Originally Posted by Eric the Green

All CFL'd up and insulated here. I'm glad you and Copper are. Now, if you are really concerned, deal with the politics of it too. Or console yourself that you have taken far-less-than-half measures.

It is good that Eric has done "deeds, not words".

Originally Posted by Eric

It might be a good idea to read the words you put in red more carefully. These are facts, not mindless rant.

Political sloganeering != "facts".

Originally Posted by Eric

It might be a good idea to read the words you put in red more carefully. These are facts, not mindless rant. It is a fact that Republicans don't consider climate change a real issue, and Democrats do.

So the answer is just to choose whoever has a "D" label while voting. Verbosity is a problem. See, problems wrt Eric fixed, act local with CFL's and act global, pick D's on ballots. It's all good, man.

Originally Posted by Eric

Rather than putting these facts in red and ignoring them, why not consider them?

1. I didn't ignore them. I cleaned out the cruft and made it neat and tidy.
2. Color coding text gets Boomers' attention real well. JDG has taught me well.

The people of the Phillippines and their leaders disagree with Copperfield, Jordan et al:

The worst storm on record has devastated the people of the Philippines, and scientists say climate change fueled it. Leaders are meeting right now to decide whether to pay billions promised to help vulnerable countries recover from and protect against these climate disasters. Money that could go directly to helping the Philippines rebuild. The Filipino negotiator just went on a hunger strike for action and has started a petition on Avaaz -- let's stand with him:

Yeb Sano, the climate negotiator for the Philippines, spent hours trying to reach his brother after the storm. He finally found him, part of a crew moving the bodies of victims so relief workers could begin cleanup. After hearing the news he gave an amazingly brave speech to the world's climate delegates, saying:

"I speak for my delegation. But more than that, I speak for the countless people who will no longer be able to speak for themselves after perishing from the storm. I also speak for those who have been orphaned by this tragedy. I also speak for the people now racing against time to save survivors and alleviate the suffering of the people affected by the disaster. We can take drastic action now to ensure that we prevent a future where super typhoons are a way of life... What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw."

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Political sloganeering != "facts".

Facts are facts, which is what I wrote, and ONLY what I wrote.

So the answer is just to choose whoever has a "D" label while voting. Verbosity is a problem. See, problems wrt Eric fixed, act local with CFL's and act global, pick D's on ballots. It's all good, man.

Voting D is a pretty good bet, although perhaps not in Oklahoma. You always have to pick and choose, and independent/third party votes are cool in my book too. As I stated, Dems have a much better record on the environment. I already posted the League of Conservation voters report here several times. The margins are like 90 to 0. But if it's "all good," then why do you call it cruft?

1. I didn't ignore them. I cleaned out the cruft and made it neat and tidy.
2. Color coding text gets Boomers' attention real well. JDG has taught me well.

1. There was no cruft to clean out
2. I'm not so sure about that. JDG just gets on my ignore list for doing it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I notice a) you didn't cite a source, and b) you conceded our point.

It's a compilation of data from multiple sources. You have the names and dates of the storms. You can feel free to research them on your own. I made it easy for you.

Conceded what point? I have never said anything other than what was quoted.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is being compared to what in your question? What relevance is it? Are you saying we should not inconvenience the poor billionaire fossil fuel company CEOs, versus save people from increased storm severity and all the other problems caused by climate change?

You do realize that tropical storms have environmental benefits right?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't you think calling brower a fascist is a bit of a stretch, even for you?

Not really. He displays many of the classic signs and belief systems.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

It's a compilation of data from multiple sources. You have the names and dates of the storms. You can feel free to research them on your own. I made it easy for you.

Nah; it's your contention and you need to back it up.

Conceded what point? I have never said anything other than what was quoted.

Yes you did, and you quoted my point.

You do realize that tropical storms have environmental benefits right?

Yes, in nature they have their function; but more severe storms are dangerous to life and property.
Climate change is also dangerous to many species, and many are dying because of it.

