Naw, that's just your 'hoo-hoo'-envy.Originally Posted by The Rani
(BTW, FWIW, I totally agree)
That, I did not know.
(I couldn't care less about Freud,
but Halsted looks kinda interesting).
Prince
PS:
Oh. So close.
Now let's see here ...
just a little more to the left, and ...
Voila!:
On the contrary, Bob. Thank you!
I Am A Child of God/Nature/The Universe
I Think Globally and Act Individually(and possibly, voluntarily join-together with Others)
I Pray for World Peace & I Choose Less-Just Say: "NO!, Thank You."
He was one of the first to recognize dangers in cocaine. It was pushed as an innocuous stimulant (think of what "Coca-Cola" refers to -- it was originally to a small amount of cocaine as a stimulant).
Pioneers of thought and practice, including scientific, technological, and culture, are rarely saints unless they intend to be saints.
The Missionary Awakening was a time awash in drugs, a story in itself. Just think of the poppy-field scene in The Wizard of Oz. As Awakening eras wind down, inebriants go from commonplace to discredited, and their users go from lauded to scorned. But that is a story in itself, one best discussed elsewhere.
Oh, by the way -- the "Wizard of Asinine Thought" has been evicted.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Combative, abusive, bigoted, insane, incoherent, obscene, extremist. Also some spammers, a different category of abuse of discussion forums.
Freud would have certainly seen nothing but trouble in "A", and not only for antisemitic hate speech.
I have refused to compare that creep to one of the most reviled, but necessary parts of the human anatomy. One needs a literal ***hole. The figurative one who defecated upon these Forums lately has lost posting privileges.
He libeled me as a homosexual sexual predator upon children. I chose to let the "homosexual" part slide because I have no desire to defame homosexuals, many of whom lead honorable lives. The rest of the libel is one of the worst abominations that I can imagine, and it would be such if it were heterosexual. My intellectual hero Freud made it very clear that children in the latency stage (roughly 6 to puberty) have absolutely no desire for sex. What I have seen about child sexual abuse is that children find it painful and shameful, and that it usually messes them up badly. The Christian ethics with which I have been raised cause me to loathe the imposition of pointless pain and shame upon people who deserve better. Sexual abusers of children -- literal rapists -- get my automatic contempt.
I prayed for him on one of these Forums and he mocked it.
Libel is also a vile deed, and people can do great harm to the reputations and professional capacities of persons who are its victims. Considering the job that I have done and wish to do again, the accusation that I molest children is just short of murder. In that line of work, a conviction for vehicular homicide would be less of a bar to employment. Libel hurts, and people have won lawsuits for large amounts for libel. "A" may consider himself fortunate that I have not yet chosen to sue him.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us...dayspaper&_r=0
Dr. Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements, however, ticked up only slightly.
Such charts... are the essence of the divide between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected scientists on the other.
“Almost anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than the latest round of models suggests should have happened...”
...Dr. Christy argues that reining in carbon emissions is both futile and unnecessary, and that money is better spent adapting to what he says will be moderately higher temperatures...
-That's called "operational art" and "tactics."
-Ridiculous. How? The Army of Northern Virginia was only there to try to take the summer harvest anyway.
-Wars of movement favor the side with better intelligence, which was the Army of the Potomac. Even if Jeb Stuart had been with the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia, the reb's intell' sucked whenever they went north of the Mason-Dixon line.
-More material for the "Liberal Hypocrisy" thread!
Let one creepy poster threaten another, and they so "ho hum, nothing to see."
But hurt their feelings or use naughty language...
-That's: "Christianity is a 'religion'...Note only a small percentage of folks can fully function by means of reason "
It looks like you really need to work on your indefinite articles, too, tsovaritch. The FSB will not be pleased with your incompetence...
Hmm... or maybe Playwrite's wife has been hitting the liquor cabinet? Can't say that I'd blame her...
You were right and The Rani is wrong. No more need be said.
Lee and Tone
I'd say they also wanted to make the Army of the Potomac look bad, the Union war effort look futile, and thus make Lincoln's reelection far less likely. This to me seems the most available route to an independent Confederacy in the long term.
I didn't care for the change of tone of the entire forum. Many were imitating the style of argument by insult, some the use of profanity.Let one creepy poster threaten another, and they so "ho hum, nothing to see."
But hurt their feelings or use naughty language...
If a few on either extreme are being objectionable in equal measure, I might not click on the black triangle. If the entire board goes nuts, I'll start hitting the worst offenders.
