Carbon Emissions Continue Unabated

Welcome to the world of Politics.

In kindergarten it was also known as never, never land.

Anything can be political if someone chooses to make it so, but this argument between you and I over this topic is a very old one. I don't much see the point to rehashing it for the hundredth time. You don't believe in Global Warming. I can't take that position any more seriously than I can creationism, thus enmity ensues, slanders and accusations exchanged, occasional reconciliations made, etc. etc. What is the point?

I can no more ignore what I believe to be science, nor acquiesce to that which I believe is not, than I can cut out my own heart. Neither can I allow myself to be censored from saying what I believe for the fear that it might upset someone who disagrees with me.

And so here we are. I post something and you comment.

Can those of use who want a warmer planet, by any natural or artificially induced means, and what gains it will bring us play too?

"I find that disgusting. Is there any wonder that I am pragmatic about it?"

No wonder to me, and a GA to you! You've stated my position, and arguments, brilliantly, cogently, cohesively, and concisely.

Thank you. I bow out, humbly.

Once again. GA!

Seems you got the anonymous un-voter - so I've adjusted it to match the 'out in front' voting/voters wishes. Not a bad summary either.

I see it the opposite way. I believe if there were no politics involved, everyone would pretty much accept that man-made global warming is occurring given the mountains of data supporting the fact.

I agree that politics has hijacked and shaped this argument, turning clear science into an emotional argument.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700140035/Top-GOP-contenders-flip-on-global-warming.html

I write a post about the nature of fundamental particles and symmetry breaking, everyone's on board. I write a post about Quantum Field Theory, everyone agrees. I write a post on the history of the scientific method, people congratulate me on a work well done. I write a blog on Global Warming and I'm called names, my credibility is attacked and I'm derided, etc. etc. I write a post on creationism it's half support and half condemnation.

But I don't think you have to worry. You're point of view has been winning the political part of this argument for 30 years now. I've had to watch us do nothing utterly knowing we are causing problems for our children and our children's children. Believe me, I'm disgusted too.

Also, before I'm accused of this too, I don't unvote (I'm not saying anyone is currently accusing me, I'm just used to how these things go). I am however often unvoted, having had several good answers taken from me in this thread, I don't mind, that is people's right.

I think you misunderstand my motives for continuously bringing this subject up. I bring it up because I honestly believe to stand by and say nothing would morally indecent. I don't actually expect to convince anyone, mainly because having read the literature, the evidence being so overwhelming, there is no rational argument left to be had.

10s to 100s of millions of people are going to die because of Global Warming. The ethiopian famine was an example of what changing climate can to to a third world country. Every year we do nothing we are a little more complicit in those climate deaths.

I've said it before and it never fails to enrage you guys, but I don't care, when it comes to man-made global warming there is no debate in the scientific community. The debate is only political, and the politics are such that it is going to cost many many people their lives because it's preventing us from acting.

Does that make a person evil for not believing in Global Warming? Of course not.

For future reference to everybody. When I say "global warming" I mean man causing global warming. Mountains of evidence for man caused global warming.

See thats the point where I started having the problem with the data.

I once strongly believed in the man made or human influence but in order to back up my beliefs in that proof I started reading and studying all the data I could find and it sadly didn't take long before I came to the horrible realization that far too much of that data was deliberately skewed contorted or just generally false.

The numbers behind what us humans do do not add up in the overall levels that natures already produces and has proven itself capable of being able to adjust to.That and the issues like that there is solid scientific data that says the rest of the solar system is warming up plus far too much of the numbers are conveniently miss interpreted along with large scale green house effect players like water vapor and solar variances being ignored sort of tosses out all of us humans in the grand equations.

Sure we have numbers but unfortunately in proper scientific analysis there has to be lower and upper limits of error and we fall well inside those realistic numerical aggregate levels in far too many aspects.

If we have a calculated input of say 5% in a system that has a +- 20% margin of error I can not accept that we are an influential enough player. Its that simple for me.

As far as the millions of people are going to die view I can not accept that as a accurate or relevant point either. Its just like I predict that in the next 100 years that around 10 billion or more people will die from something as well and I will be 100% accurate on that statement too! (We only live so long and given enough time we all die eventually.)

You really should not separate Global Warming by picking and choosing a cause of it.

Global Warming occurs from a Cumulative effects and reasons, not just one. And it is cyclictic. Of which the human race may not be included in the future of earth.

But I have to agree with you that not only from political infringement on Global Warming (GW) but also I like to add from its fanatic supporters. Politics was not an asset, but a burden for the cause.

If we were raising the efficiency of our energy use, the carbon releases & other emissions would be reduced

removing most of the discussion from the political arena

the political part could be the reduction of importing foreign resources & the trade imbalance

thinking about in terms that would allow us to put it on the defense budget would increase investment in solutions

"If we were raising the efficiency of our energy use, the carbon releases & other emissions would be reduced"

Couldn't agree more

It actually doesn't matter a jot if miss named "Global Warming" is man caused or not.

The reality is;

Fossil is finite and being depleted at an alarming rate

When the climate becomes Man incompatible those resources may be the only means of survival.

There are far better uses for fossil than wasting it on 27% efficient power generation.