Not really. He displays many of the classic signs and belief systems.

I don't think you could say what they are. He is just another poster on this board who has a different opinion from yours; which by the way is far out on the looney fringe. Anarchy may have its points; I have entertained it and believed in it myself for a while, but common sense and real concern for people makes it invalid. I don't think you are correct in labelling people who don't have libertarian views resembling your own, as "fascist." That is an unfair label to put on people, it seems to me. The only one who posts here who even comes anywhere close to it, is Civic Hero 68.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think you could say what they are. He is just another poster on this board who has a different opinion from yours; which by the way is far out on the looney fringe. Anarchy may have its points; I have entertained it and believed in it myself for a while, but common sense and real concern for people makes it invalid. I don't think you are correct in labeling people who don't have libertarian views resembling your own, as "fascist." That is an unfair label to put on people, it seems to me. The only one who posts here who even comes anywhere close to it, is Civic Hero 68.

Agreed. The label 'fascist' and comparisons to Hitler are usually a cheap form of ad-holmium used by those lacking originality.

Now, PBower might see the World War II era as critically shaping the world as it is now. He does seem to reach to the culture and values of that time for examples of how we might perceive and act today. In a similar way I was shaped by the Consciousness Revolution, and am strongly influenced by the Blue Boomer values of anti-war, equality and ecology. JPT reads the Bible and attends church, which strongly effects his perspective and values. If PBower might possibly be accused of having a Nazi hard on, I'd suggest we all have strong values that tie us to a given time, place, culture and / or belief system.

One of my repeating problems is those who label me as Boomer and talk to me as if I were a stereotypical Boomer, whatever that is. A lot of Boomer haters refuse to distinguish between Blue and Red Boomers. They attack some mythical group of people who share ugly Boomer traits shared by both Red and Blue, without being able or willing to respect or talk about the issues dividing Red and Blue. This inability to distinguish between vastly divergent value sets renders them incapable of communicating with either flavor of Boomer.

I see PBower as having a similar problem. I might be wrong. Yes, he is concerned about issues and values that dominated the World War II era, but that doesn't make him a Nazi any more than I'm a Red Boomer or JPT is a Sunni.

It is appropriate to promote one's own value system, but I wish more people would spend some time attempting to understand the value system of the person one is supposedly communicating with. One would think one wins points by using an insult sound byte that one thinks ought to sting the stereotype one is attacking. Does anyone think one can win points by learning, by assimilating a bit of someone else's perspective into one's own?

It's hard, though. World views and values seem to come with defense systems. It seem intuitive to dismiss conflicting values rather than honestly reevaluate one's own. It is easier to attack a generic nazi than to actually read and understand what another poster is attempting to say.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Nah; it's your contention and you need to back it up.

Okay, here is one source. Go ahead and crunch those numbers. That should get you started. Let me know when you are finished.

Oh, in your spare time if you actually want to read about the storm that scientists still consider to be the "biggest, strongest, most powerful" storm on record, you can read the analysis here.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes you did, and you quoted my point.

You struggle with reading comprehension, we know this. Go back and read it again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, in nature they have their function; but more severe storms are dangerous to life and property.
Climate change is also dangerous to many species, and many are dying because of it.

And may be more beneficial in the ways they are beneficial. This is why it's important to analyze cost/benefit. Do you even know what the benefits of tropical storms are? I bet you don't. I would suggest you get started there.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think you could say what they are. He is just another poster on this board who has a different opinion from yours; which by the way is far out on the looney fringe. Anarchy may have its points; I have entertained it and believed in it myself for a while, but common sense and real concern for people makes it invalid. I don't think you are correct in labelling people who don't have libertarian views resembling your own, as "fascist." That is an unfair label to put on people, it seems to me. The only one who posts here who even comes anywhere close to it, is Civic Hero 68.

