change and I don't buy any of it.
If Bush is changing lanes here (and unfortunately, it looks like he may), well...at least there's only about 2 years left, maybe there's still hope that America will not become a socialist nation.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 06:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 07:06 am (UTC)Man, all those money-grubbing climatologists are suckers - why would they waste time making up doomsday scenarios and angling for grants when they can just become petroleum company shills and rake in the dough?
Also, you may want to direct your friend to the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming, which point out a few things that his own link seems to have overlooked, like the signficant correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures in the Vostok ice core (going back about 400K years) and the significant impact the 20th century and 21st century have had on sensitive indicators of climate change, like glaciers (which are, uh, retreating like mad in almost every part of the world).
Speaking of glaciers, you might also direct him to the Wikipedia article on Greenland, where he will learn that the ice sheet on Greenland is actually more than 2 miles thick and has been in place for at least 100K years. It's only been in the last few years, thanks (?) to the retreating ice (some of it moving at 50 yards a day!), that researchers have discovered that Greenland is actually an archipelago, composed apparently of three large islands and an unknown number of smaller ones.
Oh, and one final comment: While I freely admit I don't have the background to thoroughly examine the arguments provided in it, I can nevertheless do enough basic assessment to realize his Junk Science link contains at least one massive lie, a lie that seems to need an explanation that simply is not forthcoming from the site. It compares the "hockey stick" temperature graph to another graph nearby and claims that both provide the same data. They may both be based on the same data, but the difference in appearance is more than just cosmetic or deliberately manipulative (at least on the part of those researchers who published the "hockey stick" graph): the "hockey stick" graph shows more than a millenium's worth of data and uses statistical analysis to display the extended trends, while the other graph minimizes the appearance of the increase by only using data since the late 17th century and provides no statistical analysis whatsoever. In other words, the "hockey stick" graph shows an 850-year cooling trend that not only completely reverses itself, but also makes up all the gains lost in those 850 years and more besides - in the space of just 150 years. The other graph, which uses a smaller data range and refuses to plot any long-term trend at all, is too narrow and too individual-data-point-reliant to provide any kind of significant context for the temperature trend.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 07:21 am (UTC)I tend not to read his links for the same reason I don't read mr. dark's.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 04:14 pm (UTC)I noticed in the Greenland link to Wikepedia, this interesting little tidbit:
"...new record of climate change in the Northern Hemisphere going back about 100,000 years and illustrated that the world's weather and temperature have often shifted rapidly from one seemingly stable state to another, with worldwide consequences.[citation needed]"
So basically, what this is saying it that for the last 100K years, the climate worldwide has "shifted rapidly" and that it has caused major changes throughout time. Hmm. Who caused it to change so rapidly all those times? Must've been the gas-guzzling sled dogs...or wait, I know...it was the sled dog farts that made the ice melt! Maybe it was the whale blubber oil those damn eskimos were burning to keep their families warm and give themselves light, you know...oil is evil.
The world is not in danger of any global warming or cooling. Any measurable temperature change is not only cyclical, but we are unable to affect it either way. How arrogant to think that we have that kind of power. Can you make the tides stop coming in? Can you make the sun stop shining?
Earth worship is moronic. I choose to worship the Creator, not the created. And I thank Him often for the beauty that He surrounds us with. Whenever I see a beautiful sunset or listen to that special silence that dampens the earth when it snows, I acknowledge His handiwork.
And Uberreiniger, why is it that my links are any less credible than the ones that you provide? That seems disingenuous to me. Mr. Dark may be a lot of things, (believe me, I have more stories than you do on the guy going back to when I was 13) but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything he's ever written. Hell, you can find something true that some of the most eveil people in the world have said if you look. From what I recall, you seemed more irritated with his approach than his information.
I believe that God created the world to go on until the day of Judgement, because that's what His word tells us. All this earth worship is nothing more than another "guilt complex" scheme to make people feel like something needs to be done, so they can raise our taxes and make us more dependent on the government to "save us". Look at the organizations associated with the "green" movement. They're all socialists and liberals. It's as plain as can be.