That use, in particular, can be bypassed by solar collection and known (80% efficient) storage technology.

I.e. denial of the existence of climate change is ostrich thinking. 'Blaming' is self indulgence that creates nothing but delay.

Man's real goal is to 'choose full energy system efficient'

_{(and thinking past 'his own greedy nanosecond life time', might help survival of His grandchildren)}

Yes...................what both of you said. Plus, we also could find our way to using way, way less of everything, without having a drastic effect on our lifestyles.

Maybe this is a stretch, but I think that we could get down to using 1/3, (all energy), of what we currently do and still remain comfortable.

Too bad it will never happen. All we think about is more.

Could even improve them

But seems every time you try, some lot has a rule against it.

"California public health officials say that it is illegal because state law forbids the use of human medical waste to power vehicles."

Link

That's a great story,

the numbers don't work

I had a look at that story a few weeks ago & couldn't find any evidence that he ever made any BioDiesel whatsoever

the doc certainly didn't make huge quantities

his practice just wasn't generating that much feedstock

the doc bailed to south america because he lost his license, due to malpractice & numerous lawsuits from patients who felt his work was shoddy

the biodiesel story seems to be red herring released by the doc to divert attention

It would seem to me that proof is an impossibly high standard in science. All science can present is evidence and levels of probability. If I remember the history of 'global warming', the hypothesis didn't arise to explain observations that temperatures were increasing. At the time (late 70's) I remember that the scientific predictions were that the earth was cooling, an assertion that was soon retracted. My recollection is that it was the discovery of the extreme temperatures on Venus that started the ball rolling on this. Since the higher temperatures could not be explained by the inverse square law (Venus being closer to the sun), other hypotheses were developed based on the idea that the available heat was being trapped on Venus by greenhouse gasses. It didn't take much of a leap to wonder if the same thing could happen to our planet - same sun, many of the same gasses (in lower concentrations to be sure).[p]

Many of the predictions that arose from this hypothesis seem to be happening. Some are happening more quickly than predicted, some more slowly. As I said I don't expect science to prove anything. But I accept that an idea that leads to accurate (and largely unexpected) predictions of future results gains credibility. I don't 'believe' in global warming, and I don't 'believe' it is man made. 'Belief' is a word that has no place in science. I strongly suspect that AGW is happening, and to the extent that I can I plan my life accordingly.

Glad to see someone is noticing my efforts!

I was starting to think I had been burning all of those tires for nothing.

You are tireless (a pun...get it?)

Roger Roger..

Here's a little of what I believe..

If you live in tornado alley.. You are in danger.

If you have a ditch and a driveway.. Why not use a 24" diameter galvanized pipe under there instead of one that's sized just for water?

Use one big enough for you and others to cram into should a twister be headed straight for you. If you don't have a drive way?.. burying a section or two of 24" pipe under a hill of dirt here and there would be a good idea.. If that cost too much?.. or you don't have the space?.. then you're not worried about it.. move on.. It would be a much safer and thus less frightening.. All without the expense of an elaborate shelter. I would rather be there than holding on to the toilet and listening to the 'freight train' ripping the house to bits.. (forbid)

If you want or need more space there are larger pipes too.

If you live on a real estate that almost at sea level?.. or river level?? One of these days.. It will go under water like it always has.. sometimes for a little while.. sometimes forever.

This has always happened as our environment is always changing.

If the only vapor that came out of your tailpipe was water? You would be guilty of adding a few more drops of the planets most abundant green house gas.. WATER.. We just can't escape the stuff.. By far and away there more water evaporating into the atmosphere than carbon emissions..

You may already know that there's a finite supply of available coal and oil and other stuff you would consider 'dirty fuel'..

Have no worry.. We will use it up.. and when it's all gone?.. there will still be big storms.. Islands will continue to rise and fall from the sea when we are gone in the same way they did before we were here.

The problem we will still face is that we can still pollute the environment.. we don't need coal to do that.

The only crisis we really face is the understanding of the just when, where, what, why, and how to conserve?....

This really means.. Cut Back.. There is more 'junk' going around than we actually need and that's what's not sustainable.

It doesn't take a wizard to realize that polluting (whether a fast food bag or industrial heavy metals) is no good..

YES! Clean up the manufacturer, but why don't you blame the consumer for a change? YOU are the one who drives what going into the the environment with your purchases.

Live with the things you have .. longer.. buy used.. trade things.. move around under the power of your own too feet more often... cycle.. grow more.. eat less.. and while you're at it?.. Plant more fruiting trees and other garden plants instead of vast lawns.. Not just at home, but all throughout the city and wherever people live.. in front of the bank.. next to the tracks.. along the sidewalk.. at the schools.. Plants can thrive with little or no maintenance while providing proper diet and to people..

Talk about reducing the distance your food travels?

I think modern landfills are a great place to put the refuse, but at such a rate?

I live just south of a land formation that marks the edge of the glacier that used to be here a a while back.. By your logic Wisconsin and every thing north of is a destroyed environment that was previously a pristine glacial environment.. When the glaciers receded they probably caused their own 'global warming' as they introduced a lot of trapped natural gas while drying up.. But it wasn't because of us..