Oh I don't "label people who don't have libertarian views resembling your own, as fascist." I label people who display many of the behaviors of fascists as fascists. You are free to draw a different conclusion if you wish; that's certainly fine.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Dems have a much better environmental voting and administrative record than Repubs do (I mean, any comparison to zero looks good). However, the Dems and Obama are falling short too. It is a global issue; but America is the biggest player and has the biggest impact, and yet is among the slowest to get moving on the issue. China generates more pollution now, and the suffering to prove it; and yet they do have a program for conversion and a rapidly-expanding renewable energy industry.

Dems talk a bit about gun control, but don't push or act. They likely lost enough states due to Al Gore's strong gun control stance to lose Gore the presidency. Since that time, they will talk gun control in front of audiences urban enough to be receptive, especially in the aftermath of a shooting incident ugly enough to attract front page coverage, but they don't actually act on a federal level to push anything real.

Their attitude towards global warming and the environment seems similar. They talk the talk. They judge, perhaps correctly, that the general voting public isn't ready to walk the walk. Between tepid voters and corporate financing, global warming isn't an issue that wins one votes, that strengthens one's political macho. True movement is unlikely until global warming becomes a hot button issue where one isn't electable if one doesn't really back the environment. This can happen. I anticipate it will happen come the next 2T. The science is becoming blatantly obvious as rapidly as the Arctic is melting. Still, it is convenient for many to ignore it.

I live on a hill top in Plymouth MA. There are two flights of fire escape between the house and the water. The water is fresh water, a hundred feet or so above sea level. I recently bumped into a National Geographic map saying I'm under salt water when the Antarctic totally melts. I sigh and assume that won't be until after I'm gone. What was that phrase? It will last my time. After me, the deluge?

I am slightly inclined to vote for some one who at least talks the talk, but that isn't the beginning of enough. It's feeling like the current 4T leadership will manage to ignore the issue. I do anticipate the next 2T will make the last one look mild.

I love how some of the most enthusiastic participants in the red vs blue Culture Wars here are all lining up to preach the virtues of tolerance and understanding once they start getting attacked for it.

What's the weather like in Cuckoo land?

EDITED Because I couldn't spell Cuckoo, Cloud or otherwise.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Agreed. The label 'fascist' and comparisons to Hitler are usually a cheap form of ad-holmium used by those lacking originality.

Now, PBower might see the World War II era as critically shaping the world as it is now. He does seem to reach to the culture and values of that time for examples of how we might perceive and act today. In a similar way I was shaped by the Consciousness Revolution, and am strongly influenced by the Blue Boomer values of anti-war, equality and ecology. JPT reads the Bible and attends church, which strongly effects his perspective and values. If PBower might possibly be accused of having a Nazi hard on, I'd suggest we all have strong values that tie us to a given time, place, culture and / or belief system.

One of my repeating problems is those who label me as Boomer and talk to me as if I were a stereotypical Boomer, whatever that is. A lot of Boomer haters refuse to distinguish between Blue and Red Boomers. They attack some mythical group of people who share ugly Boomer traits shared by both Red and Blue, without being able or willing to respect or talk about the issues dividing Red and Blue. This inability to distinguish between vastly divergent value sets renders them incapable of communicating with either flavor of Boomer.

I see PBower as having a similar problem. I might be wrong. Yes, he is concerned about issues and values that dominated the World War II era, but that doesn't make him a Nazi any more than I'm a Red Boomer or JPT is a Sunni.

It is appropriate to promote one's own value system, but I wish more people would spend some time attempting to understand the value system of the person one is supposedly communicating with. One would think one wins points by using an insult sound byte that one thinks ought to sting the stereotype one is attacking. Does anyone think one can win points by learning, by assimilating a bit of someone else's perspective into one's own?

It's hard, though. World views and values seem to come with defense systems. It seem intuitive to dismiss conflicting values rather than honestly reevaluate one's own. It is easier to attack a generic nazi than to actually read and understand what another poster is attempting to say.