Mercifully, "A" is gone -- banned. I'm surprised that it took so long. He was so vile that JDG 66 found him objectionable. At the least, JDG doesn't seem to use profanities and ethnic slurs, and he doesn't libel fellow posters for criminal deeds.
We can now discuss climate change instead of... never mind.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I once heard some Jewish historian say that the reason for the ban on pork was that pigs require copious water generally unavailable in a hot semi-desert or a hot desert climate as most of Judea was. Pork is one of the tastiest meats, and it would devour so many resources to allow the indulgence of tastes of economic elites that raising hogs as food would lead to gross imbalances of food production that it would lead to mass hunger. Venison? Hunting is a tempting way to get tasty venison, but deer hunting is an expensive practice that would detract from genuine farming and animal husbandry.
...That said, I can now discuss usury. Few now complain when the electric utility floats interest-bearing bonds for expansion or renovation of its power plants and distribution network. The bond-holders get an income, the ownership and management of the utility get to expand their capacity and enhance their profits with a significantly-better return on investment than the interest on the bonds, and consumers get cheaper and more reliable power. In such a case, lending is a win-win proposition for everyone involved. Such cannot be objectionable.
It is telling that Israel sells bonds to investors. Does a Jew who accepts interest on such bonds commit a crime of usury? I doubt that.
The real offense was in what we now consider predatory lending, often known as loan-sharking. Such is most often done by shysters who exploit the economic distress of desperate people -- people whose crops failed, people whose business was destroyed in natural disasters or wars, the bereft, and the foolish. The loan shark typically lends at very high rates to people who are worse off after getting the loan than before. If the borrower defaults, then the lender can sell the debtor and his progeny into slavery (the old way of doing things) or torture and murder the debtor if nobody redeems the loan.
People in economic distress do not need loans that make their situation even worse; they need charity or welfare.
But they deal with ethical realities that transcend personal gain or bureaucratic power. The priests and shamans of antiquity could do that, and poring over the Torah and Talmud seems far more reliable in getting good ethical results than did examining the entrails of a smashed pigeon or asking some oracle.Holy men, you know, can read God's mind and speak with His authority. Sometimes they do so for understandable reasons. Me? I like a good pork chop, God or some forgotten holy man aside.
Such would ensure that there would be nobody to make further loans. That said, those "Christian" lords were often no better than modern-day gangsters. The surviving Jews fled to safe havens which in some times could be Venice, Naples, Amsterdam, Krakow, Salonica, or Constantinople. When the Enlightenment was fully underway, it could be Berlin, Frankfurt, London, New Amsterdam, or Philadelphia. Jews were generally safe where property rights were safe, and where property was safe from seizures by kings or angry mobs, economic growth could take off -- and Jews could prosper. That is why successful capitalism and prosperous Jews (not all of them lenders) usually go together.Then somebody decided that it wasn't a sin to charge interest if the loaner was a jew and the loanee a gentile. In many cases, as with usury in general, both sides benefited. Then the time came when a powerful Christian lord wound up on the wrong end of a loan turned ugly. The answer to this problem came to be called a pogrom. Remind everyone that the jews killed Jesus, kill the banker, take his money, then kill a lot of other jews. From the so called Christian's point of view, problem solved. It became a habit in some parts of the world.
I can't speak for God, but a just God has little use for loan-sharking... or pogroms. Had I been God I would have transmuted some of the metal in some statue of Der Phooey into U-235 while its object of depiction and his cronies admired it... and detonated it.Which is precisely why God doesn't like usury?
The Nazis are infamous as murderers, and such often distracts people from their thefts. Really, the Nazi Party was a syndicate of organized crime, and robbing the Jews was the sort of decision that someone trying to hasten an inheritance with murder and forgery of a will does. It is rational in its way even if it is completely criminal.Eventually, after a few jewish bankers became very very rich, the Christians decided it was ok to charge each other interest. These days the sin of usury isn't a big deal. Many people aren't even aware they are sinning. (I can imagine the arguments as St. Peter turns them away at the front gate.) This wasn't before a few jewish banking families came to become as rich and influential as Carnegie, Rockefeller and other giants of the time. Because a few jews became rich, those inclined to hate would hate the vast majority of jews who never became rich. Hitler just used that hate big time. To some degree, he financed World War II with a %100 death tax on certain minorities. I think it is questionable whether the Holocaust was the result of prejudice and hate, or whether it was just a sound financial decision.