Don't you think there is a general lack of understanding when it comes to this subject?

Don't you think there is something uneducated about not expecting fluctuations in the earths temperatures and water levels? Shouldn't we expect these things to go up and down? They always have? sometimes slowly.. sometimes quickly.

Don't you love cheese and Canada?

The circle of life is larger than our time.. A return to simpler times wouldn't only be quaint.. It would be the right thing to pursue.

Hullo JE,

While I agree that natural fluctuations are, well, natural, I'm having a little problem with the pace of recent fluctuations.

Shouldn't we expect these things to go up and down? They always have? sometimes slowly.. sometimes quickly.

In relation to geological time scales, don't you think changes in the last century, or even in the last decade, seem glaring? _{Well, maybe you don't.}

Source

But, as Roger said, we can probably debate this (civilly, of course), until the bovines of Wisconsin can't take the heat and cheddar is no more.

That graph is all good and dandy except it always leaves out that ever so annoying fact that the CO2 level going up is following the warming trend, with a considerable time lag of nearly 100 years too, not leading it.

Both sides even agree with that fact. Al Gore does not like it but he admits it just the same, if cornered hard enough.

Thats because under natural circumstances the periodic warming spells caused by the precession of the earths axis releases bio-sequestered Carbon Dioxide. The released Carbon Dioxide (and Methane) reinforce the warming trend resulting in the Earth reaching climate equilibrium much faster than if warming was only due to the precession effects alone.

The hysteresis you are describing, far from contradicting global warming, demonstrates CO2's important role in natural climate change. The fact that Carbon levels this time are preceding the climate change (and we are no where in the precession cycle where we should be for warming) is a clear indication that the problem is man made, not natural.

PS. I am hurt that I got no acknowledgement for my "tireless" pun. I thought that was clever.

PSS. Al Gore, Harvard graduate and Vietnam War Veteran, understood all this and was trying to convince congress of this when I was a child. I understand people don't agree with his politics, but I really wish people didn't have to attack him personally. He is a decent American.

"PS. I am hurt that I got no acknowledgement for my "tireless" pun. I thought that was clever."

acknowledgement is a 2 way street Roger.

Someone might be hurt that you gave no acknowledgement for the origin of the "my blog is my house" analogy.

I'm curious, who did I steal that from? I'm referring to your "hurt that you gave no acknowledgement for the origin of the "my blog is my house" analogy". I believe you, I just honestly don't know where I might have lifted that phrase from.

I don't believe I said "steal".

You wrote; "I just honestly don't know where I might have lifted that phrase from".

Yet your using it in the exact same case and context and any one of the posters in those threads could find it in a minute. Not very impressive in the logic & research and thread cred department Roger.

A thousand apologies. Please provide a link to the comment that used the phrase "my blog is my home" before me and I will gladly give that author a citation. It was a terrible oversight on my part. I'd do it myself but I can't find it using the search all of cr4 box.

You wrote; used the phrase "my blog is my home" before me

There you go again, the issue is not of plagiarism. As stated it is; the origin of the "my blog is my house" analogy.

I apologize again. Can I please know who wrote "my blog is my house" before me so that I can give them credit?

Firstly; it is of no concern to me if you apologize or not. Your transgression = your remediation effort.

Secondly; as you know asking the wrong question will never lead to the right answer.

As hinted, re-crafting as plagiarism and searching in your own terms can only return your terms.

A small point perhaps, but rather key to understanding the several causal mechanisms behind: Your original disappointment. The raising of your equivalent behavior. How introducing 'personal' results in wastes of time like this.

I note Garthh has again stepped in to aid you and you seem to have failed to acknowledge that.

Another example in support of waiting for you to pose an answerable question rather than bow to you employing the self-consistency principle to force the sent result to be correct.

Which, by the way, doesn't work very well on people commenting in blogs either.

But you are Garthh.

No I am Garthh

As you can see I come up as the 2nd AP

_{Being careful not to call myself a dootiehead}

Actually I hate the cold.

But it's not really that simple, right? Part of the problem about "people living close to water" is that many of them live in third world countries and are very poor.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1118_051118_disaster_refugee.html

As climate changes, the ocean currents change leading to new local climates. Some places become deserts, some places become wetter, it's hard to know how it will fall out in such a complicated system. The poor of the world, of which there are many more than rich, don't have the means to migrate, so often will starve or become refugees, or watch their homes destroyed by 100 year floods every10 years. However, since the cause and effect are not obvious, we undoubtedly will say the things we always say like:

"Well, why do they live in a desert if they don't want to starve?" "Why live by the river and then be surprised by floods", "Why live by the ocean and complain when it rises"

Of course it wasn't a desert for thousands of years but is now due to accelerated climate change. 100 year floods are only supposed to happen every 100 years. Ocean levels are rising much faster than is natural for this pat of the cycle...Destroy their climate, then blame them for living there. The first world modus operandi.

You Wrote:"Live with the things you have .. longer.. buy used.. trade things.. move around under the power of your own too feet more often... cycle.. grow more.. eat less.. and while you're at it?.. Plant more fruiting trees and other garden plants instead of vast lawns.. Not just at home, but all throughout the city and wherever people live.. in front of the bank.. next to the tracks.. along the sidewalk.. at the schools.. Plants can thrive with little or no maintenance while providing proper diet and to people.."