Please point to the place where I ever suggested he was "a Nazi" or compared him to Hitler (keeping in mind that he has, on multiple occasions, labeled entire groups of people as Nazis, fascists, and has made comparisons to _{fill-in-the-blank-dictator}.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I love how some of the most enthusiastic participants in the red vs blue Culture Wars here are all lining up to preach the virtues of tolerance and understanding once they start getting attacked for it.

What's the weather like in Cockoo land?

Red vs. Blue is not "culture wars." Those are two different things. The main contention of red vs. blue is economic policy, taxes and government programs.

Besides, the blue side is always in favor of tolerance and understanding. In the culture wars, the issue is the tolerance and understanding proposed and practiced by the blue side, vs. the prejudice and ignorance proposed and practiced by the red side.

You can defend throwing stupid labels at people if you wish, or throw them yourself. That's your perogative. I don't imagine you could actually justify them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Red vs. Blue is not "culture wars." Those are two different things. The main contention of red vs. blue is economic policy, taxes and government programs.

Besides, the blue side is always in favor of tolerance and understanding. In the culture wars, the issue is the tolerance and understanding proposed and practiced by the blue side, vs. the prejudice and ignorance proposed and practiced by the red side.

You can defend throwing stupid labels at people if you wish, or throw them yourself. That's your perogative. I don't imagine you could actually justify them.

My point exactly. You denied that red-blue and the Culture Wars were the same thing, then talked about the red and blue positions in the Culture War. Christ, you're too stupid to keep your shit straight within the same paragraph.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Dems talk a bit about gun control, but don't push or act. They likely lost enough states due to Al Gore's strong gun control stance to lose Gore the presidency. Since that time, they will talk gun control in front of audiences urban enough to be receptive, especially in the aftermath of a shooting incident ugly enough to attract front page coverage, but they don't actually act on a federal level to push anything real.

Although Clinton's stance was stronger, and he actually acted on it boldly, and yet was re-elected with support from the border states that Gore lost. But in any case, guns are always a temptation to discuss I guess, but it's off topic

Actually, I'm sure it was his stand on global warming that cost him these states!

Their attitude towards global warming and the environment seems similar. They talk the talk. They judge, perhaps correctly, that the general voting public isn't ready to walk the walk. Between tepid voters and corporate financing, global warming isn't an issue that wins one votes, that strengthens one's political macho. True movement is unlikely until global warming becomes a hot button issue where one isn't electable if one doesn't really back the environment. This can happen. I anticipate it will happen come the next 2T. The science is becoming blatantly obvious as rapidly as the Arctic is melting. Still, it is convenient for many to ignore it.

I live on a hill top in Plymouth MA. There are two flights of fire escape between the house and the water. The water is fresh water, a hundred feet or so above sea level. I recently bumped into a National Geographic map saying I'm under salt water when the Antarctic totally melts. I sigh and assume that won't be until after I'm gone. What was that phrase? It will last my time. After me, the deluge?

I am slightly inclined to vote for some one who at least talks the talk, but that isn't the beginning of enough. It's feeling like the current 4T leadership will manage to ignore the issue. I do anticipate the next 2T will make the last one look mild.

You're right; as I said too, the Dems fall short. They have a good record in congress on environmental issues, and an off-the-charts better record there than the GOP; that much is crystal clear. Obama raised mileage standards and invested in new energy companies, and is using the EPA to regulate coal; that's clear too, though not enough. Polls show global warming is a high priority issue for Dems, but not for Repubs. I don't think we can escape this 4T without dealing with this issue. For action on these and other issues, the 2020s will make the 2010s look like nothing at all; you can count on it. On the other hand, I agree that more action will be needed in the next 2T, and it could be a "deluge." (a deluge to prevent deluges?)

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

My point exactly. You denied that red-blue and the Culture Wars were the same thing, then talked about the red and blue positions in the Culture War. Christ, you're too stupid to keep your shit straight within the same paragraph.