I love nature. I have plans to be closer to it when I get out of KC. I believe in conservation, but with some common sense for cryin' out loud. You don't dump toxic waste into rivers and streams (duh) and obviously, the cleaner energy you have, the better (less waste is a good thing). But the world is not going to turn 1000 degrees and burn us alive if we don't stop driving SUV's or put a buttplug in all of our cows.
And Leif Erikson was an American actor until he died in 1986.
But he may have been an idiot. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 05:11 pm (UTC)You know, the vicious evisceration of straw men, while not technically illegal, does seem to display an unhealthy attitude of aggression.
For the record, though, let me clarify my actual argument, rather than the one you're attacking over there. (Note: key elements of this argument require that the world be older than 6,000 years. You have been warned.)
Yes, climate change has indeed happened many, many times during the Earth's history. When it has, it has been strongly correlative with changes - apparently relatively small ones, on the order of a +/- 40 ppm - in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (For a graphic of one set of data that illustrates this, click here.)
More recently, the relatively stable levels of CO2 (until about 1750) began to rise slightly, and then in the early 1800s raced upward to levels not seen any time in the last 400,000 years, as seen here. Also, around 1850, the general 850-year decline in global temperatures abruptly reversed, and in the last 150 years, has gone up by most of 1 degree C (see here and here), making up all the heat lost in the previous millenium and about half a degree more besides.
Now, all of this does not absolutely add up to anything - correlation is not causation. But the data are provocative, and the rate of global temperature increase is accelerating. Several recent studies have concluded that the odds greatly favor human effects as being largely, if not entirely, responsible for these changes in the global CO2 levels and temperatures because no other source seems to have any hope of explaining it adequately, including one that, quite coincidentally, released yesterday. (Caveat: I doubt they included "God did it," because they weren't sure how to model Him.)
All this earth worship is nothing more than another "guilt complex" scheme to make people feel like something needs to be done, so they can raise our taxes and make us more dependent on the government to "save us". Look at the organizations associated with the "green" movement. They're all socialists and liberals. It's as plain as can be.
You know what happens when you assume? For the record, the left-leaning tendencies of the Green movement come from two basic facts:
1) The right has a strong tendency to pay attention to the bottom line over any other concerns, including those of actual people. Since going Green is expensive, the right has consistently rejected it (this was the explicit argument of the current Administration when it refused to sign the Kyoto Protocols, just so we're clear).
2) It is the basic worldview of liberals to look forward. It is the basic worldview of conservatives to look back. It is the liberals, therefore, that see the problems coming before they get here, and the conservatives who argue that, since nothing has happened so far, everything must be all right.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 08:41 pm (UTC)And who said anything about "Earth worship" for crying out loud? That's not even the point. The Earth will continue until the day of Judgement alright. I'd like it to reach that day in as healthy a state as possible. After all, we're the ones who have to live here until then.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 09:15 pm (UTC)It's the aggressive HEALTHY attitude of men that has been feminized and castrated since the 1960's that we need MORE of. God, if only more people were not so intellectually lazy and pacifistic, we may be able to get more done.
As far as the age of the earth goes, nobody knows exactly how old/young it is. "A day is like a thousand year's to the Lord" is not necessarily meant to be interpreted literally, just like the Great Red Dragon (who is Lucifer) is most likely not a literal big red dragon, but it illustrates the sinister ferocity of his nature.
For all we know the earth is 10,000 years old or it may be 10 billion years old (although I tend to believe it is closer to the former).
The point is being made for me by your statements. If the earth hasn't seen CO2 levels like this for the last 400,000 years (a theory that is difficult to prove since no one was recording history during that time...IF the earth was even here at that time), then what made it so high back then? By contrast, what made it "abruptly reverse" around 1850?
There's no real science involved in the green movement, only socialism.
Also, as a Conservative I can tell you that you are 100% wrong about what we're all about. Our strong tendency is to look at freedom, size up the threats against freedom, and to be skeptical of anyone who is trying to tell us that they know better than ourselves how to govern our lives.
Our basic, core belief is that freedom comes from God, and that any Government body that tries to force its way into your pocket and take your money (or your guns or your right to private property, or any other rights guaranteed by our founding documents, etc.) is a government to beware of.