I'm always baffled by statements like this. In the recorded history of mankind, has their ever been a society that lived remotely like what you're describing without being forced to by an occupying army? I would be like asking dogs not to bark or bees not to have a queen. What you are proposing is against human nature and impossible.

The solution has always been to develop alternative sources of energy like solar, wind, hydro, and fusion. We can't do that really until it's cost effective. Right now we subsidize oil in the name of the economy. It's a bad move. At least now steps are being taken such as minimum MPG standards and increased investment in developing batteries and alternative energies, still, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on the military. We need to get better, but it will never happen as long as a sizable number of us is content with not acknowledging we have a problem.

At least, that's how I feel and where I'm coming from.

The solution has always been to develop alternative sources of energy like solar, wind, hydro, and fusion. We can't do that really until it's cost effective. Right now we subsidize oil in the name of the economy. It's a bad move. At least now steps are being taken such as minimum MPG standards and increased investment in developing batteries and alternative energies, still, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what we spend on the military. We need to get better, but it will never happen as long as a sizable number of us is content with not acknowledging we have a problem.

Well said, and I agree, despite not being convinced that WE are causing the warming. I think these things need to be developed whether we face shortages in other energy sources or not, on the twin principles of "not putting our eggs all in one basket" and "not being more reliant than necessary on a narrowly controlled (for greater profit) source of commodity".

However, as long as it is necessary to defend ourselves (and no matter what country you may live in, defense, both personal and national, is a requirement, as there are always those who have less, and want more, and whatever YOU have is a tempting target) we will still need to allocate precious resources to defense. Happily, many of the greatest technological gains in made in any society are made because of the driving necessity for a stronger defense. In that, at least, a defense budget pays back to the hand that feeds it.

I wish we did not need a defense budget, but we do, and will for the forseeable future. On the other hand, I am definitely among those who do not understand why we (in the US) are in many of the places we are. Or why we were in many we were in. So, while I believe we still need to put resource toward defense, I think we are wasting a great number of those resources, and making a great number of unnecessary enemies in the process.

I agree we need a defense budget, but a defense budget larger than the next 20 countries combined? That seems excessive to me. If we rerouted 200 billion of the 700 billion given to defense and gave it to science instead, specifically to alternative energy, we'd have increased the alternative energy budget by about 1000%.

No argument there. Would that I knew the correct numbers. I DO know that we waste huge amounts of the "Defense" Budget on items not remotely related to the military, even when one deliberately includes the welfare of families of military (as I believe we MUST) in the expenses of the military.

Too much of what is earmarked in Congress under a catch-all title of one bill or another (called Riders by some, called Pork by most) winds up artificially bumping a budget item up to inflated proportions without in any way meeting the stated requirements of that budget line.

Perhaps the first thing to do is to take the discretion to foist unwanted and unneeded (by the military planners, and executers) items and systems which some Congressperson wishes to have built because it will benefit his home territory. And building it takes money out of the military line of budget items without adding to the ability to defend, or even to vigorously prosecute an offense.

I don't have solid numbers, and undoubtedly if either you or I tried to provide them, we'd gore someone's favorite ox, and ignite a discussion so far off topic we couldn't even see your original premise on the horizon, but I suspect we could easily find a few hundred billion in the national coffers if we took the ability to throw our money around away from Congresspersons who don't understand the word "budget" either as a noun or as a verb.

Here's a link that shows defense spending by country which is pretty interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

So what?

"Our latest estimates are another wake-up call," said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA.

Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, who pays any attention at all to an economist discussing science?

Let an unbiased scientist demonstrate with open methodology how he or she arrived at his or her stated conclusions regarding this specious "fact", and I'll give it due consideration. But keep on trotting out AstroPhysicists who don't DO hard science, let alone prove by experimentation anything they claim, or, worse yet, send in the economists to discuss science, and you'll lose my ear every time.

Back to sleep, Fatih. Send in the real scientists to do the job. The non-politically motivated ones. Keep politics out of this.

So if a major Scientific Association were to have a statement saying that climate change is real and caused by man you'd be open to the idea. Like for instance the American Physical Society which has 50,000 physicists as members? Would a statement by them convince you?

Ok.

Good discussion Roger..

As you can imagine.. I'm providing more of an alternative blueprint rather than a solid solution for now.. (all for the sake of discussion ) I don't live this way, but I'm trying to demand happiness.. do less damage to the environment.. eat better.. all good things..

While many people may not have the immediate means to relocate.. When disasters happen.. they will find a way.

For example.. Try to find your property line in parts of Japan that don't exist as they were at the start of the year? Muck?.. Radiation? Why go back anyhow..

Some people would say.. Global climate change is causing more and greater earthquakes? ..Do you think we are indirectly responsible for tsunami's?

I believe there are people are living in active volcanic fault zones near the ocean. Also that they didn't understand this years ago when they settled at these wonderful seaside locations..

Sure.. Use the land.. build levees.. but have higher ground to escape to.. and build the best walls you can around you existing nuclear power plants.. Know that what you have could get washed away, but don't let it rule your life.. Just have a simple and safe place to go to.