Nazi Germany was bankrupt throughout most of its existence, and it could finance itself only through robbery and enslavement. Jews probably formed the bulk of the middle class of Germany before 1933, and an independent middle class of any kind is very costly to economic elites -- the junkers, the non-Jewish financiers and industrialists, and the executive elite. Even before 1933 German industrial workers had the lowest wages in Europe, and farm workers had things bad too. The elites liked it that way. Workers showed their appreciation for low pay and brutal management by forming one of the largest and most militant Communist parties outside of the Soviet Union.
The Nazis made a sordid deal with Germany's gentile elites in which the Nazis would smash the labor unions and destroy the Communists and Social Democrats and the Nazis would get to rob the Jews. Such was a win-win for everyone but the Communists, Socialists, Jews, farm laborers, and industrial workers.
In the Double-Zero decade people were borrowing for houses that they could not afford and using the equity that arose from inflation of real-estate values for buying luxuries. Stock-market speculation was a comparatively-small part of the corrupt boom of the Double-Zero decade. The corrupt lending was on real estate, and that tore down everything else. Lending dried up, and that messed up all other big-ticket activities (automobiles, major appliances, RVs).I'd like to say that with everybody charging everybody usury the problem is no more. It is certainly much less, though a few keep alive the memories of old hatreds. Still, when one has a few rich and powerful individuals in a position to manipulate banking rules to their advantage, there is a problem. I don't consider it to be an ethnic or religious problem anymore. It's a class problem, the 1% taking advantage of the 99%. I'm in favor of a more even playing field and better regulation of the banking industry. If too many people borrow money to buy stocks, and the stock market dips, there is a potential for an artificially created disaster. Let's not do that sort of thing.
Lending for interest may be essential to capitalism. But as a rule, the return on bonds is never astronomical. Lending at 4% to some entity that can get an 8% return is good for everyone. Loan-sharking gets ugly results. When loan-sharking collapses I will have a satisfying level of Schadenfreude.But for me the sin of usury and the prejudice and hate that blossomed from it are or ought to be a past problem.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
How do you feel the concept of "jubilee" would work in today's world?
As most recently practiced, it was a way for debtors to escape their debts. We have bankruptcy now, so that's unnecessary. As far as a universal forgiveness of sins, I'm not a good one to comment.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Jubilee as practiced originally erased all debt without stigma, so bankruptcy isn't a good analogy. It leaves a stigma on your credit, even if it does erase the debt.
Technically one divides something similar to zero by something similar to zero during a series of differentiations until one gets a result other than 0/0. Typically, exponential functions are stable; trigonometric functions sin and cos are cyclical. Powers of x, in contrast, lose one power with each differentiation; polynomials typically to get reduced to a real number through successive differentiations.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Nobody would make eight-year (or longer) loans necessary for financing big projects.
Forget that gimmick. We need greater equality and security of income so that fewer people need turn to loan-sharks who are the sorts of usurers that the Torah excoriated.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
I thought it was a great idea, but the more I studied it, the more it looked like it was another way for elite families to retain their holdings.
The catch is that all lands were returned to their "rightful" families. It was basically a monarchy and landed nobility with a back-up system, in case some king or royal down the line screwed up so badly that he sent his family to poverty. At 49 years (probably after the offending patriarch was dead) the land (and potential wealth of the land) would be returned to his heirs.
There were also several types of debts that were excluded, notably those of indentured servants, aka, working poor.
Now, with that considered, there's no reason why jubilee should be historically accurate.Debt-destruction is part of the 4T, and it can happen in a lot of ways with a lot of different outcomes. It's also not impossible for the investors to all get paid. That happens once in a while, too, especially when societies idolize the rich like we tend to.
Those words, "temperate and moderate", are words either of political cowardice, or of cunning, or seduction. A thing, moderately good, is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice.
'82 - Once & always independent
Typhoon
While one or two storms mean little to nothing in terms of measuring long term global warming, the West Pacific typhoon season seems to be a heavy one this year. There's a super typhoon Rammasun about to hit China. Okinawa got hit a while back.
-The reason people turn to loan sharks is that no one in their right mind would lend them under the conditions that the law allows.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...carbon-tax.htm
To the shock and perturbation of the green lobby, Australians are repealing their carbon tax...
A University of New England study found that under a $23 per-ton carbon tax, "Australia's real GDP may decline by 0.68%, consumer prices may rise by 0.75% and the price of electricity may increase by about 26%."
...Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring trace gas. Humans exhale it, plants breathe it.