I don't see your logic at all. You brought up the issue of prejudice and intolerance. That IS a culture wars issue; THE culture wars issue! It is part of red vs. blue, but your assumption is that it's the ONLY red vs. blue issue. And you call me stupid for saying otherwise. When in fact it is crystal clear that trickle-down Reaganomics is the main red vs. blue issue. In pundit parlance, "the role of government."

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I love how some of the most enthusiastic participants in the red vs blue Culture Wars here are all lining up to preach the virtues of tolerance and understanding once they start getting attacked for it.

What's the weather like in Cockoo land?

I for one have been promoting an understanding of the many and different value and cultural systems for years and years. While I have a close affinity for the Blue Boomer values of my youth, they don't define me entirely. The theme that values and cultures cannot be changed unless they utterly fail is one I have been pushing for decades. For decades I have been using Atlanta in 1864 and Berlin in 1945 as examples of the type of utter failure or disaster that is required before a culture will change. The amount of protest found in the United States in the mid to late 1960s might stand as another example of the sort of pressure required for cultural transformation.

Part of the above way of looking at such things involves reminding people of their own potential values lock, and suggestions that they might earnestly attempt to understand other individual's values lock.

It's an exercise in futility. People are really really reluctant to examine their own values, or give conflicting value systems a fair hearing. Still, every once in a while I make a token attempt.

As this is the Global Warming thread, I suppose I ought to apply the no-values-shift-until-disaster meme here. According to the theory, there will be no significant shift in energy use policy until a complete and utter disaster on the scale of Atlanta and Berlin is clearly visible. People will not change their values based on logic, evidence or the scientific method. Their own life style must take or be immediately threatened by a major hit.

According to S&H turning theory, new values are proclaimed in the 2T, and implemented in the 4T. I'm dubious about that pattern holding since the last 1T. A lot of issues proclaimed in the 1960s & 1970s 2T were implemented in the same 2T. I see the traditional S&H cycle as confused by the GI's willingness to make many of the changes demanded by the Blue Boomers. The Blue v Red Boomer conflict fragmenting the 3T and stalling the 4T's regeneracy is also from my perspective unusual.

Anyway, all our value systems are apt to look wrong from the perspective of other value systems. It is tempting to ask you how things look in Cockoo land.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

CFL in the fixtures where they happen to fit (most of them; it's an old house).

LEDs here - I don't have that many light fixtures but it still took about a year to do it piecemeal. My electric bill has been remarkably low this year, brag, brag.

And they don't contain the mercury which makes disposing of CFLs such a pain.

Originally Posted by B Butler

... I live on a hill top in Plymouth MA. There are two flights of fire escape between the house and the water. The water is fresh water, a hundred feet or so above sea level. I recently bumped into a National Geographic map saying I'm under salt water when the Antarctic totally melts. I sigh and assume that won't be until after I'm gone. What was that phrase? It will last my time. After me, the deluge?

I am slightly inclined to vote for some one who at least talks the talk, but that isn't the beginning of enough. It's feeling like the current 4T leadership will manage to ignore the issue. I do anticipate the next 2T will make the last one look mild.

I've finally accepted the premise that we will never deal with any issue until it's a crisis. Mostly, the system is designed to make doing things nearly impossible, so any actions that do occur have to be broadly popular, or supported by broadly applied graft. There is no graft engine supporting gun control, though there certainly is in the opposite direction. Likewise, AGW lacks enough support to be taken seriously, and it faces strong opposition form the energy lobby.

I wish the founders had chosen more wisely, but we have what we have. The only issue that has a prayer of changing the underlying structure, so things get fixed when they need to be, is the impoverishment of the young. I'm not sanguine about that, but the I-got-mine-screw-you crowd is working the issue pretty hard, and the young are getting restless.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

... What's the weather like in Cockoo land?