Still.. don't be surprised when nature dishes on out that you weren't prepared for..

The wise man built his house UP ON the rock is what I learned in Sunday school and I think that much is true.

Many buildings survived the latest tsunami that were concrete based and had space for the water to flow beneath.. Higher ground is as easy as a few piles of dirt.. Inner city clean land fills that double as parks would be nice.. People can live through these events.. We are just now learning how to be prepared..

Tsunamis don't happen all the time.. The energy in the earth crust.. while it is tremendous.. it can't maintain constant movement and change the way liquid water and air temperature can. ..rain and wind and weather..

100 year flood?... Storm of the Century?.. Worst disaster in 50 years!?.. These are only generalizations.. and nice buzz words for the news media there associated meteorologists.. and a few 'scientists' who might love the 'Hollywood hype' or the 'Washington dollar'? book revenue? I'm not really sure what compels them?

I'm sure many are well meaning.. They believe what they are saying.. but many of them don't even know the difference between a mineral and an ice cube!

Biblical floods? Sounds like early weather reporting to me.

These days.. Everyone films everything .. everywhere.. It seems like more is going on.. doesn't it? Is there? Think about that..

We have had years with 500 tornado's in one month.. Even a lot more!.. Even a lot less!..

Storms move like the wind. And happen in specific areas for geological reasons..

When earthquakes rock Chicago.. we sleep though them..

When it gets hot and Humid as Hell.. It's called July Guess what it's like in February?

Well you can't! It's called 'Chicago weather' and it changes like a cheap light bulb!

Though chances are it will be 'too cold to go outside' in Feb..

To say that the problem we have is that poor people live by the sea and can't leave doesn't compute with my Buddhist mentality.. That's more of a local political problem.. And we know that can change if people work for it.. or against it as the case may be.. We are now seeing that happen in places.. Even without the aid of the US military!

There is plenty of work the Army Corp of engineers etc. can do at home and I would love to see it as much as I would hope they love to do it..

The poor can migrate.. they can work compost into rich soil in the desert... they can learn hydroponics.. they are far more ready for a greener lifestyle that you or I. They only need basic things to bump up their quality of life. Instead we teach that quantity of life is first and foremost. To much personal focus soaks up what can be spread around. While spreading a giant 'carbon footprint' around.. Don't you think?

The only stopping point for the non working poor are the powers that be..

I would say there are a lot of diversionary tactics being employed, but I think that's giving too much credit. A lot of staunch supporters of global warming just look at the numbers.. Which leads them into a blind faith an area where numbers always change? (why we like to measure them)

The most serious climate changes come from out of the earth or outside of our atmosphere.. We ain't really seen nothing yet..

I'll even say yes to rising CO2... for the sake of argument?

I ask you.. What does that mean?

I want an unequivocal answer..

Which of your 15-odd question marks denotes the question to which you want an answer?

Only the last one John..

The rest are merely for ponderance..

is it too much to ponder?

Higher ground is as easy as a few piles of dirt.. Inner city clean land fills that double as parks would be nice.. People can live through these events.. We are just now learning how to be prepared..

To say that the problem we have is that poor people live by the sea and can't leave doesn't compute with my Buddhist mentality.. That's more of a local political problem.. And we know that can change if people work for it.. or against it as the case may be.. We are now seeing that happen in places.. Even without the aid of the US military!

I understand your perspective. I also know how Roger dislikes derailments of his threads, so I'm only going to indulge myself once:

Have you been to New Orleans since August 29, 2005?

I don't like my blogs to be derailed. Posts I don't care. I spend days preparing blogs and minutes preparing posts, so I'm more possessive of the blogs.

I've been to New Orleans since 2005. But it was many years ago. Back then it was eerily underpopulated. Is that what you meant or is it better now?

Thanks for the distinction.

I could go on and on about it, having lived there and still with family there. But won't. Let's just say that the city will survive but will never be the same; the underserved, poorer populations could not leave in time; the demographic and physical qualities of the metropolitan area are irrevocably altered; some municipal services are still curtailed...

Maybe a visual aid will help get it back on track?

A few of us are looking out the windows - the rest are arguing about the probability of a derailment and telling us to stop interrupting.

The guy on the sign is shoveling coal. And some naughty thermodynamicist 'captioned it', 20 years ago.

The train driver thinks that sign, and/or caption, doesn't apply to him.

Since you make a distinction in your mind between Blog & Thread

What point were you trying to make about what you described as my "mental gymnastics" on the anti science thread?

Clearly there is much more participation on the threads, than on your Blog

what end is served by suppressing the discussion?

The discussion on the anti science thread became much more relevant & interesting after the derailure

I haven't seen even one MPH is a dootie head reaction thread appear since you've posted these two political threads

Two questions John

You Wrote:"The discussion on the anti science thread became much more relevant & interesting after the derailure"

No, it became obvious and useless after the derailment. I was trying to point out that many things we take for granted as obvious and good may be the result of being born in an era where an Existentialist point of view dominates and is beginning to be taken to extremes. I laid out my reasoning, and explanation as to how it came about and where it's going, how it could be responsible for some very disparate problems in society, etc.