You have no more a right to take the money that I've earned than I have a right to grab a slice of pizza out of your hand and tell you that "you don't really need pizza like *john doe* does, so I'm going to take yours and feed it to john doe." That used to be called stealing, now it's called "re-distribution" and it's a staple of socialism.
The Kyoto Protocols are a international socialist agenda designed to crush the United States (by sucking our economy dry) and rendering us impotent so that Socialism can continue its reach around the globe and make us all slaves to one-world government. It's why we need to kick the UN out of the United States where they can continue to crumble under the weight of their bureaucracy and hypocrisy on someone else's soil. The 141 Countries that signed the agreement are suckers, and their economic demise will be our vindication. Of course...they'll beg for us to bail them out like they always do when tragedy strikes. Hopefully, Australia and Monaco will stay strong with the U.S. in opposing it as they have thus far.
Liberals don't see the problems coming, they make up problems in order to keep themselves in power by scaring the naive into voting for them (the Black Caucus, NAACP, AARP, Public School System, etc.). It's all about creating "victims" that massa-government will rescue. Their willing accomplices in the mainstream media give them all the help they need.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 09:52 pm (UTC)While correlation does not automatically equal causation, it's also worth remembering that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. The industrial revolution resulted in large-scale manmade chemical emissions into the atmosphere for the first time and for the first time since humans have been a viable force on the planet, the CO2 levels went up again. That's some hard-to-ignore quacking right there. Whatever was happening 400,000 years prior is very unlikely to be relevant to the evidence for causation in this instance.
Our basic, core belief is that freedom comes from God,
And freedom which is not used responsibly is often taken away... by God. One person's "freedom" to drive a big SUV that gets 6 mpg creates a higher demand for gasoline which infringes on my freedom to enjoy it at a reasonable price. That's just one example. The activities linked to global warming tend to be self-centered and infringe on the freedoms of others in very visible ways. Living with the notion that you are responsible for your actions and that your actions affect other people is most definately NOT socialism. Massa-government does not need to "create" victims. There are enough real ones out there already.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-03 01:16 am (UTC)As surprising as it may seem, I prefer not to claim knowledge of situations in which I have no evidence. The reason why I said 400,000 years is not because that's the last time CO2 levels were this high. That's just as far back as the data goes. If I'm remembering correctly, the Vostok ice core is the oldest such core in the world, and is the source of the 400K number. In point of fact, within the data record, current CO2 levels have literally never before been seen!
Now that's a disingenous statement, of course, because we have plenty of secondary evidence that goes back beyond the 400K mark by several million years that suggests global temperates and CO2 levels were significantly higher than now - pretty much the entirety of the Triassic and Jurassic periods, the "Age of the Dinosaurs." The point, however, is that 400K years of CO2 levels that didn't cross the 300 ppm mark suddenly blew past it, all the way up over 400 ppm - a trend that started around 1850.
As for what made it "abruptly reverse" around then? Well, that is the question, isn't it? Correlation, though, is very, very high.
Also, as a Conservative I can tell you that you are 100% wrong about what we're all about.
As a liberal, I can guarantee I'm not interested in raising your taxes, making you dependent on the government or... what was it again?... oh yes, tell you I know better than you how to live your life. But since you likely won't believe that, I don't think I'm going to believe you either.
any Government body that tries to force its way into your pocket and take your money (or your guns or your right to private property
or my bedroom or my reproductive system or my religious beliefs or my freedom of expression or my email?
Strange as it may seem, I don't know of any mainstream liberals trying to take away your private property or your guns. The 90s showed everyone pretty clearly that the best way to reduce violent crime is to increase the economic situation of the lower class, which is where our stronger focus is anyway. And the only thing I can think of that might involve private property is that idiotic SCOTUS ruling about eminent domain, which violates nearly every liberal principle I can imagine.
You have no more a right to take the money that I've earned than I have a right to grab a slice of pizza out of your hand and tell you that "you don't really need pizza like *john doe* does, so I'm going to take yours and feed it to john doe."
Without a government supported by taxes, how would you have responded to something like Hurricane Katrina? How would you have responded to 9/11? How would you be able to enjoy driving your SUV on roads that wouldn't exist? How would you type on your computer without electricity from government-built dams? How would you strengthen a nation without taxes to help cover the cost of educating its youth?