It is not toxic, nor is it a pollutant, unless its atmospheric concentrations reach so high — 40,000 parts per million rather than the 400 parts per million now found in our air — that it crowds out the oxygen humans need to breathe.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and, according to speculation, higher concentrations will cause a greenhouse effect that will warm the planet. But reality has not cooperated with the computer models that have predicted the heating of the planet...
Those people should not be borrowing. They should be begging for some relief, or they should try to force their lives to fit their means.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
This story first appeared on Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Here in the United States, we fret a lot about global warming denial. Not only is it a dangerous delusion, it's an incredibly prevalent one. Depending on your survey instrument of choice, we regularly learn that substantial minorities of Americans deny, or are skeptical of, the science of climate change.
The global picture, however, is quite different. For instance, recently the UK-based market research firm Ipsos MORI released its "Global Trends 2014" report, which included a number of survey questions on the environment asked across 20 countries. (h/t Leo Hickman). And when it came to climate change, the result was very telling:
Ipsos MORI Global Trends, 2014
Note that these results are not perfectly comparable across countries, because the data were gathered online, and Ipsos MORI cautions that for developing countries like India and China, "the results should be viewed as representative of a more affluent and 'connected' population."
Nonetheless, some pretty significant patterns are apparent. Perhaps most notably: Not only is the United States clearly the worst in its climate denial, but Great Britain and Australia are second and third worst, respectively. Canada, meanwhile, is the seventh worst.
What do these four nations have in common? They all speak the language of Shakespeare.
Why would that be? After all, presumably there is nothing about English, in and of itself, that predisposes you to climate change denial. Words and phrases like "doubt," "natural causes," "climate models," and other skeptic mots are readily available in other languages. So what's the real cause?
One possible answer is that it's all about the political ideologies prevalent in these four countries.
"I do not find these results surprising," says Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University who has extensively studied the climate denial movement. "It's the countries where neo-liberalism is most hegemonic and with strong neo-liberal regimes (both in power and lurking on the sidelines to retake power) that have bred the most active denial campaigns—US, UK, Australia and now Canada. And the messages employed by these campaigns filter via the media and political elites to the public, especially the ideologically receptive portions." (Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy centered on the importance of free markets and broadly opposed to big government interventions.)
Indeed, the English language media in three of these four countries are linked together by a single individual: Rupert Murdoch. An apparent climate skeptic or lukewarmer, Murdoch is the chairman of News Corp and 21st Century Fox. (You can watch him express his climate views here.) Some of the media outlets subsumed by the two conglomerates that he heads are responsible for quite a lot of English language climate skepticism and denial.
In the US, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal lead the way; research shows that Fox watching increases distrust of climate scientists. (You can also catch Fox News in Canada.) In Australia, a recent study found that slightly under a third of climate-related articles in 10 top Australian newspapers "did not accept" the scientific consensus on climate change, and that News Corp papers—the Australian, the Herald Sun, and the Daily Telegraph—were particular hotbeds of skepticism. "The Australian represents climate science as matter of opinion or debate rather than as a field for inquiry and investigation like all scientific fields," noted the study.
And then there's the UK. A 2010 academic study found that while News Corp outlets in this country from 1997 to 2007 did not produce as much strident climate skepticism as did their counterparts in the US and Australia, "the Sun newspaper offered a place for scornful skeptics on its opinion pages as did The Times and Sunday Times to a lesser extent." (There are also other outlets in the UK, such as the Daily Mail, that feature plenty of skepticism but aren't owned by News Corp.)
Thus, while there may not be anything inherent to the English language that impels climate denial, the fact that English language media are such a major source of that denial may in effect create a language barrier.
And media aren't the only reason that denialist arguments are more readily available in the English language. There's also the Anglophone nations' concentration of climate "skeptic" think tanks, which provide the arguments and rationalizations necessary to feed this anti-science position. According to a study in Climatic Change earlier this year, the US is home to 91 different organizations (think tanks, advocacy groups, and trade associations) that collectively comprise a "climate change counter-movement." The annual funding of these organizations, collectively, is "just over $900 million." That is a truly massive amount of English-speaking climate "skeptic" activity, and while the study was limited to the US, it is hard to imagine that anything comparable exists in non-English speaking countries.
Ben Page, the chief executive of Ipsos MORI (which released the data) adds another possible causative factor behind the survey's results, noting that environmental concern is very high in China today, due to the omnipresent conditions of environmental pollution. By contrast, that's not a part of your everyday experience in England or Australia. "In many surveys in China, environment is the top concern," Page comments. "In contrast, in the west, it's a long way down the list behind the economy and crime."