It took me months to formulate those thoughts. To research early existentialism after the war and all the ages that came before it. I added subtleties and nuances in an effort to prepare for the inevitable objections that come from telling people that they might not be acting as independently as they would like to think. What did I get?

An atheist telling me atheism is self evident. Now aside from the fact that it isn't, I made the critical mistake that I could demonstrate that this was in fact an aspect of our existentialism run amok (occam's razor used as a proof instead of a heuristic tool). Instead I was drawn into a useless, obvious debate found all over the web. An argument for the sake of arguing. Nobody cared what I wrote anymore, they just wanted a frontrow seat of blink vs. pink. It completely turned months of work into nothing.

The whole business disgusted me. The way Blink first misconstrued the situation (thinking I was getting special treatment) and then when he realized he was wrong, rather than apologize he decided to pretend to leave to get moral sympathy. The way I was portrayed as a religious nut by some and a fool by others because I don't think Atheism is self evident (which is the result of me being a critical thinker, not any religious idealism). The way that people were allowed to attack me all over the place suddenly because of an overreaction by the new editorial team afraid of being thought to be showing preferential treatment.

Everyone who had an axe to grind against me smelt the blood in the water. The best thing that ever happened was Mark's culminating "why Roger sucks" post which was in the most popular posts for two weeks. That was some nice selective editing by our new editorial team not seeing that or not ruling the stuff said in it as personal attacks. Anyway I knew better than to complain about that post. Let everyone say their piece and hopefully, I figured, they'd get tired out. And they did. I owe him one.

I considered not writing anymore after all of it, but that seemed stupid because I like to write (I learn a lot) and people like to read what I write. So I decided, screw it, it's my blog, I kill myself writing it. If I want to protect it then that's my right. My blog is my house, not a public building. House rules and if they don't like it they have the rest of CR4. So that's where I'm at.

Easy JE_in_Chicago, I think you're confusing some things and it's giving you the wrong impression.

My comment was to Garthh. If you look at my comment, in the upper right hand corner it says "In Reply to #22". In post #22 Garthh asked me:

"Clearly there is much more participation on the threads, than on your Blog what end is served by suppressing the discussion? The discussion on the anti science thread became much more relevant & interesting after the derailure"

To which I was responded.

So take a deep breath, learn how to follow CR4 threads, and calm down.

I was replying to a post from this thread

Where I thanked Ol Rog for not posting the discussion(s) on his blog

The blog owner is able to edit including outright deletion

MPH [mighty penguin hunter] _{another inside joke} feels free to use this ability

Unlike the revisionist history he recounted here, there was an incident where MPH offered a poster the last word

only to turn off the ability to reply, before that could happen

The poster took a break & came back a couple of weeks later as a different member

All part of the infotainment that is CR$

Damn existentialists are everywhere...

You Wrote:"only to turn off the ability to reply, before that could happen"

Yes it's true...4 hours later. I offered the last word, then waited 4 hours, the blog comments was getting out of hand so I asked for the comments to be turned off. That was after the person I offered the last word to had already made 24 comments to my 18. I truly am a horrid villian.

The poster who "took a break" came back within the week as another poster without telling anyone who he was. Why would somebody do that? Cause the poster had made the claim "I'm leaving CR4 forever" and thus coming back in a few days felt embarassed enough to conceal their identity. Also, Garthh above knows this an has exaggerated the facts.

Most everyone is anonymous here on CR$ [you're one of the few exceptions]

That particular member did in fact "leave forever" & was willing to start anew. The persona he adopted was hysterical. Little by little he reverted to his old style of commentary

all part of the fun...

interesting that you find the number of comments to be relevant, as if somehow the number of keystrokes determines the truth of the argument

That you feel the need to control the exchanges on your blog is also of note

The My house, my blog, my rules stuff was from one of the RP is a fink threads,

so you're correct you didn't write it,

though it does appear to be your mindset

I see, so blink said he was leaving forever, came back a few days later as a different user and thus he told the truth? I see.

It's true that when I write about the history of the Scientific Method I don't want the comments to be a debate about creationism. I think it's fair that if I spend days researching a writing something that I keep the comments related to it. The idea that people have to agree with me was your construction.

You seem to love to tell me and others what my "mindset" is.

The membership rules are such that for better or worse you can really only judge a member by what they have posted

I've never seen an acknowledgement of an connection between the members in question. Like you I have my suspicions

My Blog My Rules isn't exactly exclusive to this site or your blog

You could search a couple of threads here on CR4

My feeling is the Kramarat coined it on one of those threads

Your question about it's origin sounds much like a homework question, which is yet another highly charged subject around here

When you decide which comments are worthy of inclusion in your blog, you throwing out data points, which you don't find to be relevant

I [along with some others] don't find that to be fair but,

your blog your rules

you have done a better job of disclosing the rules for your playground lately, which seems to have reduced the participation there

You seem to love to tell me and others what my "mindset" is.

I do like to make observations about the manner in which different members use this place

That's your perspective to which your entitled. I have a different perspective. Other's have their own perspectives.

There seems to be a "free speech at all costs" undercurrent to your argument, which of course doesn't exist in the real world.