We have taxes because they are necessary for government to exist, and we have a government because it is necessary for our society to exist. Here's something you need to get through your skull: damn near every dollar you pay for taxes goes to help someone else - but the things you get were paid for by your neighbors, co-workers, and people you never met 100 miles or 100 years away, because they were paying to help you.
Liberals don't see the problems coming, they make up problems in order to keep themselves in power by scaring the naive into voting for them (the Black Caucus, NAACP, AARP, Public School System, etc.). It's all about creating "victims" that massa-government will rescue.
Civil rights were "made up?" And did you just say that and immediately follow it up with the word "massa?"
Also, you might want to examine the current Administration's strategy for getting us into Iraq before you go casting aspersions elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-03 03:13 am (UTC)Oh, I don't know...maybe by telling people in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of there because a Cat 5 hurrixane is heading right for them about 3 days or so in advance...Oh wait! That's what the President, The Weather Channel and the Mayor DID. Guess there's just too many dumbasses in N.O. to follow instructions. Maybe they were all having too much fun on Bourbon Street to bother with evacuation, who knows?
Bet those 345 school buses that the Mayor wouldn't use when there was still time would've come in real handy though, eh? But instead, they just sat under water, useless and ruined as the town they sat in. Please, don't waste my time with the Katrina garbage. Keep in mind, New Orleans is a quintessential example of liberalism at work in government, "here's your sign..."
And 9/11? I would've hit some key targets with some smart bombs, and told Israel to do whatever it has to to protect its own, because we're declaring war on all terrorist nations (namely Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq). Someday, that will happen, but it'll take a nuke before the other 1/2 of America wakes up to the reality that this is WWIII, & the nazi's are the guys who behead people, declare death to America, and strap bombs to their kids. Allah ackbar! Durka-Durka-Durka!
"damn near every dollar you pay for taxes goes to help someone else"
LOL! That's funny, seems to me that damn near every dollar I pay for taxes goes to some bloated government hand-out program that supports the lazy and addicted.
"or my bedroom or my reproductive system or my religious beliefs or my freedom of expression or my email?"
There's no infringement on being gay, although there's no Constitutional right to gay marriage (or abortion). And what about the baby's rights? Is she not a human being? Does she not have the right to live? Oh that's right...only if it's convenient for the mother. And religious expression? The only people being oppressed for their faith are the Christians. Pick up a Voice of the Martyrs sometime, you might learn something. Christians are the most persecuted religious group on the planet.
In all the middle eastern countries save Israel, and at least a dozen other countries, Christians are often slaughtered, whole families murdered in their homes & underground churches. Pregnant women have had their babies cut out of their stomachs, men have been forced to watch their daughters being raped and then killed, & if they don't convert to Islam, they too are beheaded. Don't tell me you're being denied your right to have your beliefs, give me a break. We are SO spoiled.
"Civil rights were 'made up?' And did you just say that and immediately follow it up with the word 'massa?'"
Who said Civil Rights were made up? What...do you actually think the NAACP has anything to do with civil rights? Wow. I have some oceanside property in Idaho to sell you. And yes, I followed it up with the word "massa". Don't blame me, that's what the government is to the enslaved.
I'm no racist, just ask my Mexican wife, my 2 Indian (as in, from India) friends, my Mexican friend and my 4 black friends. They're not white, they're my true friends, and therefore, I am not racist (by the way, most of them agree with me becuase they're...wait for it...Conservative Republicans ***gasp***). Or as the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, McKinney and others call them: "Uncle Toms", "House Negroes", and "Sell Outs".
How sad. I respect these friends because they work for a living (instead of asking massa-government to help them) and have made a life for themselves. Which is the opportunity EVERYONE has in this country if they will only apply themselves and quit blaming everyone else for their problems.
I'm making this my last post (surely to the delight of Mr. Uberreiniger) on this subject because there seems to be no point in both of us writing small books in Ube's journal. Besides, we're getting off topic now anyway as was bound to happen as all topics discussed so far inevitably lead to other issues. Hopefully, you gave my points some reflection as I did yours, it's only fair to at least hear someone out, don't you think?