That's Cloud Cuckoo Land, not that it matters.

Regarding the B Butler post....I suspect that often people don't realize that the other group bases its actions on a very different paradign. If one assumes that the other guys share your paradign, but choose to make choices very different from yours, it follows that they must be bad, deviant, or crazy.

Which explains why calling other people names is not a convincing argument in politics.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

LEDs here - I don't have that many light fixtures but it still took about a year to do it piecemeal. My electric bill has been remarkably low this year, brag, brag.

And they don't contain the mercury which makes disposing of CFLs such a pain.

Just avoid using LEDs in overhead applications. Pointing up (i.e. base down), they last a long time. Pointing down , they crash pretty fast. This will change in time, but it seems to be the norm today. It's a heat thing, and the only heat sensitive stuff is in the base.

Yeah, I suspect that Marx & Lennon is right, real change will wait for a crisis. Which will mean the end of this Indian Autumn (enjoy it while it lasts, years of hardship are ahead). I will note that during the Great Depression the G.I. generation was in a position similar to that of Millies.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's Cloud Cuckoo Land, not that it matters.

Cheers, for the life of me I couldn't remember how to spell Cuckoo.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see your logic at all. You brought up the issue of prejudice and intolerance. That IS a culture wars issue; THE culture wars issue! It is part of red vs. blue, but your assumption is that it's the ONLY red vs. blue issue. And you call me stupid for saying otherwise. When in fact it is crystal clear that trickle-down Reaganomics is the main red vs. blue issue. In pundit parlance, "the role of government."

Eric, when do you ever see logic? I called you stupid (this time) for claiming that your red/blue framework was completely separate from the culture wars, then proceeded to outline the red and blue positions in those same culture wars in the next sentence. You contradicted yourself within the main paragraph. You can change your argument again, but you're fooling nobody but yourself.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Regarding the B Butler post....I suspect that often people don't realize that the other group bases its actions on a very different paradign. If one assumes that the other guys share your paradign, but choose to make choices very different from yours, it follows that they must be bad, deviant, or crazy.

Which explains why calling other people names is not a convincing argument in politics.

Well said.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Yeah, I suspect that Marx & Lennon is right, real change will wait for a crisis. Which will mean the end of this Indian Autumn (enjoy it while it lasts, years of hardship are ahead). I will note that during the Great Depression the G.I. generation was in a position similar to that of Millies.

I'm not sure. The GIs developed their 'bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe" values system. The Millenials seem tainted by "the government isn't the solution it's the problem," and "read my lips, no new taxes" unraveling values. The world supposedly owes them a bunch, but they shouldn't have to work or get taxed in order to get their free lunch. This is utterly opposite of the GI values, in part because the Millenials aren't really as miserable as the GIs were. It might be that they could eventually develop the civic / hero archetype values S&H anticipated. I'm not seeing it yet.

Though the above is harsh. Should a bunch of Millenials truly develop an echo of the old civic / hero / GI attitude, would modern society be ready to enable them? If a bunch of youngsters were truly ready to donate their blood, toil, tears and sweat, would our current system get behind them? In the 1940s there were resources available and tasks to be done. In an age of automation and scarce resources, are the answers of the 1940s relevant?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Eric, when do you ever see logic? I called you stupid (this time) for claiming that your red/blue framework was completely separate from the culture wars, then proceeded to outline the red and blue positions in those same culture wars in the next sentence. You contradicted yourself within the main paragraph. You can change your argument again, but you're fooling nobody but yourself.

I never said it was completely separate; I said that YOU claimed they were identical. They are not. You are fooling no-one but yourself. When do you ever see logic?

Global warming is one of the premier red/blue issues. The party divide on this issue is clear and stark. This is not a culture war. It is a war to save our planet from greedy CEOs.

If you think the Keystone Pipeline is a culture war issue, then I have some frozen Alaskan wastes to sell you. Wait; there might be oil there....