Were I to walk up to two people in real life who were in the middle of a conversation and walked behind them commenting continuously about subjects unrelated to their conversation, I would eventually be arrested for harassment. All I do in my blog is try to keep it from degenerating into a cliche web exchange, like this one we're having right here.

Anyway it is what it is.

This is a public forum

There are many users who enjoy different aspects of it

you would try to dictate the direction of all the different fibers within a thread, instead of appreciating the variety & possibly learning something unexpected

It seems to me you're the one trying to dictate behavior.

Just commenting

You are free to run your little goat rodeo [blog] anyway you want

I'm not sure why you bother to allow any comments at all?

Grrrarthh,

I disagree, I allow comments to my blogs all the time.

Only up to the point that you delete some of them, or suicide the whole blog.

Hi Roger,

If it's any consolation, after much thought I believe you are right on the rampant existentialism bit. Fortunately I think this is a local problem, confined mostly to richer western countries (plus Japan) that are getting a bit long in the tooth. We were the early adopters of industrialization, and understand that for the better part of two centuries much of our success is wrapped up in our use of fossil fuels. This has become for many of us not just an economic issue but also an emotional attachment, beyond the realm of reasoned discourse.[p]

As a 'civilization' we in the west seem to have reached a point in our development similar to the old testament story of 'Babel', where our language is no longer a means of sharing thoughts and information, but a weapon to use to conceal our thoughts and eviscerate our enemies. It is therefore not surprising that the new conventional wisdom appears to be that everything is a conspiracy. Every expression of an idea is seen as a ploy, an attempt to advance some hidden agenda. I think this is a comforting thought to most people since it implies that someone is still in control. This is far more palatable for most people than the alternative thought that we are riding shotgun into an unknown future, with no one at the wheel.[p]

Fortunately there do seem to be other places in the world where fossil fuels are accepted as a big part of the past and present, but not so much the future. While the rising economic giants of the 21st century (China, India, Brazil, ?) burn carbon at increasing rates, for them the idea of alternative energy is not the hot button controversy that is here in the west.

You Wrote:"Fortunately I think this is a local problem, confined mostly to richer western countries (plus Japan)"

Yes, I agree. When I speak of the Enlightenment and Romantic period, it is from a Euro/American-centric point of view.

The crux of what I was getting at in The Antiscience, was that scientists and academics need to stop worrying about what the "general public" believes and start examining their own beliefs (myself included). I don't know if I wrote it in the blog, but I have used the phrase "we are all the Antiscience" in the past. What I mean by that is we are all plagued by existentialist prejudices in our own way and fixated on those of others is less helpful than focusing on our own (which are generally harder to see).

It's just too easy for us to point at creationists or whatever group and say "they're the problem" when I truly believe they are just a symptom of the problem. We must reexamine our core beliefs in general, as a group, before this anti-abstraction trend reverses.

Of course, these are just my ideas based on my own reading and research, but I appreciate you saying that you see some validity in some of these ideas.

I doff my hat to you Sir - one GA is a poor reward but all I have.

Deeply insightful

Nothing wrong with the occasional blunder and a good old slap. However, variety is the spice of life, so I ^_(also) endeavor to make mine different.

How some people just settle for the same fare, time after time after time after time - beats me ^{_{<pun intended>}}

I am still trying to figure out how I can trade in some GAs for an ice cream cone.

I'm also starting to wonder if we can delve into psychology on here. I don't understand how some people can be highly intelligent and emotionally crippled at the same time.

I probably just need to look in the mirror, but I'm missing the intelligent part.

This nonsense needs to stop.

When people start threads/blogs on here, and the topic becomes secondary to just arguing and screwing with people's heads, the very fabric of what CR4 is, starts to fray. It's not good.

it's either very good or very bad

depending on the lesson learned & who learns it

I'm not sure why you think the psychology needs to end

just another kind of failure analysis...

I'm just typing to myself.............it helps me remember things.

As long as I'm running off at the keyboard, I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the moderation team.

They got rid of the guest postings. They also have been pretty much leaving us alone.

Maybe it's my imagination, but, it seems that the more they leave us alone, the more CR4 becomes a self regulating entity that is centered on a mutual respect for each other.

I never went to college, but if I did, my thesis would be a study of CR4 and human interaction.

Long story short. Humans, if left to their own devises, will tend to cooperate and build mutually beneficial relationships......................mostly.

When we are told what to do, as opposed to having a choice, our natural instinct is to rebel. When a choice is provided, most, (not all), will make the right choice.

In my summation, I would propose that CR4 could very well be a microcosm of how the entire planet should be operating. Self responsibility......................what a concept.

I'm sure your experience was a bad one... but why do you ask?

Because the ACOE is doing a hell of a job? The humongous new sea wall being built?

I was on my way to N.O. for a trade show when the hurricane struck..

I.. like the trade show.. have not been there since.

I do have some friends down there giving me an open invitation to visit, but other things first.. My friends who go back and fourth keep me updated with the progress.. or lack of..

And no.. I don't think it's such a hot Idea to have you're home below sea level.. It can work, it does.. but at what cost? go for it, but that's the choice you have.

It's a nice place to visit, but I would choose not to move into a place that has been underwater.

Interrelated derailment..