Cheerio!
no subject
Date: 2007-02-02 11:14 pm (UTC)The activities "linked" to global warming are the very activities that have made it possible for mankind to thrive as we have since the industrial age. The very reason we have electricity to run these damned computers and yak on our cell phones every day. The same activities that produce 2/3 of the world's food supply and the same activities that provide families with jobs. Ever hear of a poor person hiring anybody? Who do you think provides jobs?
Industry is a blessing, not a curse. Without it, we would all starve. People would die of hypothermia and of heat exhaustion. We would not be able to have this discussion as we are because there'd be no means to make it happen.
Does industry need to act responsibly? Well of course it does. Nobody is calling for companies to dump toxic wastes into our streams, that's just stupid. But that does not mean that we all need to subscribe to some socialist doctrine of extreme regulations that cripple the economy and destroy productivity (i.e. kill jobs and ruin our lives), and that's exactly what the Kyoto treaty does.
Remember acid rain? It was supposed to kill us all off. In the 80's it was the acid rain that would ensure the destruction of mankind and damn it, we deserved it! So much for that.
Then there was the ozone layer. Oooo, we've put a hole in the ozone with our hairspray and shoe factories, now we're all going to die. Then, many noted meteorologists and scientists like Haroun Tazieff determined that even if CFCs do have an effect on the ozone, he asserts that it must be an insignificant one. After all, it is alleged that it is the chlorine in the CFCs which breaks down the ozone molecules. However, only 7,500 tons of chlorine are released from the breakdown of CFCs every year, against 600 million tons from the evaporation of seawater and 36 million from volcanoes. What is more, the effect of chlorine is to break down the ozone into oxygen plus by-products, and it simply requires the presence of ultraviolet rays to transform the oxygen back into ozone.
Simply put, evil volanoes and evil seawater emit millions of times more CFC's into the atmosphere than we mere humans are guilty of.
What now then? How do we stop those dastardly volcanoes from spewing forth tier noxious fumes of death into our atmosphere? How do we keep the ocean from doing it?
It's a joke, man.
Oil is natural. We didn't make it, we simply harness its usage. God gave it to us to use for the very things we use it for today. Transportation, energy, heat, etc. These are all good things. Speaking of seawater, Did you know that seawater actually "eats" oil? Yep, it breaks it down and dissolves it. That doesn't mean I want Exxon to dump tons of it into the ocean, but I do know that its effects on the ocean have been neither catastrophic nor permanent. Yeah, it's a bummer to see seals or birds suffering from an oil spill, but it passes. Just as a forest set ablaze by a moron with a careless flick of a cigarette, will replenish itself. Sometimes forests catch fire naturally too, via a lighting strike. It's pretty common actually...what are we going to do about the lightning's destruction of our forests?
For that matter, the sun (which nobody seems to want to take into account) has been shown to be much more active and "hotter" than usual. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr. Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."
Geez, what are we going to do about that?
I choose not to give in to panic and hysteria.
God made the earth to survive. And we are arrogant to think that we can either prevent its natural defenses and climatic cycle or destroy it with our puny devices and insignificant activity.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-03 12:03 am (UTC)As for the Kyoto protocols, I don't know enough about them to address them. Which is why I wasn't. I'm a bit too young to recall the acid rain scare very well either so I'd have to do some research before I addressed that, although I can say I have seen it reported that manmade chemicals returning to earth in percipitation do have detrimental ecological effects.
The climate heats up and cools down in cycles. The sun heats up and cools down in cycles. (Giant nuclear reactor. Go figure.) No one denies any of that. The question is how human activity affects those cycles' long-term effects on the planet.
So oil breaks down in seawater over time. Does it change the fact that ecosystems are affected in far-reaching ways by the loss of life generated in oil spills? Absolutely not. So lightning strikes burn down trees. That's nice. What does that have to do with anything? So volcanos emit the same toxic gases we do. Does that mean we should emit more than all the volcanoes on earth put together? I don't think so.
To use a comparison that's near and dear to your heart, that's almost like saying we shouldn't care whether partial birth abortions are performed because late-stage fetuses sometimes miscarry and are expelled from the womb naturally anyway.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-04 08:47 pm (UTC)