Whatever the precise concatenation of causes, the evidence seems clear. We English speakers have a special problem when it comes to understanding and accepting climate science. In language, we're Anglophones; but in climate science, we're a bunch of Anglophonies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...climate-change
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
It is ironic that Australia is one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, especially should the Outback become harsher and expand, yet one in which climate-change denial is most common. Of course Rupert Murdoch is from there, and he is still influential in Australian media through his journalistic proteges. Should the zone of rain-bearing westerly winds shift completely out of Australia, then western and southern Australia lose the winter rains and become desert. "Angry summers" with temperatures reaching 50C (122F), once rare, have become commonplace.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations
http://democrats.energycommerce.hous...-warming-been-
(the results might have been more starkly different if the stat was limited to "Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans")
This survey above suggests people in red states may be more willing now to support action on climate change.
Another poll supports this diminishing divide between red and blue on willingness to limit greenhouse gases, even if it means higher energy bills:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-save-planet/
Might be good news. Even folks like Danilynn (if not her yet) in red states might support the EPA's action.
But partisanship on the overall issue is also increasing, according to other polls.
Educated elites lead the way in party polarizing trend about global warming:
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...ate_change.pdf
One theory is that conservative "educated" elites are more likely to be high income former business majors.for liberals and Democrats, holding a college degree increases the likelihood of accepting the scientific consensus about global warming; but for conservatives and Republicans, holding a college degree often decreases this likelihood
I think the study brower posted supports my idea on this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5610965.html
Increasing polarization:College-educated supporters of the tea party might change their political tune if they mingled more with those less educated than themselves.
Researchers from the University of Notre Dame said college graduates are more likely to support tea party ideas if they live in counties characterized by high levels of residential segregation based on education level. The researchers found the correlation between tea party support and educational segregation to be uniquely strong compared to factors like racial segregation and class segregation.
Rory McVeigh, a University of Notre Dame political sociologist and author of the study, told The Huffington Post that he was interested in discovering what communities might be particularly hospitable to tea party principles and why. Prior to the study, he posited that the tea party ideology, which advocates for limited government and low government spending, might resonate more among people who don't interact much with low-income individuals who may benefit from government programs. As it turns out, McVeigh was on to something.
“My thinking was that people who are likely to embrace [tea party ideology] are more likely to be people who have had some success and life and limited exposure to those who haven’t enjoyed the same advantages. ... Education is such an important predictor of how you end up in life,” said McVeigh over the phone.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/...erican-public/
Climate change not a top worry among Americans, but is one of the most polarizing issues by party:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/cl...top-worry.aspx
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-26-2014 at 06:51 PM.
I find it hilarious that there is "Data Unavailable" for Wyoming and North Dakota, two of the top fossil fuel-producing states.
I wouldn't get too excited yet, though. There are still plenty of steps the GOP can use to delay public opinion further. If AGW denial no longer becomes untenable, they can still say things like even though it exists, the costs of mitigating it are too great, or that there may even be positive effects. Hopefully this too proves to be untenable, but I'm not ready to conclude as much yet.
-Well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
...as if warmer temperatures don't have their benefits...
PBR4682 Those people should not be borrowing. They should be begging for some relief, or they should try to force their lives to fit their means. ...[/QUOTE]
-I would suggest the later.
Well, Obama is a half-hearted activist on this issue, recently allowing more off-shore oil drilling, even if it deafens whales and ruins the ocean and seashore. So he is not the go-to guy for info on this. But the off-shore angle reminds us of how much more expensive fossil fuels are getting as they get harder to find, extract and refine. Meanwhile, the costs of solar and wind are plummeting as the boom in renewables expands. Soon we won't need coal at all, whether the plants are retrofitted or not.
Why the Earth is farting
A CNN article with a definite alarmist slant, with an emphasis on methane, Why the Earth is farting. With the arctic warming faster than other parts of the world, there has long been a concern about methane release taking the existing CO2 greenhouse effects over the top. The process seems to be well underway, by land and by sea.
The chilling conclusion:
The last time there was this much atmospheric CO2 was 3 million years ago, when seas were 80 to 100 feet higher. Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric methane has more than doubled, and the amount now gushing from the seas alone is 34 times what we thought just seven years ago.
Until we stop putting more carbon dioxide and methane overhead, prepare for more rude farts to foul your air, and our future. With coastal cities, fertile deltas and much of the world's rice crops threatened by floods or salination from encroaching seas -- and with grain harvests predicted to fall 10% for each added 1 degree C of average temperature -- passing greenhouse gases isn't merely vulgar -- it's deadly.
worth a bookmark