An Economist touting a wake up call usually has a hand out. Many of the previous posts are about re-distribution of wealth. Was that a mistake or the natural progression?

Hello XNuke.. If you're talking about me.. I'm not talking about redistribution of wealth. I'm talking about less emphasis on material possessions.. That is the easiest way to keep the environment unspoiled.

There is always room for infinity pools and exotic cars..

This is probably OT, the way this thread has gone, but I came across this Galaxy survey financed by a political party.

Interesting attitudes across age and States.

good one..

Of course it was politically funded.. They got the results they wanted the way they structured the questions..

They have the public wanting to tax "big polluters".. give the money to themselves (whoever that is).. and spend it on developing clean technology? but somehow they don't want to help the "big polluters" costly transition to cleaning up!?

Riiiight.. imo

The alternate 'political rationale' is a 'carbon tax' on their consumption and what is essentially a stock trading tool for 'big polluters' to advantage. Which, BTW, has been tried and never worked.

Though the 'public awareness' seems high - both propositions are 'accountancy based'. Not a scrap of a science or engineering strategy is evident.

Carbon is the robust material to generate heat.The co2 has to be recycled using energy plantations,using wild plants.Dwelling strip forests can save our earth.The escaped carbon will thus come down.The single plant too in this concept need be grown with the support of carbon mining companies and government.INDIVIDUALS NEED BE ENCOURAGED TO MAINTAIN A PLANT OR MORE WITH THEM.The water logged areas are also suitable for this.Biomass pressing on hot metal plate is the way to make tar and derivatives.solar heat focussed is use full for heating the metal.Extraction of tar at the plantation locality is an advantage.Waste land and barren land is usefull with suitable plants as seedlings

The pitiable situation is due to lack of action and responsibility on combating global warming issues. Whereas Technology should safe guard humanity against this deterioration, there seems to be a vast vacuum on realization of sustainable technologies.

It sounds like a show of concern without in built initiative,leadership or real spirit of solving the issue.

We need effective leadership to master plan, convince, offer scientific sustainable technology solutions and adaptations to save the planet.

Man made global warming may be true, and it may not be. CO2 levels will continue to rise.

The data that is being generated, and the arguments that result may be interesting, but they are all moot.

Why?

The answer lies in the financial pages. As the US and Europe remain mired in economic stagnation, there are emerging markets around the globe that are growing............some in double digits.

There are countries around the world enjoying, for the first time, their own industrial revolutions and the economic stability that come with them. To think that the US, the United Nations, a bunch of scientists................or anybody else, is going to be able to tell them that they need to stop, and be listened to, is both arrogant and naive. I mean think about it.

"We've got ours, but now we've determined that we're destroying the planet, so you need to stop your manufacturing and look into eco-tourism because we say so".

Ain't gonna happen!

Yep, the economic pie is only so big. And the US and Europe can no longer have second helpings to it

More than the economic pie is the energy pie

not in the peak energy, the sky is falling kind of way

to live the developed world lifestyle takes energy {among other things}

can we share? not there is any choice in the matter

Yes, stop butting in line a second time, you had your piece, please move on.

Well,................we could.

At least here in the US, we've got politicians in Washington that have decided to climb aboard the man made global warming train. The result is policies that make manufacturing widgets in the US, not worth the trouble.

So in that regard, the US is helping the planet, just not the way we think we are. We are helping the planet by creating economic/manufacturing opportunities for other countries to take advantage of, and they are. On a global scale, the widgets are still being made, they're just not being made here. The pollutants and CO2 that are associated with widget making are still being released into the, (planetary), atmosphere, and will continue to be as long as there is a market for widgets.

It's not going to stop.

In fact, I would venture to say that many of these policies have made the planet dirtier as a whole, since many US manufacturers have spent the money to clean up the widget making process. If the policies that are in place, and continue to be made, in the name of clean air, make US made widgets 3X higher in price than other global suppliers, the US companies are forced to either move operations or close.

While the global warming debate continues, there is plenty of rock solid evidence showing this to be true.

do you really think clean air rules are what makes US products uncompetitive?

wait let me guess it's the unions too

Rules, unions to a certain extent, corporate greed............pick your poison. The point is, that if anything is happening to the global atmosphere due to the activities of humans, it's not going to stop. We are never going to convince people that jobs, houses, cars.......everything else that is associated with middle class American or European living, should not be available to them.

It doesn't matter where on the planet anything is being made. If people want the products, they will be available...............from somewhere.

I heard on NPR that based solely on air emissions regulations its cheaper to build an oil refinery in South America, import the crude to the US, ship the crude to SA, and the refined back to the US than it is to build here and comply with EPA guidelines.

How out of date are our (US) refineries.

http://www.kansasinc.org/pubs/working/OilRefineryWhitePaper.pdf

This report is old, but there hasn't been a new refinery built here in the states since 1976.

I wonder if the US owned overseas refining is considered as an import or not.... it'd be interesting to see how that 10% might change.

There are loop holes that are questionable.

That is very confusing, In WWII, I understand most of the oil the Germans (actually the axis as a whole less Japan) were getting was from it own enemy.

Here a little interesting report.

http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/3/oil.html

And US banks were laundering the transactions.